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