Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 25, 1983 Citizens' Advisory040226 R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA CT`rIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 25, 1983, 1:30 P.M. Riverside City Hall 4th Floor Conference Room 3900 Main Street, Riverside 92522 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes 3. Transit Operations Report. INFO. 4. Proposed SunLine Service Changes. DISC./POSS. ACTION 5. U.S. Department of Transportation Proposed DISC. 504 Regulations. 6. SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Projects. INFO. 7. CAC Membership Status. INFO. 8. Adjournment. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting No. 5-83 August 30, 1983 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Richard Jandt at 1:33 P.M. on Tuesday, August 30, 1983 at the Riverside City Hall, Fourth Floor Conference Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside. Members present: Donna Crowe Gordon Hass Fred A. Fickas Jo Huntley Richard Jandt Herb Krauch Ben Minnich Rena Parker Earl Shade Ran Wyder Others present: Ken Kaufher, RTA Kay Van Sickel, RTA Les Nelson, SunLine 2. Approval of Minutes. M/S/C (PARKER/FICKAS) to approve the minutes of June 28, 1983 meeting as submitted. Self introductions by members present followed. In addi- tion, each member gave a brief summary on their interests in relation to transportation. Barry Beck, Executive Director, informed the Committee that the Commission has been discussing changes to the Citizens Advisory Committee. The only explicit change is to alter the terms of office held by members from an unlimited period to 3-4 years. The terms will be staggered whereby half of the appointments will be made every two years. Part of the concern relates to attendance of members, thus, the Commission would have an opportunity to not reappoint members to the Committee on thF basis of attendance. Also discussed, but rejected, were individual appointments made by each Commissioner. This was rejected as it was felt that having this arrange- ment may result the Committee not having balanced representation. He reiterated that there will be no limit to the number of terms held by members. He pointed out 1 that it was suggested by the performance auditor that the business community should be better represented on the Committee. Rena Parker commented that she supports the proposed change but there should be a cap on the number of terms for reappointment. In addition, the Commission should appoint younger people to the Committee. Gordon Hass agreed and noted that he wouldn't mind relinquishing his seat as he will have to take a more active role at RTA than in the past. With respect to appointing younger people to the Committee, he said that this will be a good opportunity to educate that particular group on the importance and use of public transit. He added that people in the business community show the least amount of interest in public transportation. Chairman Jandt said that it might be wise to stagger the appointments three at a time. Also there should be an orientation for new members to acquaint them with the decision -making process, funds controlled by the Commis- sion, the role that each member plays in the Committee, etc. In response to Chairman Jandt's question as to whether there is going to be a report to the Citizens Advisory Committee from the SB 821 Subcommittee on their recommen- dation for SB 821 funding, Barry Beck said that the subcommittee will not be reporting back to the Citizens or Technical Advisory Committees. Their recommendation will go directly to the Commission. The SB 821 Subcommittee has not met to review the applications yet. He will inform the Committee of the projects approved fox SB 821 funding. Chairman Jandt stated that in reading previous Commission minutes, he noted that some of the funds from last year's program were subsequently approved to be used for something different than the initial project. He asked if the priorities established last year played a role in that decision. Barry Beck stated that it did to a certain extent. Two actions were taken by the Commission to modify the program: (1) Desert Hot Springs was awarded $40,014 for a sidewalk project. The project was brought in $8,553 under budget and they requested approval to expend the surplus funds to add on to their sidewalk project and the Commis- sion approved it; and, (2) County of Riverside had two projects in the program. One of the projects had an significant local matching funds involved because this was the balancing project at the end of the program and there was not sufficient funds to fund to entire project. They requested permission to abandon the project and switch the 2 funds to another project that was in the program which was going to cost more than anticipated. In both cases, the money was kept on projects that were in the program. 3. Marketing Plans. A. SunLine Transit Agency. Les Nelson gave a summary of SunLine Transit Agency's marketing plan and provided the Committee with service information. He said that SunLine's service area is the Coachella Valley and is approximately 450 square miles. The two major industries in the area are agri- culture and tourism. In terms of marketing, Coachella Valley is not a single consumer market. He pointed out that the average age and income varies in Coachella Valley. Because the area has such a broad spectrum, SunLine's strategy is essentially consumer oriented and it emphasizes those aspects of their services that have the most broad appeal. The three elements of SunLine's marketing mix are: (1) product; (2) price; and, (3) promotion. The pro- duct is public transportation. SunLine provides fixed route services, tel-a-ride services as well as seasonal services. All of the buses with the excep- tion of the double deckers are air-conditioned which is an important selling point in the desert. SunLine provides passenger amenities such as shelters, benches, etc. Recently, SunLine purchased a fail-safe program to train the bus operators. The program monitors and measures when the drivers have exceeded the safety level. They also plan to implement a passenger relations program. This is a combination test, interview, aptitude, etc., to screen applicant& and hire those that are more people oriented. The Coachella Valley is continuously developing in many areas. Along Highway 111, there are heavy areas for passenger pickups but the road is not wide enough to accommodate a bus. To eliminate this problem, they requested Caltrans to construct some bus turnouts. SunLine has recently implemented a fair fare price to try to make some correlation between how much a person pays and how much is being paid for the distance travelled. In addition, SunLine has recently implemented a pass program (one day pass and the handy ten - 30 day pass) which has been received very well. At each bus stop is a bus route and schedule. Promo- tions are being done such as the promotion done in Indio and La'Quinta to generate ridership whereby bags containing service schedule information and a free one daypass were distributed to residents which are in the immediate vicinity of the route within a quarter 3 of a mile. SunLine is in the process of putting together an educational -type film. It is a 15 -minute presentation explaining how to use the bus, where to go, how much it costs, etc. This will be presented at senior centers, elementary schools and high schools. In addition, they have radio promotions and will soon provide road traffic reports. Ran Wyder commented that SunLine has done a fantastic job in a short time and congratulated staff. B. Riverside Transit Agency. Copies of RTA's marketing plan were distributed to members of the Committee. Kay Van Sickel said that the marketing plan is based on an internal review conducted by a consulting firm, ATE Management Services, Inc. The plan primarily breaks down into three major goals: (1) To increase ridership; (2) To look at the internal marketing function within the agency; and, (3) To perform a marketing research effort. They will review market groups that provide the most potential for ridership and market those areas but keeping in mind to not lose the present ridership. In reviewing the internal marketing function of RTA, they will include approaches to involve those people in overall transportation in the marketing plan. This will incorporate better ways to recognize RTA employees and how they would help in their role. The main thrust of the third goal is to know what the marketing assessments are in order to have an idea of the pro- file of present ridership. Based on these, a marketing plan is developed. She then briefed those present on the projects that RTA is involved now and what they have accomplished to date. An on -board survey has just been completed on fixed route services, dial -a -ride services and commuter services. A summary of the on -board survey is included in the report which was distributed. Ken Kaufher told the Committee that this is the first part of a three-part data base that RTA is trying to establish. The three-part data base is as follows: (1) On -board survey of existing riders; (2) Telephone survey throughout the service area; and, (3) Employer survey. In response;to Ben Minnich's question as to how RTA will decide which numbers to call on the telephone survey, Kay Van Sickel said that the numbers will be randomly selected in specific areas out of the 4 telephone book. Ben Minnich commented that there are a number of minorities that have unlisted numbers and the survey may lack representation of that population. Kay Van Sickel continued and said that RTA has plans to build additional bus shelters in the Riverside area. Sites are now being selected for bus shelters. Other efforts include an advertising campaign with free rides on those routes with low ridership. They are in the process of redesigning their schedules. In response to Barry Beck's question of what RTA thinks about the effectiveness of schedules and route maps at bus stops, Kay Van Sickel stated that they plan to put schedules at bus shelters and bus stops. Chairman Jandt thanked RTA staff for the presentation. 4. Draft Regional Transportation Plan. Barry Beck told the Committee that the analysis being done by SCAG is on a corridor basis. As pointed out in the staff report, the RTP is like a wish list of projects. The Commission would like to see the plan more comprehen- sive with better technical analysis and include decisions on what should be built. In reponse to a question as to what the plans are with respect to upgrading of airports in Southern California, Barry Beck said that there are plans to upgrade all air- ports. Ontario Airport will go from 2 million passenger/year to 12 million passenger/year. It was determined that this is not going to be sufficient to handle air travel and that we will need a new 20 million passenger/year airport. SCAG wants to locate ':he airport in El Toro and, secondari at. Camp Pendleton. The military is opposed to both locations and Orange County is opposed to El Toro. The proposal to locate the airport in Long Beach Harbor was scrapped. Rena Parker asked if access to Ontario Airport is sufficient to handle the expanded capacity. Barry Beck said that access to Ontario Airport when expanded to 12 million passenger/year is not a problem. The real problem is caused by the development going around the airport. The actual traffic into the airport is not that unmanageable. Rena Parker commented that this is assuming that not all passengers will use their own cars to and from the airport but perhaps use transit service. 5 Barry Beck said that the SCAG Access Study done on Ontario Airport has included a bus service to be provided every half hour from major population centers in Riverside County. Additional bus service could be provided when warranted. Chairman Jandt asked when the deadline is to submit public comments on the RTP. Barry Beck said that Committee members may submit comments on an individual basis; the deadline is August 31st. Chairman Jandt mentioned that one of the projections made in the Plan is that 30% of the corridor trips will be done by public transit. Gordon Hass added that one point made is that telecommunication will reduce trips by 12%. Barry Beck said that they are anticipating, when this first came up in the Air Quality Plan, that 12% of all the work trips will be eliminated through the use of telecom- munication. He said that he would agree with this for office employees but not everyone works in the office such as those in trades, service industries, manufacturing, assembly line, etc. SCAG has estimated that in order to get the 12%, you would have to have 60% of all clerical personnel to telecommute every work day or 100% of ail clerical personnel telecommuting three days a week. He personally does not think that this is going to happen. He does not doubt that telecommunication will have some impact but 12% is a large figure and he does not think that this should be factored into the plan until more is known. 5. Other Business. Ben Minnich commented that there should be consistency of the I-215 signing and asked how this problem could be resolved. Barry Beck agreed with Ben Minnich and said that he could never understand the rationale on freeway signing. He will contact Caltrans on this matter. Chairman Jandt asked if the Commission is concerned at all with the impact of the Olympic games next year and whether they have discussed providing bus service to events. Barry Beck said that the Commission has not discussed this matter but this' might be a possible interest point for RTA. 6 Ken Kaufher stated that they are waiting for RTD and the Olympic Committee as to see what kind of needs they have from RTA. At this point, they have not heard anything and they should probably take the initiative to contact both the Olympic Committee and RTD. Barry Beck said that if RTA was not planning to provide transit service to the Olympic events that perhaps RTA should encourage RTD to provide some service. 6. Adjournment. M/S/C (MINNICH/SHADE) to adjourn the meeting at 3:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barry Beck-' Executive Director nk 7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transit Operations Report for FY 1982-83 The attached table and graphs show operations data for public transit operators in Riverside County for FY 1982-83 and prior years. These attachments were prepared by staff using data supplied by the operators. Staff comments on general trends and individual systems are provided below. RIDERSHIP The general decline in ridership during FY 1981-82 and the first half of this year leveled off during the second half of the year. Countywide ridership, which was approximately 4% below the prior year as of December 31st, ended up at only 1% below the prior year. This leveling out resulted from increases in fixed route ridership for Banning and RTA and increases in dial -a -ride rider- ship for Beaumont and Riverside Special Services. Overall, dial -a -ride ridership declined by 57,703 passengers in FY 1982-83. Ridership decreased by 72,975 or 25.5% in RTA Bial- a -ride systems and by 9,361 or 22.8% in SunLine dial -a -ride systems. The reduction in riders was primarily in the full fare and student categories. The countywide decline was partially offset by increased ridership on the Beaumont (+13,368 passengers) and Riverside Special Services (+13,617) systems. Total fixed route ridership showed an increase of 0.7% or 22,416 passengers over FY 1981/82. Analysis shows, however, that fare paying passengers, which excludes transfer passengers, actually increased by 36,979 or 1.9% over the prior year. The SunLine Transit Agency ridership decrease was 53,911 total passengers, however, fare paying passengers decreased by only 11,656. The decrease for SunLine is attributable to a loss of 15,389 passengers on the Sun Special service in Palm Springs for which fares were raised from $0.25 to $0.50 this year. The only passenger category showing a significant decrease in ridership for RTA was students (-64,387). This decline can be attributed to a more restrictive policy which limited reduced fares to school days only. However, a number of students previously using student tickets and passes may now be included in the 112,435 additional full fare passengers reported by RTA. 1 Agenda Item No. 3 CAC Mtg. 10/25/83 OPERATING EXPENSES The average cost per vehicle hour of service in Riverside County increased by 6.2% from $30.47 in FY 1981-82 to $32.46 in FY 1982- 83. Total operating costs increased by only 2.5% from $8,087,000 to $8,292,000. The reason for the lower total cost increase than vehicle hour increase was a reduction in servile in the RTA Bial- a -ride systems. FARE REVENUE RATIOS The fare revenue ratios for all public transit operators in the county exceeded the minimum ratios required by law. With the exception of RTA, which decreased from 19.0% to 18.5%, and, Corona, which remained at 20%, the fare revenue ratios for all operators were higher in FY 82-83 than in rY 81-82. Factors contributing to this increase in ratios were: ridership in- creases for Banning, Beaumont, and Riverside Special Services; reduced costs per vehicle hour of operation in Banning, Beaumont, and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency; and, fare increases for Banning, SunLine, and Riverside Special Services. GENERAL In order for the Riverside Transit Agency and the SunLine Transit Agency to maintain their existing fare revenue ratios over the next few years, both operators will have to pay close attention to operating costs, ridership, and fare structure. Unless these operators are successful in attracting new riders each year or fares are increased, the fare revenue ratio will decrease as operating costs increase. As evidenced over the past two years, ridership generally declines as fares are raised even though the fare revenue ratio rises through higher fare revenues per passenger. With gasoline readily available and prices static, ridership cannot be expected to increase without aggressive marketing efforts by the transit operators. The challenge for both RTA and SunLine over the next few years will be to find ways to hold costs increases to a minimal level and to attract new riders to the system. BB/PB:nk Attachments 10-6-83 2 TRANSIT OPERATIONS REPORT 7/1/82 TO 6/30/83 F.R. Pa ssen gers DAR Passengers Tota l Passen gers F.R.Ex pe nses: DAR Expenses To tal Expenses F.R. Fa re Re venue D -A -R Fare Revenue TOTAL FARE REVENUE F. R. Vehicle Hours D -A -R Ve hicle Hou rs TOTAL VEHICLE HOURS Banning Beaumont 59,923 59,923 $71,597 $71,597 $16,908 $16,908 3,672 0 3,672 C oro na LETS PVVTA Riversid e Spec.Svcs . RTA Sunline 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. /V EH. HR. A VG. PASS. /VEH. HR. 45,259 45,259 74,053 65,511 65,511 74,053 3,549 $129,952 $112,436 $278,648 $15,848 $112,436 $278,648 $129,952 $15,848 $17,583 $28,496 $55,720 S3,472 $28,496 $55,720 $17,583 $3,472 7,695 11,402 11,402 7,695 1,293 5,957 5,957 3,549 1,293 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 118,902 118,902 $462,101 $462,101 $59,178 $59,178 21,796 21,796 23.6% 25.3% 20. 0% 13.5% 21.9% $0.91 $1.85 $3.40 $1.52 $3.49 $0.91 NA NA $1.52 NA NA $1. 85 $3. 40 NA $3.49 $19. 50 $18.87 $24.44 $16. 89 $12.26 $19.50 NA NA $16.89 NA NA $18.87 $24.44 NA $12. 26 16.32 NA NA 9.62 NA NA 7.60 5. 75 NA 2.74 16.32 7.60 5.75 9. 62 2.74 TOTAL COSTS AND FARE REVENUES FRO14 OPERATOR REPORTS 12.88 $3 .39 NA $3.39 $21.20 NA $21.20 NA 5 .46 5 .46 2,274,660 213,640 2,488,300 $4,020,870 $1,182,058 $5,202,928 fK. $827,676 $136,326 $964,002 107,945 40,614 148,559 TOTAL 655,821 31,633 687,454 $1,738,325 $279,919 $2,018,244 $346,701 $16,948 $363,649 48,090 7,763 55,853 3,064,457 478,494 3,542,95] $5,960,744 $2,33],010 $8,291,754 $1,208,868 $300,140 $1,509,008 167,402 88,825 256,227 18.5% $1 .70 $1 .40 $4.89 $35.02 $37.25 $29.10 21.07 5.26 16 .75 18.0% $2.41 $2 .12 $8.31 $36.13 $36 .15 $36.06 13.64 4 .07 12 .31 18.2% $1 .91 $1 .55 $4.24 $32.36 $35 .61 $26.24 18 .31 5.39 13.83 t TRANS77' OPERATIONS REPORT 7/1/81 TO 6/30/82 F.R. Passe nge rs DAR Passengers Total Passengers F.R.Expenses DAR Expens es To tal Expe nses F.R. Fa re Rev enue D -A -R Fare Revenue TOTAL FARE REVE1'UE Banning Beaumont Corona 47,659 47,659 $74,622 $74,622 $13,639 $13,639 F.R. Vehicle Hou rs 3,158 D -A -R Ve hicle Ho urs 0 TOTAL VEHICLE HOURS 3,158 LETS PVVTA Riv ersid e Spec.Svcs. RTA S unline 31,891 68,506 31,891 68,506 $92,386 $269,590 $92,386 $269,590 $15,9(7 $53,971 $15,967 $53,971 4,060 4,060 11,534 11,534 75,093 75,093 $144,062 $144,062 $17,763 $17,763 7,716 7,716 2,906 2,906 $19,388 $19,388 $2,045 $2,045 1,189 1,189 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 105,285 105,285 $422,231 $422,231 $46,735 $46,735 21,667 21,667 2,209,557 286,615 2,496,172 $3,971,827 $1,146,004 $5,117,831 $825,932 $146,747 4,972,679 134,290 56,761 161,051 FARE REVENUE RATIO SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FIXED ROUTE DIAL -A -RIDE COST/VEHICLE HR. FIXED ROUTE DIAL -A -RIDE 18.3% 17. 3% 20.0% 12.3% 10 .5% $1.28 $2. 40 $3.15 $1. 68 $5.97 $1.28 NA NA $1.68 NA NA $2.40 $3. 15 NA $5.97 $23.63 $22.76 $23. 37 $18.67 $16.31 $23. 63 NA NA $18.67 NA NA $22.76 $23.37 NA $16.31 F.R. PASS. /VEH. HR. 15. 09 D -A -R PASS./VEH. HR NA AVG. PASS./VEH. HR. 15. 09 NA NA 9.73 NA 7.85 5.94 NA 2.44 7.85 5. 94 9.73 2.44 TOTAL CO STS AND FARE REVENUES FROM FY 1981/82 FISCAL AUDITS 11.1% $3.57 NA $3.57 $19.49 NA $19.49 NA 4.86 4.86 709,732 40,994 750,726 $1,666,743 $280,784 $1,947,527 $318,599 $15,168 $333,767 47,100 7,934 55,034 TOTAL 19.0% 17.1% $1.66 $2 .15 $1 .42 $1.90 $3.49 $6.48 $31.78 $35.39 $38.08 $35 .39 $20.19 $35 .39 21.19 15 .07 5 .05 5.17 15.50 13.64 3,042,041 536,197 3,578,238 $5,857,254 $2,230,383 $8,087,637 $1,]75,933 $280,633 $1,456,566 162,264 103,145 265,409 18.08 $1 .85 $1 .54 $3.64 $30.47 $36 .10 $21.62 18.75 5.20 13.48 TRANSIT OPERATIONS COMPARISON FY 1982/83 TO FY 1981/82 F.R. PASSENGERS %CHANGE D -A -R PASSENGERS %CHANGE TOTAL PASSENGERS % CHANGE F.R. EXPENSES %CHANGE D -A -R EXPENSES %CHANGE TOTAL EXPENSES %CHANGE F. R. VEHICLE HOURS %CHANGE D -A -R VEHICLE HOURS %CHANGE T OT AL VEHICLE HOURS %CHANGE F.R. COST/VEH. HR. %CHANGE D -A -R COST/VEH. HR. %CHANGE AVG. COST /VEH. HR. %CHANGE Banning B eaumont Cor on a LETS PVV TA 12,264 NA 25.7% NA NA 13368 NA 41 .9% 12,264 13,368 25.7% 41 .9% ($3,025) NA -4.1% NA NA $20,050 NA 21.7% ($3,025) $20,050 -4.1% 21.7% 514 NA 16.3% NA NA 1,897 NA 46.7% 514 1,897 16.3% 46. 7% ($4.13) NA - 17. 5% NA NA ($3. 88) NA -17. 1% ($4.13) ($3. 88) - 17.5% -17.1% AMOUNTS SHOWN ARE INCREASES (DECREASES) IN Riv er sid e Spec .Svcs . R TA S unline NA (1,040) NA NA -1.4% NA -2995 NA 643 - 4.4% NA 22.1% (2,995) (1,040) 643 - 4.4% -1.4% 22.1% NA ($14,110) NA -9 .8% $9,058 NA 3 .4% NA $9,058 ($14,110) 3.4% -9 .B% NA NA ($3,540) - 18.3% ($3,540) - 18.3% NA (21) NA NA -0.3% NA (132) NA 104 - 1.1% NA 8 .7% (132) (21) 104 - 1.1% -0.3% 8 .7% NA ($1. 78) NA NA -9.5% NA $1.07 NA ($4.05) 4. 6% NA -24.8% $1. 07 ($1.78) ($4.05) 4.6% -9. 5% -24.8% FY 1982/83 COMPARED TO FY 1981/82 TOTAL NA 65,103 (53,911) 22,416 NA 2.9% -7 .6% 0.7% 13617 -72975 -9361 -57703 12.9% -25.5% -22.8% -10.8% 13,617 (7,872) (63,272) (35,287) 12 .9% -0.3% -8.4% -1 .0% NA $49,043 $71,582 $103,490 NA 1.2% 4.3% 1.8% $39,870 $36,054 ($865) $100,627 9.4% 3 .1% -0 .3% 4.5% $39,870 $85,097 $70,717 $204,117 9.4% 1.7% 3.6% 2 .5% NA 3,655 990 5,138 NA 3.5% 2 .1% 3.2% 129 (16,147) (171) (14,320) 0.6% -28.4% -2.2% -13.9% 129 (12,492) 819 (9,182) 0.6% -7 .8% 1.5% -3 .5% NA ($0.84) $0.76 ($0.49) NA -2.2% 2.1% -1.4% $1.71 $8.91 $0.67 $4 .62 8 .8% 44.2% 1.9% 21.4% $1 .71 $3 .24 $0.75 $1.89 8.8% 10.2% 2.1% 6 .2% RIDERSHIP COMPARISON FY 1982/83 TO FY 1981/82 FULL FARE ELD.& HDCP. STUDENTS CHILDREN PASS TR ANSFER TO TAL RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY F.R. FY 1981/82 F.R. FY 1982/83 CHANGE %CHANGE D -A -R FY 1981/82 D -A -R FY 1982/83 CHANGE %CHANGE TOTAL FY 1981/82 TOTAL FY 1982/03 CHANGE %CHANGE SUNLINE 1,086,050 1,198,485 112,435 10.4% 68,964 52,894 (16,070) -23.3% 1,155,014 1,251,379 96,365 8.3% TRANSIT AGENCY F.R. FY 1981/82 417,461 F.R. FY 1982/83 496,344 CHANGE 78,883 %CHANGE 18.9% D -A -R FY 1881/82 5,273 D -A -R FY 1882/83 6,242 CHANGE 969 %CHANGE 18.4% TOTAL FY 1981/82 422,734 TOTAL FY 1982/83 502,586 CHANGE 79,852 %CHANGE 18. 9% 264,286 126,649 119,822 335,843 276,907 261,672 62,262 116,883 330,32? 30`:,031 (2,614) (64,387) (2,939) (5,516) 28,124 - 1.0% -50.8% -2 .5% -1.6% 10.2% 123,059 43,234 16,959 18,806 15,593 106,766 23,887 10,547 10,015 9,531 (16,293) (19,347) (6,412) (8,791) (6,062) -13.2% -44.7% -37 .8% -46 .7% -38.9% 387,345 169,883 136,781 354,649 292,500 368,438 86,149 127,430 340,342 314,562 (18,907) (83,734) (9,351) (14,307) 22,062 - 4.9% -49.3% -6.8% -4.0% 7.5% TO TAL MINUS TRANSFERS 2,209,557 2,274,660 65,103 2 .9% 286,615 213,640 (72,975) -25.5% 2,496,172 2,488,300 (7,8721 -0 .3% 1,932,650 1,969,629 36,979 1 .9% 271,022 204,109 (66,913) -24.7% 2,203,672 2,173,738 (29,934) -1.4% 163,904 45,749 0 0 82,618 709,732 627,114 112,809 6,305 0 0 40,363 655,821 615,458 (51,095) (39,444) NA NA (42,255) (53,911) (11,656) -31.2% -86.2% NA NA -51.1% -7.6% -1.9% 28,521 1,982 0 1,793 3,425 40,994 37,569 23,042 166 761 0 1,422 31,633 30,211 (5,479) (1,816) 761 (1,793) (2,003) (9,361) (7,358) -19. 2% -91.6% NA -100.0% -58 .5% -22.8% -19.6% 192,425 47,731 0 1,793 86,043 750,726 664,683 135,851 6,471 761 0 41,785 687,454 645,669 (56,574) (41,260) 761 (1,793) (44,258) (63,272) (19,014) -29.4% -86.4% NA -100.0% -51.4% -8.4% -2 .9% -O m 2 RIDERS IN 10,000's 3 4 v CO 6,888 V lD 03 J 8,316 9,080 9,007 10,206 w o 1p 10,822 03 N 10 , 256 03 J Lk' 10,678 .A _ „N 12,798 01 CO 03 N 12,328 10,602 u' -P. 13,263 01 OD N co N 03 CA-) 15,116 14 , 04 18 dIHS'd34Id 1 1 i kr, 11 00 V lD D 73 PI xJ 2 RIDERS IN 10,000's 3 4 2,228 to CO 0 J3,135 u'-3,892 a' -4,343 J 01 w N 00 00 0 00 —15,041 � 14,866 14,591 6,185 03 ry.� 03 3 4'-9,694 7,129 03 N 00 Lt) 11,329 j 10,509 N N -„:111,472Luoi 30I2:1 -V -1V10 m c m V CO 0 2 RIDERS IN 10,000's 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 22,831 23,380 22,290 23,022 C3 Ul CO 03 J J CO J CO N 24,337 19,814 N 19,414 17 299 �16 , 987 17,480 rn 00 (3 CD 16, 2 03 N I CO G) 1 5, 28 dIHSd3GId 3GId-V-1VIG VN0d0G LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM RIDERSHIP LC) u - L'7 N ray QUARTER 3 4 F,Y. 78-79 Q1 N 01 N 50,699 N N 2 f 3 79-80 n 4 65,890 N � n I I I I 2 3 80-81 N Cr) m r 4 75,093 O N N r r 01 ct O O t..O a O N a 01 N CQ I 2 3 81-82 I (i 4 1 74,053 LCD c - N 's' I 2 3 82-83 30,866 vz- SAY QUARTER F.Y. 3 4 78-79 79-80 2 3 PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY RIDERSHIP 21,089 2,906 3,549 4 • 2 Lin 3 4 80-81 CV M, CS r- 0 LC) CJ CO N r- CO CC tC n r� 2 ! 3 81-82 4 1 2 3 82-83 RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES E & H PROGRAM RIDERSHIP rT — N 0 o 107,660 104,352 (11 CO - CC W 0 N QUARTER 3 4 F.Y. 78-79 CO CO LO i LC) LL) LC) N co 2 1 3 1 4 1 2 13 I 4 79-80 1 105,285 80-81 LO LC) Q1 LO Q1 01 LC) N I C. 03 N 81-82 11;:,902 1 2 3 82-83 1 m 1 2 RIDERS IN 100,000's 3 4 5 1 1 1, V w ��������502,829 6 lD 516,699 602,449 o w �� �����-��_����__ N 642,450 651,735 57 ,639 627,874 -"-1650,444 640,068 )96,654 J 00 660,818 1 2 co 614,996 623,904 J 558 N • \ \ OD N 1 CO w w ,030 627,469 1641,293 F,R1 _ dIHS3OIb AJN3EV lISNVK 30ISb3AId RIDERS IN 100,000's V 00 V w rn x1 2 3 4 5 \ V t0 00 155,t77 \\\\-.1205,715 225,363 +' \\\\\2.06,285 V tO N 03 0 03 03 \\\\ 155,)77 210,892 292,471 •_-\`225,124 00 00 w 03 03 03 N '39,511 \\\��150,564 165,838 N 03 N 03 w w 141,876 \:163,007 \\ . ��ti '4210 , 540 dIHSb3CId A3N3CV IISNdbl 3NI1Nf1S AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 , TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed SunLine Transit Agency Service Changes The SunLine Transit Agency has advised us that a public hearing will be held on November 2nd regarding proposed service changes recommended by SunLine staff to its Board of Directors earlier this month. The proposed changes are as follows: Line 1 Palm Springs Local - This route serves the Downtown and Canyon Hotel area of Palm Springs. SunLine staff is proposing a realignment of the northerly portion of the route to provide service to the Palm Springs Mall area east of Downtown Palm Springs and direct access to Desert Hospital north of Tachevah Drive. Service along Palm Canyon Drive and Indian Avenue between Tahquitz McCallum and Tachevah Drive would be deleted under the proposal. The Palm Canyon and Indian Avenue area of Downtown is served by Lines 19 and 20 and by the seasonal Sun Shuttle service. Line 1 would conti- nue to operate on a one -hour frequency using one bus. No additional operating cost would result from this service change. Line 1 provided service from the Canyon Hotel area to the Palm Springs Mall via Sunrise Way prior to the service change in September, 1982, which concentrated service in the Downtown area of. Palm Springs along Palm Canyon and Indian Avenue. We have requested SunLine staff to provide an estimate of increased ridership expected as a result of this change. Line 4 La Quinta/Palm Desert Country Club - This route presently operates on a one -hour headway using one bus 'between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. SunLine staff is proposing to discontinue the fixed -route system and replace it with dial -a -ride service. Service would be reduced from the current 11 hours/day to 9 hours/day and may be reduced to five days/week (Monday -Friday). Ridership on this line has been low since the eastern portion serving Indio was deleted from Line 4 and added to Line 20 last year. We have requested ridership and cost information from SunLine staff regarding this change. Palm Springs Sun- "Special Service - This service operates between the hotels and Downtown shopping area of Palm Springs during the high tourist season from January to May. SunLine 1 Agenda Item No, 4 CAC ;ltg. 10/25/83 staff is proposing to provide direct service to the Canyon Hotel resort south of Palm Canyon Drive this year. Line 19 Desert Hot Springs - Coachella - SunLine staff is proposing the addition of a fifth bus to operate on this line during the high tourist season. The fifth bus is necessary to accommodate increased demand and to maintain an hourly schedule when traffic congestion occurs in the Downtown area and along the Highway 111 corridor. The addition of the fifth bus is consistent with the adopted Short Range Transit Plan. Palm Desert Sun Special Service - SunLine is proposing implementation of a Sun Special serivce to serve the shopping area along Highway 111 in Palm Desert during the period of January to May similar to the Sun Special service in Palm Springs. We have requested SunLine staff to provide a map showing the proposed route, estima'�d costs, and expected ridership for this service. This project is consistent with the Short Range Transit Plan. The attached maps show the service changes outlined above. Staff will present additional information requested from SunLine at the meeting. BB/PB:nk Attachments 2 " LINE 1 CANYON VIA CENTRAL RA E L BUSINESS DISTRICT 1 i tACHIVFM C. Pa1sr: SY_is:}s • ltj 7 n 3 � 3 Aw age 6 - LINE 4 LA QUINTA/PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB Page 10 :aGvirts U�Ci7 ; gL••i•k'YL: GLLf C41HN6 ,�13-s SPECIfjL The Open•Air DauDIA Deck Bus Every 15 Minutes 9c30 AM to gourd to ta:.Pa4 Pit 7 Oays A Week Trough The Winter Season AGENDA ITEM 5 r TO: Citizens Advisory Committee. FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed U.S. Department of Transportation 504 .regulations The U.S. Department of Transportation has issued proposed regulations for implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 with regard to transit system accessibility. The proposed regulations would replace the previous .:.)re costly, restrictive, and controversial regulations issued in 1979. Enclosed are the proposed regulations isued by the U.S. DOT. There are two major changes which staff views as positive when comparEd to the previous regulations. First, the proposed regulations would allow local decisions regarding the methods used to provide accessible transit. Previous regulations strictly required that fixed -route systems be made accessible through the purchase of lift -equipped buses. Within a three-year period, 50% of the peak -hour fleet was to be lift equipped and within a ten-year period, the entire fleet was to be lift equipped. Paratransit services for the handicapped were to be recognized as reasonable efforts to provide accessible transit only until the entire fixed -route fleet was accessible. The proposed regulations recognize that accessible fixed -route service may not be th.e most effective means of providing transport at_f on for the handicapped in all areas. Under the proposed regulations, "local options" are available. The suggested options are: accessible fixed -route service; supplemental paratransit services for the handicapped; or some combination of accessible faxed route and paratransit service. The method selected is to be a local decision made through consultation with representatives of the handicapped community. The second change is the increase in the maximum amount of funds which operators could be required to spend in the provision of accessible service. Previous regulations created an expenditure cap at 2% of UMTA Section 5 funds received by the operator. The proposed regulations are considering two alternative maximum cost caps: 7.1% of federal assistance funds received by an operator or 3% of the operator's total operating expenses. Staff and most transit operators recommend the percentage of federal funds received alternative in that federal regulations should be tied to the use of federal rather than local funds. 1 Agenda Item No, 5 CAC Mtg, 10/25/83 There are two changes under the proposed regulations which staff opposes. First, that paratransit services provided by other operators and totally supported by local funding sources could not be calculated in the compliance formula and, therefore, would not be credited toward meeting the cost cap. This change would not allow the approximately $480,000 per year spent on the Riverside Special Services Program for the elderly and handicapped to be considered when compliance of Riverside Transit Agency is reviewed. The RTA 7.1% cost limit would be approximately $99,000 based on a grant of $1.4 million dollars or $150,000 based on an operating budget of $5 million. Staff believes that it is unfair for the federal government to overlook the much higher level of local support expended in Riverside than would be recuired under federal regulations simply because federal assistance is not used directly to support the Riverside Special Services Prograr. The second proposal under consideration which staff opposes is any consideration by U.S. DOT to not require that persons with mental handicaps be given the same eligibility status as persons with identifiable (physical) mobility handicaps for using a. paratransit service. In our opinion, the mentally handicapped person who is unable to find their way around a city on a regular bus system should be as entitled to use paratransit service as a person in a wheelchair who cannot use a bus without a wheelchair lift. We do, however, agree with U.S. DOT that "being elderly does not, by itself, confer eligibility for the special service. The key is whether or not a particular elderly person can use the service for the general public." Since the next Commission meeting is not until November 17th, staff has provided these comments to SCAG for inclusion in a position statement to be submitted to U.S. DOT by SCAG prior to the November 8, 1983 comment deadline. BB/7E : n k Enclosure 2 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROPOSES NEW RULE ON MASS TRANSIT FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS On September 8, 1983, the Department of Transportation (DOT) will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register proposing new rules to ensure the provision of transportation services to handicapped persons in DOT -assisted mass transit programs. The public conme.1t period on the NPRM will be open through November 8. The proposed ruler would carry out section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and section 317(c) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. BACKGROUND How to ensure the provision of adequate public transportation for handicapped persons at a reasonable cost has long beer. a difficult problem. At the present time, DOT requires recipients of Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) assistance for mass transit programs to make "special efforts" to provide transportation services for handicapped persons. In section 317(c) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, Congress directed the Department to publish a new regulation that includes "minimum criteria for the provision of transportation services" to handicapped and elderly individuals. In addition, the statute requires that t,,e rule provide for public participation in the establishment of programs to provide services for handicapped persons and for OCT monitoring of recipients' compliance. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED RULE -his NPRM proposes to replace the 1981 interim final rule with a rule that would meet the requirements of section 317(c). The intent of the NPRM is to propose regulatory provisions that would ensure adequate transit service for handicapped persons without imposing undue cost burdens on recipients. We emphasize that this is a proposed regulation, and we are very interested in receiving public comment on the best way to carry out our statutory responsibilities. We will fully consider all the comments we receive during the 60 -day comment period on the NPRM. BASIC APPROACHES TO THE PROVISION OF SERVICE Under the NPRM, a recipient could meet its obligations for service to handicapped..persons in three basic ways. It could make 50pperccent of its buses accessible (e.g., through the use of lifts), it c ul establish a paratransit or special services system (e.g., a "dial -a - ride" van system), or it could establish a mixed system that would combine elements of accessible bus and paratransit service. The NPRM would nat require existing subway systems to be made accessible. MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR THE PROVISION OF SERVICE Whatever kind of system the recipient establishes, the system must, subject to the "cost cap" described below, meet six service criteria. The system must serve the same geographic area as the recipient's service for the general public, at the same times, and at comparable fares. There cannot be waiting lists for eligibility or restrictions or priorities basec on trip purpose. Finally, the waiting time for service must be -eascnaple. COST CAP In order to avoid imposing undue financial demands on recipients, the NPRM proposes a "cost cap." A Federal court said a previous OCT section 504 rule exceeded the Department's authority because it imposed undue costs. This cost cap is a ceiling on expenditures that a recipient is not required to exceed. If the recipient cannot meet all six service criteria without exceeding the cost cap, then the recipient is required to meet the criteria only to the extent.possible within the cost cap. Decisions on the service tradeoffs that are made in order to keep costs within the cost cap must be made through the public participation process described below. The NPRM requests comment on two alternative approaches to setting the cost cap. One alternative is 7.1 percent of the recipient's UMTA assistance; the other is 3.0 percent of the recipient's total operating budget. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ANO MONITORING Within nine months of the effective date of the final rule, each recipient would be required to have a program for providing transportation services to handicapped persons. During, that time, the recipient would plan its service in consultation with handicapped persons and groups representing them. A public hearing would be required. in addition, there would be a 60 —day public comment period. The recipient would have to respond to the comments it received. The recipient's program, and information concerning the public participation process, would be sent to UMTA. UMTA could reject the program or require it to be changed. In addition to sending this material to UMTA, each recipient would have t: give UMTA an annual report on how it was carrying out its program. WHERE TO SENO COMMENTS ANO GET FURTHER INFORMATION Please send comments to the following address: J Docket Clerk Docket 56b Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 10105 Washington,.O.C. 20590 For further information about the NPRM, please contact Robert C. Ashby at the above address. His phone number is (202) 426-4723 (voice) or (202) 755-7687 (TTY). Copies of the NPRM are available an tape for visually impaired persons. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [Docket No. 56b; Notice No. 83-41 ] Office of the Secretary 49 CFR Part 27 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in Programs Receiving Financial Assistance from the Department of Transportation AGENCY: Department of Transportation ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking SUMMARY: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides that "no otherwise qualified handicapped individual . . . shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . ." The Department is currently implementing this statute in the mass transit area through an interim final rule. This proposal would replace the interim final- rule with a new regulation consistent with section 317(c) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. The proposed regulation would establish minimum criteria for the provision of transportation services to handicapped and elderly persons, provide for public participation in the establishment of such services, and create a mechanism through which the Department can monitor the compliance with the regulation of transit providers receiving financial assistance from the Department. ADDRESS: • Comments should be addressed to Docket Clei.k, Docket 56b, Department of Transportation, Room 10105, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington D.C., 20590. Comments will be- available for review by the public at this address from 9:00 a.m. through 5:20 p.m., Monday through Friday. Commenters wishing acknowledgement of their comments should include a stamped, self-addressed postcard with their comment. The Docket Clerk will time and date stamp the card and return it to the commenter. DATES: Comments should be received in the Department by [60 days from date of publication] . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Ashby, Office of Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room 10105, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 202/426-4723. Hearing -impaired persons may contact Mr. Ashby by using TTY (202) 755-7687. The NPRM has been taped for the use of visually -impaired persons. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides that "no otherwise qualified handicapped individual . . . shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ... ." The Department's existing regulation appears in 49 CFR Part 27, and implements this statute, section 16(a) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 and section 165(b) of the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1973. This regulation, originally published in 1979, prescribed various planning and other administrative requirements and prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of handicap. It also imposed general requirements for the accessibility of DOT -assisted programs and activities to handicapped persons and specific accessibility requirements for Federally aided highways, airports, intercity rail service, and mass transit. The 1979 regulations, as they applied to mass transit, were very costly and controversial. The American Public Transit Association (APTA) and several of its members sued the Department in June 1979, alleging that the mass transit requirements of the 1979 rule exceeded the Department's authority and were arbitrary and capricious. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the rule, but the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the District Court's decision (American Public Transit Association v. Lewis, 556 F.2d 1271 (D. C. Cir., 1981)) . The Court of Appeals held that, under section 504, a transit authority might be required to take "modest, affirmative steps to accommodate handicapped persons" in order to avoid the discrimination that section• 504- prohibits. - Fn the Court's view,- however, the regulation required extensive and costly affirmative action efforts to modify existing systems and, therefore, exceeded the Department's authority under the statute. While the court decision was pending, the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief determined that the regulation deserved priority review. As a result of this review, the Department established a clear policy concerning mass transit for handicapped persons. The Department believes that recipients of Federal assistance for mass transit must provide transportation that handicapped persons can use but that local communities have thejnajor responsibility for deciding how this transportation should be provided. Following the establishment of this policy and the Court decision, the Department issued an interim final rule in July 1981, which deleted the mass transit requirements of the original regulation and substituted a new section. The new section requires recipients to certify that special efforts are being made in their service area to provide transportation that handicapped persons can use. The interim final rule was designed as a temporary measure to remain in effect only until a permanent regulation could be adopted. This NPRM proposes a replacement for the interim final rule. As required by Executive Order 11914, the Department's 1979 regulation was consistent with government -wide guidelines promulgated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). These guidelines included a specific requirement that each mode of mass transit be made accessible to handicapped persons. Following the dissolution of HEW, Executive Order 12250 transferred responsibility for the guidelines to- the Department •of-Ju-stitz (-Era )". In August 1981, in response to the APTA decision, DOJ suspended the application of the guidelines to mass transit. Both the interim final rule and this NPRM were approved b./ OOJ pursuant to Executive Order 12250. Comments on the Interim Final Rule The Department received approximately 300 comments in response to the interim final rule. Of these, 141 were from persons identifying themselves as handicapped individuals or from groups representing them. Thirty were from transit operators or groups representing them, 56 from various state and local agencies, 18 from metropolitan planning organizations or other regional associations of governments, and 54 were from people or organizations not falling into any of these categories. Most handicapped persons and organizations commenting on the interim final rule opposed its provisions. Many of the 115 commenters in this category who opposed the interim final rule favored retaining the accessibility requirements of the Department's original section 504 rule or requiring that transit authorities that provide special services be required to meet service criteria. The service criteria would be designed to ensure comparable service for handicapped person.. The criteria commenters mentioned included same geographic service area, same hours of service, comparable fares, no restrictions or priorities based on trip purpose, and reasonable wait time. Thirteen commenters in the handicapped person and group category favored the interim final rule and the local option/special services approach to providing transportation for handicapped persons. The rest of the_ comments could not be classified as either for or against the interim final rule. Thirty transit authorities -commented on —ti -re interim final rule; a majority of there (23) favored the interim final rule's approach. They also endorsed local option and special services as the best way to provide transportation services for handicapped persons. Most metropolitan planning organizations and other regional associations of governments also favored local option and special services. Fourteen of these favored the interim final rule, and the other 4 commented without expressing support or opposition. On the other hand, state and local government agencies or organizations gave mixed responses. In this category, 28 favored the interim final rule, 16 were opposed (most of whom favored an accessibility or service criteria approach) and 12 commented -but did not indicate a position for or against. The mixed nature in this category is attributable, in part, to the fact that the category includes both state and local agencies concerned principally with transportation matters, such as state Departments of Transportation, and agencies concerned with providing services to handicapped persons, such as state vocational rehabilitation agencies. Many of the agencies in this category also favored a service criteria approach to providing transit services for handicapped persons. Of the remaining commenters, 33 opposed the interim final rule, 14 favored it, and 7 did not express an opinion for or against. Many opponents in this category supported retaining accessibility requirements or requiring service criteria. Two issues in the regulation received numerous comments from a variety of commenters. First, there was broad support for retaining or strengthening public participation requirements in the planning of transportation services for handicapped persons, including requirements for the participation of handicapped persons in the process. Second, commenters expressed substantial concern about the financial level of effort criterion (3.5 percent of section 5 funds) in the interim final rule. Many commenters thought that this criterion was too vague or too low. In addition, many pointed out that the criterion did not provide a sound basis for determining an appropriate financial level of effort over the long term because, under Administration legislative proposals, operating assistance funds under section 5 would be phased out. Section 317(c) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 J Section 317(c) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 directly affects the content of this proposed rule. It provides as follows: in carrying out subsection (a) of this section [section 16(a) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended] section 165(b) of the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1973, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (consistent with any applicable government -wide standards for the implementation of such section 504), the Secretary shall, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, publish in the Federal Register for public comment, proposed regulations and, not later than 180 days after the date of such enactment, promulgate final regulations, establishing (1) minimum criteria for the provision of transportation services to handicapped and elderly individuals by recipients of Federal financial assistance under this Act or any provision of law referred to in section 165(b) of the Federal -Aid Highway Act of 1973, and (2) procedures for the Secretary to monitor recipients` compliance with such criteria. Such regulations shall include provisions ensuring that organizations and groups representing such individuals are given adequate notice of and and opportunity to comment on the proposed activities of recipients for the purpose of achieving compliance with such regulations. This provision was sponsored by Senators Cranston and Riegle. The sponsors' floor statements expressed concern that the Department's interim rule did not ensure adequate service for handicapped persons. For example, Senator Cranston, in his discussion of a General Accounting Office survey of transportation systems, referred to "widespread deficiencies" in paratransit services for handicapped persons, such as waiting lists, long advance notic' requiremen.s, priorities based on trip purpose, shorter hours and fewer days of service, denials of requests for, service, smaller geographical area of service, and inaccessibility of paratransit vehicles. He and Senator Riegle also cited the survey as evidence that some transit authorities had stopped o. slowed programs to make their buses accessible. In addition, the Senators believed that procedural problems --the absence of requirements for public participation in the formulation of transportation services for handicapped persons and a mechaKism enabling the Department to know whether recipients were complying with- section 504 requirements --also impeded the provision of adequate service for handicapped persons. To address these problems, which Congress believed stemmed from the interim final rule, section 317(c) directs the Department to change its approach to implementing section 504 both substantively and procedurally. Substantively, the statute requires that DOT's new regulation include "minimum criteria for the provision of transportation services' to handicapped persons. Procedurally, the statute calls for explicit regulatory provisions concerning the participation of handicapped persons in the establishment of transportation services for their use and for monitoring by the Department of recipients' compliance with section 504 requirements. This proposed rule includes provisions carrying out t;I se new substantive and procedural requirements of the statute. The version of section 317(c) that the Senate originally passed was stronger than the language that Congress eventually enacted, requiring "minimum criteria for each recipient...to provide handicapped and elderly individuals with transportation services that such individuals can use and that are the same as or comparable to those which the recipient provides to the general public" (emphasis added). Of the two requirements that this version imposed --minimum criteria for the provision of service and "same or comparable" service --the final version of the section retained only the former. The "same or comparable" formulation was dropped by the Conference Committee. It is reasonable to interpret this deletion to mean that the "minimum criteria" required by the final version of the section do not have to result in service for handicapped persons that is the same as or comparable to that provided the general public. Section 317(c) is the latest and most definitive instruction by Congress to the Department concerning the regulatory requirements the Department must impose with respect to mass transit services for handicapped and elderly individuals. The proposed rule is intended to implement this Congressional instruction. Section 317(c) does not amend section 504 or diminish the nondiscrimination obligation of recipients under section 504. As coordinator of section 504 enforcement pursuant to Executive Order 12250, DOJ has approved the proposed rule. SECTION -BY -SECTION ANALYSIS 327.77(a) Certification. Subparagraph (1) provides that, as under the interim final rule, each recipient of Federal financial assistance for capital or operating expenses of urban mass transportation systems (under sections 3, 5, 9, and 9A of the Urban Mass Transportation Act; recipients of funds only under section 18 would be treated separately) would be required to certify to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) that it is complying with the rule. In this case, compliance means having in effect a program for the provision of transportation services to handicapped and elderly individuals. The certification acceptance approach is designed to reduce administrative burdens and delays associated with a requirement for prior approval of a program by the Department. The certification must state that the recipient has met all procedural and substantive requirements set *orth in the rest of this section. Subparagraph (2) states the certification requirement for recipients only of section 18 funds. This requirement would be the same as under the existing regulation. The Department is proposing to retain this relatively less burdensome requirement because section 18 recipients tend to be small entitites--small cities and rural jurisdictions. Consistent with the policies of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Department believes it appropriate, in this situation, to impose fewer substantive and procedural burdens on these recipients. In addition, many section 18 recipients are likely to be called upon to serve only a few handicapped persons. Section 18 recipients have an obligation under this subparagraph to provide service for handicapped persons, but, given the nature of small cities and rural areas, it is probable that they can provide this service on an informal basis without the more elaborate substantive and procedural requirements imposed on larger urban areas. Section 18 certifications would be sent to the Federal Highway Administrator rather than the UMTA Administrator because the Secretary has delegated primary responsibility for administering the section 18 program to the Federal Highway Administration. The Department seeks comment on whether this approach to section 18 recipients is appropriate. We request that commenters favoring a different approach make suggestions concerning how the Department can be responsive to the situation of small recipients. Subparagraph (3) provides that the certification would stand for compliance with section 504, section 16(a), and section 165(b). While the Department would regularly monitor compliance with the requirements, and the Department could "look behind" the recipient's certification to ensure that it is caelivering the promised services and following the appropriate procedures, a recipient with a valid certification would normally be regarded by the Department as meeting statutory requirements with respect to the provision of transportation services to handicapped persons. J27.77(b) Types of Service. The Department is fully committed to the policy of allowing each local area to determine the kind of transportation service for handicapped persons that best fits its circumstances. The Department is aware that no one kind of service is right for all areas. At the same time, section 317(c) requires minimum criteria for the provision of service to handicapped persons. In this paragraph, the Department proposes three alternative ways that recipients can meet their obligation to provide transportation services for handicapped persons. Whatever choice a recipient made, it would have to ensure, subject to the cost limit of paragraph (d), that the service it provided met the service criteria of paragraph (c) . Subparagraph (1) permits recipients to choose to make 50 percent of its fixed route bus service accessible. To meet this requirement, a recipient would have to ensure that half of the buses it has on the street during both peak (i.e., rush hour) and non -peak periods ,are lift - equipped or otherwise accessible to wheelchair users and semiambulatory persons. In order to maintain the 50 percent "on the street" level of service, the recipient would probably have to have a sufficient number of accessible buses in its reserve fleet to substitute for accessible buses that were in the shop at a given time. The relationship of accessible bus service to the service criteria is discussed further in the last -'aragraph of the discussion of paragraph (c) below. One difficult problem that has arisen in the past is the use of lift -equipped buses by semiambulatory persons (e.g., persons who can walk with walkers or crutches but who are not wheelchair users) . Some'transit authorities permit such persons to use bus lifts. Others, citing potential safety and legal liability problems, permit only wheelchair users to. use the lifts. The Department's policy has been to let transit authorities make this decision based on their own evaluation of the risks involved. The Department seeks comment on this issue and on whether the final regulation should impose any requirements or standards with respect to the use of bus lifts by semiambulatory persons. Subparagraph (2) permits recipients to establish a paratransit or special se. -vices system to provide transportation for handicapped and elderly persons. Such a system would provide demand -responsive service by means such as accessible vans operated by the recipient or subsidized taxi vouchers. Recipients are required to regard as eligible for special service under this subparagraph or subparagraph (3) all handicaaaed and elderly persons who, because of their handicap or age, are unable to use the recipient's service for the general public. This requirement has two important implications. First, the service may not be restricted to one or more types of handicapped persons (e.g., wheelchair users) , with other types of handicapped persons (e.g., blind or mentally retarded persons) categorically excluded. The question is whether a given individual can use the recipient's service for the general public. If not, then he or she must be regarded as eligible for the special service. ond, being elderly (i.e., over a certain age) does not, by itself, ``: .. confer eligibility for the special service. The key is whether or not a particular elderly person can use the service for the general _public. If, because of age, an individual is unable to use the regular service --even if that individual does not have a specific, identifiable physical handicap -- that individual is eligible for the special service. For example, some 80 year old individuals may be able to use the service, for the general public, and' some 65 year old individuals may be unable to do so. The Department seeks comment on whether it is _ appropriate. to require recipients to regard elderly and handicapped persons not having identifiable mobility handicaps (e.g., mentally handicapped persons whose inability -- to find their way around a city using the regular bus system, rather than any physical mobility handicap, _ prevents their using the transportation service for the general public) as eligible to use a paratransit service. the rationale for not having such a requirement could be that in a system being used to its capacity, use of the system by handicapped persons without mobility handicaps could restrict the system's use by mobility - handicapped persons. However, section 504 makes no distinction among different types of handicapped persons. In this context, we would point out that it would be consistent with the intent of the proposed rule for a recipient to provide a combination of different kinds of special services designed to fit the needs of people with different sorts of handicaps. Subparagraph (3) permits recipients to choose a mix of fixed route accessibility and special service paratransit. For example, a recipient could make 15 percent of. its buses accessible limiting their use to two or three important corridors. The recipient could then establish a paratransit system to cover other areas of the service area. Another example of a mixed system would be a "dial -a -bus" program, in which a recipient has a number of accessible buses which it assigns to certain trips on a demand -responsive basis. The accessible fixed route and special service components of the system, taken together, would have to meet the service criteria of paragraph (c) . While all handicapped or elderly individuals who could not use the recipient's service for the general pubiic would be eligible to use the paratransit component of a mixed service, a recipient would not be required to provide duplicate service. If fixed route accessible bus service were provided between point A and point B, the recipient would not have to provide paratransit service between these same points. The recipient, consistent with the service criteria, would have to provide service between Point A or Point B and other points in the general service area not served by accessible bus service, however. The Department seeks comment on whether, in a mixed system, there could be problems with inconvenience caused by multiple transfers between different components of the system. If so, should the final regulation impose limits on transfers or use another mechanism for dealing with the problem? To understand how this paragraph would work in practice, one needs to understand that its requirements are "subject to the cost limit of paragraph (d) of this section" (the calculation of this cost limit is discussed in the portion of this preamble that explains paragraph (d)) . The cost limit is not a minimum expenditure requirement. If the recipient can meet the requirements of paragraph (b) while spending less than the cost limit, the recipient is not required to spend more. Nor is the cost limit a ceiling on the amount of funds a recipient may spend on transportation services for handicapped persons. The recipient always has the choice to spend more. Rather, the cost limit is a ceiling on the amount of funds the recipient is required to spend to comply with the requirements of this paragraph. The recipient would not be required to achieve full compliance with paragraph (b) in a given year to the extent that it could not do so without exceeding the cost limit. Within the cost limit, the Department expects recipients to meet their 15 obligations to provide transportation to handicapped persons in the most cost-effective way possible. A few hypothetical examples may explain how the cost limit would affect the requirements of paragraph (b). The Hypothetical Area Transit System (HATS) is an imaginary UMTA recipient. For fiscal year (FY) 1984, its cost limit is S319,500. At the present time, HATS has no accessible buses among its fleet of 150 buses (all of which are in use during the area's hypothetical rush hour) and does not operate a paratransit service. Under subparagraph (1), HATS could choose to make 50 percent of its buses accessible. In FY 1984, HATS is planning to buy 30 new buses to replace an equal number of older vehicles. It costs HATS an additional 312,000 to have the manufacturer add a lift to each bus. If HATS decides to order lifts for all its new buses, the cost will come to 3350,000. The incremental cost of maintaining a lift -equipped bus for a year is 31000. Therefore, the cost of buying and maintaining 30 lift -equipped buses for FY 1984 would be 5390,000. This figure exceeds the cost limit by 370, 500. HATS is not required to spend this S70,500 in, FY 1984. HATS could voluntarily spend the entire 5390,000. However, it also has the option (among others) of buying lifts on only 24 of the 30 new buses, thereby saving 378,000. If it did so, its total expenditures for the year would be 5312,000. Since HATS does not yet have 50 percent of its buses accessible, it would be required to use the S7500 to ensure that it would meet, as closely as possible, the service criteria with its existing buses or on other expenditures allowable under paragraph (e) of the regulation (e.g., marketing for the accessible service, training for drivers) relating to the provision of accessible service. 16 Of course, HATS could choose, subject to the public participation requirements of paragraph (g) of the regulation, to buy fewer buses and spend more on marketing, training, and other allowable administrative costs. The Department stresses, however, that recipients' efforts should be directed toward "on the street service." While training, marketing and other administrative activities are important, recipients should not overemphasize them at the expense of actually providing accessible transportation services. The Department would examine the balance betwaen administrative expenses and service provision in programs submitted to the Department under paragraph (g) . The Department seeks comment on one possible variation to this scheme. The rule could permit recipients to take credit for their expenditures above the cost limit in the following two or three-year period. In the above example, HATS could order lifts on all 30 of the buses it buys in FY 1984, adding the amount in excess of its cost limit for that year to its allowable expenditures for FY 1985. HATS would not, however, be permitted to spend less than its cost limit in FY 1984 (because it has not yet reached 50 percent accessibility) and compensate by higher expenditures in subsequent years. Is this idea consistent with the "prevention of undue hardship" rationale for the cost limit? Is it or some other averaging scheme workable? If such a provision is adopted, should the Department set limits on the degree of averaging that should occur, in order to prevent undue fluctuations in levels of support for service? HATS would be required to make expenditures up to its cost limit every year until the 50 percent accessiblity level was reached. Once having reached that level' (e.g., 75 buses) HATS would only be required to spend the funds needed to maintain the lifts (e.g., 575,000 per, year) , administer the system (e.g., marketing or training related to the accessible bus service) plus whatever amount was needed to replace worn-out lift -equipped buses with new lift -equipped buses on a one -for -one basis. The fact that this amount was substantially below the cost limit for any year would not mean that HATS would have to spend more. During the years before HATS reached the 50 percent level, iti would be required to provide service to handicapped persons with the buses it had. HATS would design this service in consultation with handicapped persons and organizations representing them as part cf the public participation process required by subparagraphs (g)(1) - (4) of this section. One of the issues the recipient should discuss as part of this consultation process is the tradeoff between immediate provision of usable transportation and the buildup of the final accessible system. For example, a recipient could buy fewer accessible buses each year (resulting in a longer period of time before the 50 percent level was reached) and spend some of its funds on a transitional special services system which would provide, during the early years of the system, more rides to handicapped individuals. The Department seeks comment on whether the final rule should include any provisions governing this kind of trade-off. Under subparagraph (2), HATS could choose to establish a special service system, the Hypothetical Area Paratransit Service (HAPS) . For FY 1984, the capital and operating costs of HAPS--assuming it met all service criteria --would be s400,000. But HATS is required to spend only 5319,500. HATS could voluntarily spend the entire S400,000. If it does not choose to do so, HATS could make trade-offs among the various service criteria to the point where the combined capital and operating costs of HAPS 18 fell to 5319,500. For example, if HAPS did not operate on evenings and weekends, established some restrictions on trip purpose, and charged fares a dollar higher than regular bus service, HAPS could reduce capital and operating outlays by $80,500. HATS would use the public participation process to obtain the views of handicapped persons and their groups concerning these trade-offs. On the other hand, if HAPS could meet all service criteria for 5250,000, HAPS would not have to spend another 569,500 to come up to the cost limit. Under subparagraph (3), HATS could use accessihle buses on two major routes and use HAPS to cover the remainder of the service area. If HATS bought eight lift -equipped buses toward this end in FY 1984, it would spend $104,000 (including maintenance) on the accessible bus portion of its mixed service. HATS would not be required to spend more than 5215,500 on its HAPS paratransit service in this case. If the cost of meeting all service criteria for the HAPS service exceeded 3215,500, HATS could again make trade-offs among the service criteria to bring costs down to thls level. In deciding on the service and resource allocation mixes between accessible bus and HAPS service, as well as in deciding the service criteria trade-offs in the HAPS component of the mix, HATS would obtain the vi':ws of handicapped persons and their organizations through the public participation process. This portion of the rule speaks in terms of but and special services. Where accessible rail systems exist, it would make sense for recipients to jntagrate their accessible bus or paratransit service with the accoessible rail service. As pointed out in the discussion of the cost limit, however, costs of accessibility modifications to rail systems required by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 could not be counted toward the cost limit. In addition, the three alternatives for meeting section 504 requirements proposed in this paragraph do not directly address one situation that may exist in some parts of the country. The Department seeks comment on what, if anything, the regulation should provide with respect to commuter rail operations that extend beyond normal mass transit service areas and that, in some cases, may not be operated by agencies that have regular mass transit systems. For example, Maryland DOT operates a commuter rail service between Brunswick, Maryland and Washington, D.C. This service extends far beyond the service area for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's bus and rapid rail systems. If a special provision for commuter rail operations is included in the final rule, it could take a number of different forms. For example, it could require certain rail vehicles and key stations to be made accessible (similar to the commuter rail provision of the Department's 1979 rule). It could require special service (e.g., accessible vans) running along commuter rail routes during morning and evening rush hours. It could allow commuter rail operators to choose among these or other options. The Department's regulatory impact analysis discusses the potential costs of some of these options. 127.77(c) Service Criteria. This paragraph lists siu service criteria which special service systems under subparagraphs (b) (2) and (3) are required to meet. As mentioned in the discussion of paragraph (b), the requirement to meet these criteria is subject to the cost limit of paragraph (d) . Recipients have a responsibility to meet these criteria in a sensible manner that maximizes the utility of transportation services to their users. The UMTA Administrator would not accept a certification of a program that, while technically meeting the criteria, was not compatible with the objectives of this regulation (e.g., a system that met all criteria for only eight months out of the year and did not operate during the rest of the year) . The first criterion is that the service shall be available to handicapped persons throughout the same general service area as the recipient's service for the general public. Generally speaking, if a member of the public can get to a given location by fixed route service, the special service should take a handicapped user there. The Department seeks comments on hew the regulation should treat service that extends substantially beyond the normal urban service area. For example, Baltimore's regular bus service covers the City of Baltimore and Baltimore County, which surrounds the city. However, there —are extended commuter bus runs to locations such as Annapolis, about 40 miles away from. downtown _Baltimore.-- Under- the proposed -rule-; the recipt rrt`- would cover these routes if it could do so within the cost cap. If not, the coverage of these routes could be one of the factors involved in a tradeoff with other demands on resources. Should the final rule include any special provision concerning this situation? The second criterion is that the special service be available on the same days and during the same hours as the recipient's service for the general public,. If the recipient's regular bus service, for example, runs evenings and weekends, so should the special service. The..third criterion is that the fare for a handicapped person using the special service be comparable to the fare for a member of the general public using the recipient's regular service. These comparable fares can .vary, as do the fares for the general public, with the length of the trip and time of day .le•g•, rusn nour vs. non -peak) . By saying "comparable" fares, the Department does not mean "identical" fares. Any variance between special service and regular service fares should be relatively small. however, and be justifiable in terms of actual differences between the two kinds of service provided by the recipient. In existing special service systems, it is common for transportation to be restricted to certain purposes, such as medical treatment or commuting to work. Travel for other purposes is not provided or is provided only after all demand for trips for the priority purposes is satisfied. These restrictions or priorities do not apply to the general public's use of the recipient's regular service. The fourth criterion prohibits the establishment of such restrictions or priorities based on trip purpose. One of the major inconveniences of using many existing demand -responsive systems is the long period of time that elapses between a request for service and the arrival of a vehicle. This waiting period --which can be 48 or 72 hours in some cases --is far longer than a member of the general public must wait for public transportation. The fifth criterion would limit this waiting period to a "reasonable time." This reasonable advance notification time would be determined by the recipient, after obtaining the views of handicapped persons and their organizations through the public participation process. Since shorter response times cost the system more, the precise length of the maximum response time is one of the "trade-offs" that recipients and handicapped users should discuss as recipients establish their programs. The Department seeks comment on whether- there should be a regulatory maximum waiting period and, if so, what it should be. The sixth criterion prohibits the use of waiting lists. Some systems limit the availability of service to a certain number of users. All other eligible potential users are placed on a waiting list, and receive no service at all. This criterion would require the special service system to have sufficient capacity to serve all eligible users. The context of this di .cession of service criteria has been a special services system. However, the service criteria also apply to the other options recipients can choose. An accessible fixed route bus system, for example, vould meet some criteria (e.g., comparable fares, no waiting lists) almost automatically. On the other hand, buses could be assigned to various routes and trips in a way that might not result in accessible service that covered the same service area as the recipient's service to the general public or operated during the same hours on all routes. Accessible buses could be scheduled on routes in a way that would result in—km.9 waiting-periods—fcr-handicapped----- users (the welting time criterion would refer to scheduling intervals rather than advance notification in an accessible bus system) . Accessible bus service would have to be designed to meet the criteria that were not met automatically, subject to the cost limit. The Department seeks comment on the relationship of the service criteria to accessible fixed route bus service, particularly with respect to the recipient's obligations in situations in which its accessible bus service (either before or after the 50 percent accessibility level were reached) did not meet all service criteria. 127.77(d) Llmltatlen on Costs to Recipients. In APTA v. Lewis, the Court, while suggesting that the Department could require recipients to take modest affirmative steps to meet the needs of handicapped persons, said that the Department's 1979 rule exceeded the Department's authority under section 504. The primary reason for this conclusion was that the 1979 rule imposed, in the Court's view, extremely high financial burdens on recipients. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's holding in Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (1979) , that section 504 does not require program modifications that result in a fundamental alteration in the nature cf a program. The Supreme Court also stated in this case that section 504 does not require modifications that would result in "undue financial and administrative burdens." Paragraph (d) is intended to apply the principles stated in these cases to the Department's section 504 regulation. The paragraph is intended to ensure that compliance with the regulation does not necessitate fundamental alteration to recipients' programs or impose undue financial or administrative burdens. A fundamental alteration of recipients' programs, and the related undue financial burdens, are not required to comply with the nondiscrimination mandate of section 504. The absence of a provision of this kind could cause the regulation or enforcement action under the regulation to be subject to successful legal challenge. Such a result, and the consequent uncertainty about the duties of recipients, would benefit no one. It should be emphasized that this provision is not intended to judge the value of handicapped persons or weigh the cost of an accommodation to a recipient against the benefit to a handicapped person. The Department proposes this provision in recognition of the boundaries to the section 504 obligations of recipients articulated in the Davis and APTA cases. In the Department's view, it is a reasonable administrative mechanism for ensuring that recipients' obligations under the rule do not go beyond those boundaries. The Department makes two alternative proposals for this cost limit. Both these proposals are based on a review by the Department of a special services program operated in Milwauk'ae, Wisconsin. The Department also looked at special service systems in other areas, and decided to use the Milwaukee system as a model because it appeared to meet many (though not all) of the service criteria proposed in the rule at a cost that did not impose an undue financial hardship. The percentages discussed in the two alternative cost limit proposals are approximately the percentages of UMTA azsistance to Milwaukee and the Milwaukee transit provider's operating budget, respectively, expended on Milwaukee's special service system. The Department recognizes that Milwaukee's experience may not necessaril• be representative of that of other transit authorities. The cost of providing service in other cities could differ. The Department would like to receive comments and cost information from other areas in connection with establishing a cost limit that will be as widely applicable as possible. The Department believes that it is important to have as broad and deep a set of data as possible to help us make a decision on the appropriate cost limit (if this concept is retained for the final rule) and the relationship of expenditure levels to the adequacy of services. Consequently, we are interested in receiving as much comment and inforrnatior as possible on this matter. The first alternative is to limit each recipient's obligation to make expenditures in _a given fiscal year to 7.1 percent of the annual average amount of Federal financial assistance it has received for mass transportation purposes over the current and the previous two fiscal years. By tying the cost limit to Federal financial assistance, this approach would respond to concerns about the equity of Federal requirements for expenditures that are not proportional to actual assistance received. This consideration may be especially important in light of current Federal budget limitations. The second -alternative is to limit a recipient's costs to 3.0 percent of the recipient's average operating budgets, from whatever source derived, over the current and previous two fiscal years. Since operating budgets may fluctuate less than Federal assistance, this approach might provide more stability in funding levels for the recipient's program of transportation services for handicapped persons. In addition to soliciting comments on the relative merits of these two alternative approaches, we also request that commenters provide suggestions, based on their own experience if possible, of what an appropriate percentage level for either approach would be. We also seek suggestions for cost limit approaches other than the two set forth here. Combinations of cost limit approaches might also be possible (e.g., the greater, or lesser, amount derived by applying the two criteria discussed above) . The Department also ,seeks comments on whether greater specification of the bases (UMTA financial assistance, operating budget) from which the cost limits would be calcuated would be desirable. For example, are there a standard set of items which should be regarded as part of a recipient's operating budget? Are there some UMTA funding sources that shou4d not go into the calculation? Should there be a specified way of handling unusual funding situations- (e.g., an unusually heavy " infusion of Federal funds connected with the construction of a new rail system) that could distort the funding base for transportation for handicapped persons? The following example illustrates how the cost limit calculations would turn out, beginning with FY 1984. The table shows imaginary operating budget and DOT financial assistance figures for HATS. The right-hand columns show the HATS cost limits calculated according to Alternative 1 (7.1 percent of DOT financial assistance) and Alternative 2 (3.0 percent of operating budget) . Fiscal HATS Operating Year Budget DOT Financial Cost Limit Assistance 1982 11 million 4 million 1983 12 million 4.5 million 1984 13 million 5 million 319,500 360,000 1985 14 million 5.5 million 355,000 390,000 1986 15 million 6 million 390,500 420,000 Alt. 1 Alt. 2 The cost limits were calculated by averaging the operating budget or financial assistance figures for the fiscal year in question and the two previous fiscal years and taking the appropriate percentage of the result. For example, the alternative 2 cost limit for FY -1984 was 3.0 percent of S12 million, the average of the HATS operating budgets for FY 1982 - 1984. In this example, the alternative 2 cost limit always turned out higher than the alternative 1 cost limit. This was because of the relationship between the hypothetical HATS operating budget and DOT assistance amounts. This relationship may not be at all typical of real transit authority situations (it is not the same as the situation in Milwaukee, for instance) . The Department requests that recipients commenting on the proposed rule inform the Department of the relationship between the two figures in their cases. The cost limits under either alternative would be higher in the example if one took the appropriate percentage of the operating budget or financial assistance for the current fiscal year alone, rather than of the average of the current fiscal year with the two previous fiscal years (though there are conceivable circumstances in which this would not be true) . The averaging approach, however, allows for greater predictability and, particularly with respect to the Federal assistance approach, greater stability. The Department seeks comments from interested parties making detailed. recommendations on how these calculations can best be made. 127.77(e) Eligible Project Expenses. Paragraph (e) describes the types of expenditures which may or may not be counted toward calculating the cost limit effort criterion. The eligible and ineligible expense categories are taken, with minor modifications, from Appendix A of the current interim final rule. The Department seeks comments on these eligible and ineligible expenses. The Department calls the public's attention to three provisions of th4s paragraph in particular. Subparagraph (e) (1) (A) permits the recipient to count the incremental costs of operating -accessible -rolling,-• ---- stock. Subparagraph .(e) (1) (C) allows the incremental capital costs of accessible rolling stock. In most cases, the accessible rolling stock in question will be lift -equipped buses. However, for recipients who have accessible rail systems, the incremental costs of buying and operating accessible rail vehicles could also be counted. For purposes of this subparagraph, rail vehicles would not be regarded as accessible unless they formed part of an accessible rail system that handicapped persons could use. We emphasize that the allowable costs are the incremental costs of buying and operating accessible vehicles (i.e., the cost of equipping a bus with a lift, not the whole cost of the bus) . Only costs which could be specifically identified and reasonably attributed to accessibility would be allowable. Subparagraph (e) (2) (A) provides that the cost of constructing or modifying fixed facilities in order to comply with a requirement of the Department's regulation or a requirement under the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 are not eligible expenses, unless the constructina or modification relates directly to the provision of transportation services that handicapped persons can use. One difference between this paragraph and Appendix A results from the fact that Appendix A dealt with a minimum expenditure criterion. To meet this criterion, expenditures by parties other than the recipient could be counted. However, the purpose of the cost limit is to prevent the recipient itself from having to make unreasonably large expenditures. Therefore, only expenditures by the recipient itself count in calculating the cost limit. J §27.77(f) Provision of Service. Paragraph (f) is an important statement of the recipient's responsibility to provide actual transportation service to handicapped persons. To fulfill its committment to provide transportation service according to its program, the recipient cannot avoid its responsibility by planning service on paper and failing to provide it on the streets. If a recipient certifies that it has a program for providing transportation services, but does not maintain and deploy accessible vehicles, train drivers and other personnel, and administer its program (e.g., provide information and assistance to handicapped persons and establish usable means of communications with respect to using the service) so that the service is actually provided as the program promises, then the recipient is not in compliance with this regulation. For example, a recipient that chose to comply with the regulation by making 50 percent of its buses accessible would not be in compliance with this_paragraph- if, after buying lift -equipped buses,- it failed - to maintain them in operating condition. 127.77(g) Procedural Requirements. Paragraph (g) sets forth several procedural requirements. One of these is that there be consultation with handicapped individuals and groups representing them as part of a public participation process for developing the program for transporting the handicapped persons. Handicapped people, public and private health and welfare agencies, and groups representing handicapped persons should be meaningfully involved in planning efforts to meet recipients' requirements under this proposed rule. Otherwise, effective project development is unlikely. At least one public hearing would be required as part of this process. This public hearing would not necessarily need to be a special hearing called just to consider a special efforts program. As long as the concerns of the public (especially handicapped persons) about the program could be fully addressed, the Department would not object to combining this hearing with any other timely UMTA-required hearing (e.g., the public comment and hearing process required under section 9(f) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended) . In order to permit handicapped persons to participate as required by section 23.67 of the. Department's existing section 504 regulation, recipients must schedule hearings in accessible facilities and publicize the hearings in a way to reach persons with hearing and vision impairments (e.g., large print notices, radio advertisements, etc. for visually impaired persons; notices sent to organizations representing or serving people with vision or hearing impairments) . In addition, a sign language- rota prete.r-£�an hearing—+mpa+red•--• - persons should be provided at a hearing if one has been requested or if it is reasonable to expect that hearing -impaired persons will attend. In addition to the public hearing, there must be notice (again, a notice that reaches hearing and vision impaired persons) and an opportunity for written comment on the recipient's program proposal. Under the proposal, the public would be given 60 days to submit written comments on the recipient's proposed program. There would have to be at least 30 days advance notice of the public hearing, which would take place sometime during the second half of the 60 -day public comment period. The local Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), where one exists, must also have the opportunity to comment on the proposed program. One of the subjects which the Department believes it is relevant for transit authorities to discuss as part of the public participation process is the effect of changes in service patterns on handicapped or elderly users of existing service. For example, if a recipient which currently has a paratransit system decides to comply with this regulation by making 50 percent of its buses accessible, some current users of the paratransit system might have difficulty adapting to the new system. The recipient should seek ways of making the transition between the old and new service that would mitigate hardship to current user;. The recipient would be required to make efforts to accommodate, to the extent reasonable and consistent with overall program objectives, significant comments it receives from the MPO, the public, and handicapped persons and organizations representing handicapped persons. The recipient is not required to accommodate every comment, or even a majority of such comments_ However, it..is required to. make. available to the_public. a written explanation of its reasons for not accommodating comments. This is intended to ensure that recipients are responsive to significant comments, even those that they do not agree with. This "accommodate or explain" requirement parallels the obligation of Federal agencies, under Executive Order 12372, to respond to concerns from state and local governments on proposed Federal actions. The recipient would have to complete its program planning process and submit required materials to UMTA within nine months after the effective date of a final regulation. The Department seeks comment on whether nine months is an appropriate length of time for the planning and public participation process. There- is no -requirement that the recipient obtain prior approval of the program from UMTA; sending in the certification and program description are sufficient. After reviewing the description and certification, UMTA could, however, require changes to be made in the program. The agency could also reject the program as inconsistent with the requirements of this part. UMTA would review recipients' submissions as expeditiously as possible, and would respond to recipients as soon as possible within the 90 -day period if problems are discovered. Any certification that is not rejected or required to be changed within 90 days of its receipt by UMTA would be considered accepted. If the recipient did not hear from UMTA within this time, it could assume that UMTA had accepted the submission. The Administrator could extend this 90 -day review period, if necessary. It is not intended that such an extension would be open-ended. The letter notifying the recipient of the extension --the purpose of which is simply to give the Administrator sufficient time to make a thorough evaluation of the recipient's program= -would set a particular length of time (e.g., 30 additional days) for the extension. During any such extension, the recipient would not be subject to a finding of noncompliance based on the inadequacy of its program. Subparagraph (g) (8) proposes that the recipient's program must actually go into effect (i.e., money must begin to be spent and transportation made available as provided in the program) on the firs: da•" of the fiscal year (the recipient's fiscal year, not the Federaa fiscal- year) next following the date on which the recipient's certification is due (i . e. , a date nine months from the effective date of the final regulation) . If the.,Administrator's 90 -day (or extended) review period had not ended before the first day of the fiscal year in question, the recipient would not be required to begin implementing its program until the review_ period_ had ended. 33 This provision for the date on which the program actually goes into effect is proposed for two reasons. First, it gives recipients what should be an adequate start-up or transition period for its transportation service. Second, it avoids budgeting problems that recipients might have if they had to begin a new expenditure program in the middle of a fiscal year, particularly given the uncertainty that would result if the Administrator required changes in the recipient's program. Between the effective date of the regulation and the effective date of the recipient's program, the certification provided by the recipient under the present interim final rule (and the transportation provided by the recipient pursuant to the existing certification) would remain in effect. The Department seeks comment on whether this method of determining the effective date is appropriate, or whether other alternatives would be better. We are interested in devising a provision that avoids undue delay for the beginning of service as well as budget and planning difficulties for recipients. For example, the Department might use the Federal fiscal year instead of the recipient's fiscal year to calculate the starting point, or determine that recipients should start to implement their programs a stated time afte- submission, even if that fell in the middle of a fiscal year. The Department also generally seeks comments on ways of minimizing administrative burdens resulting from the statutorily -required public participation mechanism, particularly with respect to small entities. 127.77(17) Monitoring of Program Implementation. This paragraph would require recipients to send UMTA an annual report detailing the services provided to handicapped persons under its program. The contents of the program are self-explanatory. UMTA would designate a date each year on which the report of a given recipient would be due. (The date would be the same each year for the recipient; however, the due dates would be staggered so that UMTA did not have to review all reports at the same time) . This paragraph is intended to comply with the monitoring requirement of section 317(c) . The annual report is intended to be a public document, which the recipient would make available to anyone who requested it. lo addition, the Department seeks comments on whether the recipient should be required to seek and respond to comments concerning the annual report (a requirement analogous to the comment and response requirement for the recipient's original program submission) . Section 9 recipients are required .to ,submit independently conducted annual audits. In addition, the Department must perform a full evaluation or review of section 9 recipients' programs every three years. The Department invites comment on whether it would be practical to combine this monitoring provision with these audit requirements, and, if so, how such a combined system would work. The Department also seeks comments on whether, when a recipient reports significant changes in its program as part of its annual report, it should also be required to submit a new certification pertaining to its altered program. The Department generally seeks suggestions on ways of minimizing the administrative burdens involved in the statutorily required monitoring process, especially as regards smaller transit authorities and smaller local governments. J27.77(1) Disparate Treatment. This paragraph is identical to section 27.77(c) of the existing interim final rule. It is intended to make explicit that this section does not permit the recipient to engage in disparate treatment to the disadvantage of a handicapped person with respect to transportation on the recipien't's regular mass transit system. If a handicapped person is capable of using the recipient's regular service provided to the general public, then the transit operator cannot deny service to the handicapped person on the ground of handicap. This means, for example, that a recipient must permit a person using means of assistance such as guide dogs or crutches to use its vehicles and services. Disparate treatment contrary to this paragraph is encompassed by §27.7, the general nondiscrimination section of 49 CFR Part 27. However, under this proposal, a recipient's certification will constitute compliance with section 504 as it relates to the transportation of handicapped persons. Therefore, the Department believes that it is useful to make this prohibition specific, so that it is clear that, notwithstanding the certification, the recipient may not engage in disparate treatment. 327.77(1) Noncompliance. This paragraph would make explicit the kinds of conduct that would place a recipient in jeopardy of enforcement action under Subpart F of 49 CFR Part 27. A recipient could be in noncompliance if it failed to make the appropriate certification under paragraph (a), had its certification rejected under paragraph (g) and did not correct the deficiencies that led to the rejection in a timely manner, failed to provide service as required by paragraph (f) or to put its program into effect in the time required by subparagraph (g)(8), failed to use public participation procedures required by paragraph (g), or failed to provide a report under paragraph (h) . This list is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the Department's discretion with respect to enforcement of section 504. For example, violation of the general requirements of Subparts A and B of Part 27 would also subject the recipient to the procedures of Subpart F. Executive Orders 12250 and 12291, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Under Executive Order 12250, the Department of Justice is required to review Federal agency regulations Implementing section 504. This NPRM has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice under this Executive Order. Under the criteria of Executive Order 12291, this NPRM proposes a major rule. The Department has concluded that the proposal could have an annual cost. impact .exceeding_3.100_mi.Uion__The•-Oepartraen.t-has- prepared a preliminary regulatory impact analysis to accompany this proposal, which is available for public review in the rulemaking docket. The proposal also constitutes a significant regulation under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. This is the case both because of its cost impact and because it deals with subject matter that has always been controversial. This proposal includes information collection requirements (the certification and program materials submission requirement of subparagraphs (g) (5) and (6) and the reporting requirement of paragraph (h)) . The Office of Management and Budget must review and approve such requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. These provisions, if included in a final regulation, would not go into effect until approved by OMB.. The rule proposed by this notice could have a significarrt economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. That is, the proposed requirements could impose cost and administrative burdens on relatively small transit authorities, local governments, and businesses. The Department has consequently incorporated a preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis into its regulatory impact analysis. The Department seeks comments on • ways of mitigating the potential effects of the proposed rule on small entities. List of Subjects Includ. : Mass Transportation, Handicapped ISSUED AT WASHINGTON, D.C., THIS FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1983. • Acting Secretary of Transportation For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Transportation proposes to amend Part 27 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, by amending section 27.77 thereof to read as follows: §27.77 Urban Mass Transportation (a) Certification. (1) Except as provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, each recipient of Federal financial assistance from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) under sections 3, 5, 9, or 9A of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, shall certify that it has in effect a program. for providing transportation services to handicapped and elderly persons. The certification shall state that the program meets all substantive and procedural requirements of this section. (2) In lieu of certifying as required by subparagraph (1) of this. paragraph, recipients who receive funds only under section 18 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act, as amended (small urban and rural transportation programs), shall certify to the FHWA Division Administrator through the designated section 18 state agency that special efforts are being made in their service areas to provide transportation that handicapped persons, including wheelchair users and semiambulatory persons, can use. This transportation service shall be reasonable in comparison to the service provided to the general public and shall meet a significant fraction of the actual transportation needs of such persons within a reasonable time. Recipients of section 18 funds who have already provided such a certification are not" required to recertify. (3) Acceptance of the recipient's certification by the UMTA or FHWA Administrator, and compliance by the recipient with all other applicable requirements of this Part, shall be deemed by the Department to constitute compliance with section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, sections 16(a) and (c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act, and section 165(b) of the Federal -aid Highway Act of 1973, insofar as these statutes relate to the provision of mass transportation services for handicapped persons. (b) Types of Service. Subject to the cost limit of paragraph (d) of this section, each recipient's program shall provide for making transportation services meeting the service criteria of paragraph (c) of this section available to handicapped and elderly through one of the following methods: (1) Making 50 percent of fixed route bus service accessible to handicapped and elderly persons. Fifty percent of fixed route bus service shall be deemed to be accessible when half the buses the recipient uses during both peak and non -peak hours are accessible. (2) Providing paratransit or special services for handicapped and elderly persons. All handicapped and elderly persons in the recipient's service area who are unable, by reason of their handicap or age, to use the recipient's service fo.r the general public shall be eligible to use the service; or (3) Providing a mix of accessible fixed route service and paratransit r. r� ,avta 4I L.JIC Lc) use a special services or paratransit system under subparagraph (2) of this paragraph shall be eligible to use the special services or paratransit component of the mixed system. (c) Service Criteria. The following minimum criteria for the provision of transportation services to handicapped and elderly individuals apply to any means of providing such services selected by the recipient under paragraph (b) of this section: (1) The service shall be available throughout the same service area as the recipient's service for the general public. (2) The service shall be available on the same days and during the same hours as the recipient's service for the general public. (3) The cost of a trip on the service to each user shall be comparable to the cost of a trip of similar length, at a similar time of day, to a user of the recipient's service for the general public. (4) Use of the service shall not be restricted by priorities or conditions related to trip purpose. (5) Users of the service shall not be required to wait for the service more than a reasonable time. (6) There shall not be a waiting list for the provision of service to eligible users. (d) Limitation on Costs to Recipients. No recipient shall be required, in order to meet the requirements of paragraph (b), to expend in any fiscal year an amount exceeding [Alternative 1 - 7.1 percent of the average annual amount of Federal financial assistance for mass transportation it expects to receive over the current fiscal year and has received over the two previous two fiscal years] or [Alternative 2 - 3.0 percent of the average of the recipient's operating budgets for the current fiscal year and the previous two fiscal years]. (e) Eligible Project Expenses. (1) Project expenses eligible to be counted in determining whether a recipient has reached the cost limitation of paragraph (d) of this sectio,i include the following: (A) Payment of current incremental operating costs for accessible rolling stock; (B) Operating costs of special service system; (C) Capital costs for special services systems components, incremental capital costs of acquiring accessible rolling stock; (D) Payment of expenses of indirect methods of providing services; (E) Administrative costs directly attributable to coordinating services (including those receiving funds under the UMTA section 16(b) (2) program) for handicapped persons; (F) Incremental costs directly attributable to training the recipient's personnel to provide services to handicapped persons; (2) Project expenses ineligible to be counted in determining whether the cost limit of paragraph (d) has been reached include the following: (A) Costs of construction of or structural changes to fixed facilities required by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 that do not directly relate to the actual provision of transportation service that handicapped persons can use, as required by this section and set forth in the recipient's program; and (B) Administrative costs of compliance with this Part not specifically. allowed by subparagraph (1) of this section. With respect to transportation that serves both handicapped persons and other persons, only that part of the service that serves handicapped persons may be counted toward eligible project expenses for purposes of this section. (3) (f) Provision of Service. Each recipient shall ensure that service is provided to handicapped and elderly persons as set forth in the recipient's program. The recipient shall ensure that equipment is maintained, personnel are properly trained and supervised, and program administration is carried out in a manner that does not permit actual service to handicapped and elderly persons to fall below the level set forth in the recipient's program. (g) Procedural Requirements. (1) The recipient shall develop the program required by this section through a public participation process that includes consultation with handicapped individuals and/or groups representing them, an opportunity for written public comment, and at least one public hearing. Any subsequent significant changes to the program shall also be developed through such a public participation process. (2) The recipient's public participation process shall include a period of at least GO days for comment on the recipient's proposed program for providing transportation services to handicapped and elderly persons. The public hearing shall take place during this comment period, and notice of the hearing shall be given at least 30 days before the date of the hearing. All notices and materials pertaining to the proposed program, comment period, and public hearing shall be made available by means that will reach persons with hearing and vision impairments. (3) The recipient shall also submit its proposed program to the local metropolitan planning organization (MPO),if any, for comment. (4) The recipient shall make efforts to accommodate significant comments from the MPO and the public (including handicapped individuals and groups representing handicapped 'individuals) . With respect to such comments that the recipient did not accommodate, the recipient shall make available to the public a written statement of its reasons for not accommodating them. The program and associated materials, including comments and recommendations from the MPO and the public, a transcript of the hearing, and the recipient's explanation of instances of non - accommodation, shall be kept available to the public for review for three years. (5) The recipient shall submit copies of the following materials to the UMTA Administrator at the time it submits its certification: (A) A copy of its program; (B) The recipient's projected cost limit for the first fiscal year in which the program will be in effect and the amount of funds the recipient will expend to implement the program in that year; • (C) The comments of the public (including handicapped persons and groups representing them) and the ,MP0 on the recipient's program, or a summary of these comments; and (D) The recipient's responses to these comments, or a summary of the recipient's responses. (6) The recipient shall complete the program planning process and submit its certification and program materials to the UMTA Administrator by [a date nine months from the effective date of the revised regulation] . (7) Based on the information contained in the program materials and other relevant information gathered by the Administrator, the Administrator may reject the certification or require the recipient to make changes in its program. Any certification that the Administrator does not reject or require to be changed within 90 days of its receipt is deemed to be accepted. The Administrator may, -at his or her discretion, extend this review period for a reasonable time. (8) The- recipient's program shall go ,into effect no later than the first day of the next fiscal year of the recipient which begins after the date the recipient is required to submit its certification to the Administrator. Provided, that in no case shall a recipient's program be required to go into effect before the conclusion of the review period established by subparagraph (g) (7) of this paragraph. In the interim between the effective date of this section and the date the recipient's program goes into effect, the certification submitted by the recipient in response to the Department's July 20, 1981 interim final rule (46 FR 34788) shall remain in effect. (h) Monitoring of Program Implementation. Each recipient shall send an annual report to the UMTA Administrator on or before a date designated for the recipient by the Administrator. The report, which shall be available to the public, shall contain the following information: (1) A description of the transportation services provided to handicapped persons in the year covered by the report, with specific reference to the service criteria listed in paragraph (c) of this section; (2) If the recipient was unable to meet all the service criteria listed in paragraph- lc) of this section because doing so would cause the recipient to exceed the cost limitation of paragraph (d), the recipient's cost limit and a summarized account of the recipient's eligible project expenses; (3) If the recipient has not attained the level of service which its program ultimately projects, the recipient's progress toward that level during the completed reporting year and an estimate of the progress expected to be made toward that level during the next reporting year; (4) Any significant changes in the program made during the completed reporting year; and (5) A description of any significant changes in the.transportation service provided to handicapped persons or the resources available for such services expected in the next reporting year. (i) Disparate Treatment. Notwithstanding the recipient's certification under paragraph (a) of this section, the recipient shall not on the basis of handicap deny transportation service on the recipient's system of mass transportation for the general public to any handicapped person capable of using such service, or otherwise discriminate against such person in connection with such service. (j) Noncompliance. The following conduct on the part of a recipient constitutes noncompliance with this section and makes the recipient liable to enforcement action under Subpart F of —this Part. This list of noncomplying conduct is not necessarily exhaustive. (1) Failure to make a certification required by paragraph (a) in the time provided in subparagraph (9)(6); (2) After rejection of a certification by the UMTA Administrator under subparagraph (9)(7), failure to correct in a timely manner the deficiencies that resulted in the rejection, sufficient to allow the Administrator to accept the certification; (3) Failure to put the program into effect at the time required by subparagraph (g) (8); (4) Failure to provide service as required)by paragraph (f); (5) Failure to follow public participation procedures set forth in subparagraphs (g) (1) - (4) ; and (6) Failure to provide program materials required by subparagraphs (g)(5) - (6) or reports required by paragraph (h) at the times required by paragraphs (g) and (h), respectively. AGENDA ITEM 6 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 1933-84 SB 821 Projects Enclosed is a copy of the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Project list approved for funding by the Commission at their meeting on September 15, 1933. The Commission approved the projects recom- mended by the SB 821 Selection Committee which was composed of three members of the Citizens Advisory Committee and three members of the Technical Advisory Committee. BB/PB:nk Enclosure Agenda Item No, 6 CAC Mtg. 10/25/83 58821 PROJECT RANKINGS y, FUNDS AGENCY PROJECT REQUESTED RANK CITY OF RIVERSIDE Construct bikeway along $46,650 1 Santa Ana River from Buena Vista to Rubidoux Ave. CATHEDRAL CITY Repair Bikepath along $10,000 2 WhitewateL River CITY OF RIVERSIDE Construct bikepath along $70,450 3 Santa Ana River from Rubidoux Ave. to Anza Narrows perk RIVERSIDE COUNTY Construct sidewalk on Meridian Ave in Valle Vista $15,000 4 SAN JACINTO Construct sidewalk around $8,721 4 Mistletoe Park HEMET Construct bikeways on $29,133 5 Stetson, Whittier, Oakland, Devonshire, and Lyon HEMET INDIO Construct sidewalks at $28,711 6 various locations on Florida Ave. Construct sidewalks on $24,815 7 Jackson, Avenue 47, Avenue 48 and Van Buren DES. HOT SPRINGS Construct sidewalks on West $20,650 8 Dr. and Hacienda Ave. CORONA Construct sidewalks at $69,250 9 various locations 1 ITEM N0. 7 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director SUBJECT: Committee Membership Status During the past month, all Committee members whose terms expire this year were asked whether they wanted to serve for another term. Members whose terms expire in two years were asked whether they wanted to continue to serve the remainder of their current term. None of the members whose terms expire in two years wish to resign their membership. Five of the seven members whose terms expire this year have asked to be reappointed by the Commission. The Commission has been provided with this information and the attached list. At its meeting on November 17th, the Commission is expected to make eight appointments to the Committee, of which at least three will be new appointments to replace ambers not requesting to be reappointed and to fill the existing vacancy, BB/PB:nk Attachment Agenda Item No, 7 CAC Mtg. 10/25/83 CAC MEMBERS DO NOT TERM ; UISH TO BE WISH TO BE EXPIRED 9/g3; REAPPOINTED REAPPOINTED MARIAN CARPELAN DONNA CROWE i x X FRED FICKAS GORDON HASS JORDAN T. HUNTLEY RICHARD JANDT HERBERT KRAUCH RAND MARTIN I BEN MINNICH 1 I' 1 LLOYD O' CONNELL X X RENA PARKER EHRL SHADE X X SHEILA VELEZ X X LAURENCE WEINBERG X X RAN t JYDER X X 1 RCTC M INUTES Minutes of Meeting No. 9-83 August 18, 1983 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commissicn was called to order by Vice Chairman Susan Cornelison at 1:58 p.m., on Thursday, August 18, 1983, at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Members present: Kay Ceniceros Susan Cornelison Melba Dunlap Bill Edmonds Phil Jones Norton Younglove Alternate present: Jim Adams 2. Approval of Minutes. .M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/JONES) to approve the minutes of the July 28, 1983 as submitted. 3. Public Comments. There were no public comments. 4e Draft Regional Transportation Plan. Barry Beck, Executive Director-, informed the Commission that the proposed draft Regional Transportation Plan represents a fairly substantial departure from past plans. A primary new feature of the 1983 draft plan is the analysis of transporta- tion needs on a corridor by corridor basis. On the other hand, the draft plan is just like past plans in some respects because under the Action Element, it lists just about all the projects ever been thought of. The unfortunate aspect of the corridor analysis is that there has not been sufficient detailed study of the corridors to determine the needs and viability of projects. A major concern on the format is that there is no comprehensive policy element. While there are a number of policies listed under the Systems Plan, many more are scattered throughout the document. The Systems Plan ought to be something,that aggregates or uses the information that emanates from the corridor analysis, piece it together, and aggregate it into one regional Systems Plan. Unfortunately, the Systems Plan precedes the corridor analysis. Regarding the Rideshare, Mode Split and Telecommunications Objectives, RCTC staff met with SCAG staff and they will redo the rideshare and mode split objectives based on more of a traditional transportation planning analysis of certain segments of corridors. For example, for the I-10 corridor from Downtown Los Angeles to San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, there is going to be different transit ridership on different segments. At present, the plan has just one mode split objective for the entire length. Regarding the Telecommunication Objectives, staff believes that a more conservative approach should be taken until more research is done on the telecommunication potential and a trend line on the telecommunication usage becomes more apparent. He said that he would rather be more conservative and build in sufficient capacity in transportation facilities rather than assume that there are going to be 12% less trips in the future. If that 12% doesn't come about, we're theoretically undersizing the transportation facilities. There is a lot of debate whether the 12% figure is practical or not. Barry Beck continued that the plan presents ten criteria to guide the development of regional transportation and prioritize projects. Staff feels that it is very vague as to how the criteria will be used and by whom. The draft plan places a heavy emphasis on centers development yet it never really defines or delineates what centers are or how transportation development impacts on centers development. He noted that almost all the growth in Riverside County will be outside the centers designated by SCAG (Downtown Riverside and the center core of Corona). While both cities want those areas heavily developed, the preponderance of the growth in Riverside County will not be in those two areas. Staff is concerned that there is lack of sufficient technical basis in the corridor analysis as to the sufficiency of transportation facilities. Staff asked SCAG to establish I-15, I-215 and Route 74 as corridors. At present, SCAG has lumped all these routes into one and simply called it "Riverside County Valleys". Staff feels that these routes are legitimate corridors and should get the same analysis as other corridors. Under the Financial Element, staff feels that it is inappropriate for the RTP financial element to discuss the needs and resources for local streets and roads. While staff feels that this is a legitimate subject that SCAG could address on a regional basis, it does not belong in the RTP. Under the element, a major emphasis is placed on the "fare reform" which basically calls for greatly increased transit fares. Staff does not think that this is compatible with the ridesharing objectives that are established in the Plan. Barry Beck told the Commission that because of the extensive comments being received by SCAG on the Plan that rather than trying to adopt a final plan, they will probably issue a revised draft plan. He said that once that revised plan is received by staff, it will be brought before the Commission with final comments and recommendations. Commissioner Younglove commented that he agrees with staff's comments on the RTP but felt that there are other items that need to be added such as Orange County's current decision not to provide any enhanced airport capability within Orange County, thus, resulting in utilization of the Santa Ana Corridor to off load the current 8 million surplus passengers to Ontario and elsewhere. In like manner, the plan should also address the projection of increased population in Riverside County such as in Moreno Valley which create a need to make the transit corridors operable for employment activities as well as housing. He felt that staff be directed to compile comments made by staff as well as input by Commission members to be presented to SCAG and place it on the Commission's agenda for review and approval. Barry Beck suggested that in order to assist SCAG staff, it may be better if the Commission were to provide a preliminary report indicating that a final report is to follow at a later date. Commissioner Ceniceros stated that it is important to recognize that there are a number of assumptions that are in the plan, including population. She said that SCAG can only deal with what was received from the County Planning Department with regards to Moreno Valley's population projections. Secondly, the SCAG 82C adopted a pattern of growth which is perhaps more of a goal than expectations and this is one of the things that is the basis for the centers approach on transportation which is not appropriately located or accurately analyzed in terms of what the impact should be. She continued that almost all the points raised by staff were raised at the SCAG Executive Committee meeting by jurisdictions prompted perhaps by the county transportation commissions. She thinks that the telecommunications element is more of a goal rather than an expectation. She is not sure how to weigh the expectation since it is just a new technology but it is clear that even with the mode split, telecommunications, and ridesharing program, we may not meet the objectives of the air quality plan. If we were to reduce the goals even further, we'll surely not meet the air quality plan so there is also a philosophic problem of whether to try and project on the basis of realistic expectations or on the basis of goals. Barry Beck said that if the plan was to be used simply for goals, it wouldbe okay. But if the plan is used by Caltrans in designing a transportation facility, it is very important that the right numbers are used. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/CENICEROS) to authorize staff to send a preliminary report which include staff comments as well as input provided by Commission members to SCAG with the final report to be presented to the Commission for review at its next meeting. 5. Traffic and Accident Data on Route 74. Barry Beck said that as requested by the Commission at its last meeting, traffic and accident information on Route 74 is included in the agenda. Data on Route 74 is provided in two segments: I-15 to 7th Street and from 7th Street to I-215. From I-15 to Seventh Street, the current traffic volume is below the capacity of the facility. The fatality accident rate is on the high side and as pointed out on the staff report, there is a realignment project scheduled for Route 74 at Mapes Road that Caltrans feels will reduce the accident rate. As reported earlier, there is a severe traffic congestion in the Downtown Perris area. The fatality rates are in line with statewide averages. The total accident rate is on the high side and he suspects that this is probably caused by the congestion in Downtown Perris. Commissioner Adams commented that in reference to capacity and traffic on Route 74 being below the capacity for a two- lane road, it does not take a lot of cars to create traffic problems on two-lane roads. He is satisfied with the report as it does point out once again that there is a bottleneck problem in the City of Perris. Commissioner Younglove felt that the statistics are not as valid as they should be as on a very low surveillance roadway such as Route 74, accidents are under -reported and therefore we should not rely on these statistics. Barry Beck noted that the word "congestion" is a very relative term. People's concept of congestion varies a great deal. The urban type of congestion means bumper to bumper, the concept in rural areas is different. Bill Edmonds added that the word "capacity" has a definitive meaning in Caltrans and it means that is all the road would hold. It doesn't mean that is all the traffic that you would want to run on a particular road. He then told the Commission that Caltrans is doing a study of the major freeway system and identifying the level of service that they should be operating at. He will review the preliminary work on the study with RCTC and SanBAG staff once it is ready. The study will be presented to the Commission when it is finalized. 6. Senate Constitutional Amendment 37. Barry Beck briefed the Commission on SCA 37 which is authored by Senator John Foran. It would authorize the State Legislature to authorize counties to impose a local gas tax. To put it into effect, SCA 37 would have to be approved by both houses of the Legislature and then approved in a statewide election. This Commission has gone on record supporting an increase in local gas tax either through a local option or increased state subvention and SCA 37 represents a mechanism to eventually bring this about. The only problem with the proposed amendment is that it does not give any details on how funds generated will be shared by cities and counties. Staff questioned that if the amendment is passed, will the State expect local agencies to provide financing for State highway improvements. With regards the split of funds between cities and counties, he said that there will probably be a companion bill to provide the details. Commissioner Younglove spoke and said that the Commission should oppose this type of legislation and other legislation like it. He felt that this is a cop out on the part of the State and reneging on their responsibilities. This would cause a great deal of local disharmony and causes a significant dislocation of employment centers as for example, an organization that needs to use a lot of fuel might be motivated to locate in a city or county without the tax. Not adopting a local option gas tax increase would attract this type of industry and would trigger problems between counties and cities■ thus, cause dislocation in terms of transit system needs, employment centers, housing, etc. Barry Beck said that the State's argument might be is that this is for local streets and roads which is a local respon- sibility. They might also rightfully point out that counties have different needs and shouldn't impose the same tax. Commissioner Ceniceros asked if perhaps there are other sources of funds. She said that philosophically, both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties would be loathe to enact this but she is also well aware of the street and road conditions in the County. The optimal situation would be identifying revenues statewide inspite of the argument that there is a variance from one community to another in the level of road needs. Bill Edmonds stated that the same situation exists with the federal government. One of the things that they try to do traditionally is define the roles of the federal and state governments. Where that point is and who should levy the tax and control the funds is a tough problem. Commissioner Younglove reiterated that his basic concern is regarding distribution of the funds rather than the amount of the tax at the source. Walt Ingalls, CTC Commissioner, informed the Commission that the amendment will probably won't be passed out of the Assembly until January in order to make it to the June ballot. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/CENICEROS) to authorize the Chairman to write a letter to Senator Robert Presley and Assemblyman Steve Clute expressing the Commission's grave concerns on this bill and clearly stating its opposition to any fuel tax increase that would result in Balkanization of counties by inconsistent gas tax rates as the Commission does not believe that there is a variation of problems faced by counties that would justify having differing gas tax rates. 7. Santa Ana River Bikeway Project. Barry Beck said that the Commission at a previous meting authorized staff to coordinate a study of the Santa Ana River Bikeway. Since Caltrans has staff that specialize solely in bikeway projects, staff asked that they head up the £tudy. Caltrans, with the assistance of local bike clubs, has put together a preliminary plan and cost estimates of the project. The study is included in the Commission's agenda packet. Barry Beck said the project is costly but he feels that it is financially feasible if there is a commitment from all parties to fund the project. It will take a combination of State. funds, SB 821 funds controlled by the Commission, and probably, most importantly, some commitment of local TDA funds. Staff has informed City of Riverside staff that if there is no local commitment, the project will not be feasible and he would not recommend that the Commission provide any financial commitment in terms of SB 821 funds to the project. He told the Commission that the City has scheduled a review of the preliminary plan at the City Council meeting next week and City staff is recommending approval of the plan and commitment of funds subject to commitment of funding from Riverside County. This item is placed on the Commission's agenda just as an information item as the SB 821 Subcommittee will be meeting soon tk, review bikeway and pedestrian projects and the Commission may wish to provide guidance on this matter. Commissioner Ceniceros asked what amount of local funds is required. Barry Beck said that it will mean approximately $75,000 per agency per year for three years. This is in addition to State funds through SB 244 and from the State Highway Account and committing a reasonable amount of SB 821 funds to the project. He added that there are additional resources available such as discretionary grants from the federal level and State park funds. If we are successful in obtaining funds from these sources, then it would lessen the local burden. Commissioner Dunlap said that the last meeting she attended there was a great deal of enthusiasm for volunteer effort such as labor, donations, etc. Commissioner Younglove stated that the problem with volunteer manual labor is not bureaucracy not liking it but with liability insurance cost as when you put people on a public right of way, then you're liable for their activities. Barry Beck said that the option has not been foreclosed but he does not feel that it would be a significant part of the of the financing. In response to Commissioner Cornelison's question if the interface with Orange and San Bernardino Counties has been discussed with these agencies yet, Barry Beck said that Caltrans was going to discuss with San Bernardino the possibility of extending the bikeway from rairmount Park. There were no plans to discuss this matter with Orange County as their bikeway is already up to the Riverside County line. Commissioner Younglove suggested that input should also be requested from those that have experience and interest in bikeways as well as from the various bike clubs. 8. Citizens Advisory Committee. Barry Beck said that as requested by the Commsision at its last meeting, staff has put some information together on the composition of the Citizens Advisory Committee and the issues that they have been dealing with. Included in the staff report are the methods used by other commissions in appointing Committee members. Both Orange and Los Angeles Counties have fixed terms for the members while San Bernardino County has an indefinite term. Since the Commission has a Committee already in existence, it would probably be awkward tc adopt a new appointing procedure like the other counties. Staff recommends that the Commission establish a fixed term for the members because it would present a graceful opportunity for a member to resign or for the Commission to not reappoint a member due to reasons such as poor attendance, etc. In any event, there is currently one vacancy and the performance auditor has pointed out that the business community should be better represented on the Committee. A discussion followed on the composition of the Committee and the possibility of placing a fixed term on appointments. M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to direct staff, based on Commission discussion, to prepare an amended ordinance for review at its next meeting. 9. State Transit Assistance Fund Claims. A. Riverside Transit Agency. M/S/C (JONES/DUNLAP) to approve the revised FY 1982-83 Capital Reserves for RTA and adopt Resolution No. 84-3 RTA allocating $1,786,500 to Riverside Transit Agency. B. City of Beaumont. M/S/C (JONES/DUNLAP) to adopt Resolution No. 84-1- BEA allocating $30,000 to the City of Beaumont. C. City of Riverside. M/S/C (JONES/DUNLAP) to adopt Resolution No. 84-2- RIV allocating $29,000 to the City of Riverside. 10. Transit Operator Performance Audit - Phase II RTA Final Report. Barry Beck said that the audit consisted of analysis of RTA's computer by Arthur Young and Company. RTA informed staff that they are satisfied with with the work done by the auditing firm. Staff recommends that the Commission accept the Phase II Performance Audit Report and direct the Executive Director to forward the report to RTA. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/JONES) to accept the Phase II Performance Audit Report and direct the Executive Director to forward the report to RTA. 11. Additional Item. Commissioner Ceniceros announced that the recent storm damage is apprbximately $6.6 million and this figure in- cluded federal -aid systems roads, elementary and second- ary schools, federal and public facilities. 12. Adjournment. The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission will be held on Thursday, September 15, 1983 at 1:30 p.m. at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/DUNLAP) to adjourn the meeting at 3:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /- Barry Sedk- Executive Director