HomeMy Public PortalAbout11 November 29, 1983 Citizens' Advisoryr� COUNTY n �� a, 040227
7iVERS OE : RAN �S?OR AST f N v r'a ...._.i.2, \.
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
November 29, 1983, 1:30 p.m.
Riverside City Hall
4th Floor -Conference Room
3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92501
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes (8/30/83 & 10/25/83).
3. Riverside Transit Agency Fare Increase. (DISC.)
4. Wheelchair Lift Use on Fixed -Route Transit. (INFO.)
5. SCRTD Line 149 Funding Problem. (DISC.)
6. Other Business.
7. Adjournment.
i 1
VERS D€ COUNTY d '', PANSPO RTA 0A
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
the 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
relinguishing 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 for 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 applicants
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
day pass 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
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 the airport
in El Toro and, secondariI.i 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 all
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
`J as :J t, it `i v` _'' i✓ i'1 ?Y•.
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 6-83
October 25, 1983
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by Barry Beck, Executive Director, at 1:38 p.m. on
Tuesday, October 25, 1983, at the Riverside City Hall, Fourth
Floor Conference Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside.
Since neither the Chairman nor the Vice Chairman were present,
the Committee selected Ben Minnich to act as Chairman Pro
Tempore. The Committee operated as a Committee as a Whole
because of lack of a quorum.
Members present:
Fred A. Fickas
Herb Krauch
Rand Martin
Ben Minnich
Sheila Velez
Laurence M. Weinberg
Others present:
Barry Beck, RCTC Paul Blackwelder, RCTC
Ken Kaufher, RTA
2. Approval of Minutes.
Barry Beck commented that regarding the I-215 signing problem
that Ben Minnich had brought up at the last meeting, he had not
yet approached Caltrans on this matter. He asked Ben Minnich to
identify the section of I-215 which he feels has a signing
problem.
Ben Minnich replied that the signing problem is along 1-215
between Van Buren Boulevard and Temecula.
Barry Beck said that he will bring this matter up with Caltrans.
3. Transit Operations Report.
Paul Blackwelder commented on the tables and graphs showing
operations information for transit operators in Riverside County
for FY 82-83 included in the agenda. The general decline in
ridership during FY 81-82 and the first half of this year
leveled off during the second half of this year. Countywide
dial -a -ride ridership declined by 57,703 passengers in FY 82-83.
RTA dial -a -ride ridership decreased by 72,975 and SunLine dial -
1
CAC Minutes
October 25, 1983
a -ride ridership decreased by 9,361. He noted that the
reduction in riders was mostly in the full fare and student
categories. The countywide decrease in dial -a -ride ridership
was partly offset by increased ridership in the Beaumont and
Riverside Special Services systems. The fixed route systems
showed a slight increase of 22,416 total passengers over FY 81-
82 but that fare paying passengers increased by 36,979. SunLine
showed the largest decrease in total passengers (53,911) but he
noted that there were only 11,656 fare paying passengers lost;
the remaining 42,225 were transfers eliminated through restruc-
turing of services last September. RTA showed a decrease in
student ridership (-64,387). This decrease resulted from a
policy change limiting reduced fares for students to school
days only.
Ken Kaufher added that the elimination of college students in
the student category has also added to the decrease in rider-
ship.
Barry Beck agreed with Ken Kaufher and pointed out that college
students using public transit are now counted as full fare
passengers.
Paul Blackwelder continued and_pointed out to the Committee that
the average cost per vehicle hour of service increased by 6.2%
while total operating costs increased by 2.5%. The difference
was due to service reductions. The fare revenue ratios for all
transit operators with the exception of RTA and Corona were
higher in FY 82-83 than FY 81-82. RTA decreased from 19.0% to
18.5% and Corona which has a contract which guarantees a 20%
fare revenue ratio remained the same. Factors that contributed
to the increase in fare revenue ratio were increase in ridership
in the Banning, Beaumont, and Riverside Special Services systems,
reduced costs per vehicle hour of operation in Banning,
Beaumont, and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, and, fare in-
creases in the Banning, SunLine, and Riverside Special Services
systems. Paul Blackwelder said that in order for SunLine
Transit Agency and Riverside Transit Agency to increase its
ridership in the coming year, both operators will have to
aggressively market their systems. This will be difficult in
light of the fact that gasoline is readily available and the
prices are static.
Sheila Velez asked whether staff had anticipated that ridership
would decrease when services were changed.
Barry Beck replied that staff had anticipated some loss in
ridership. The changes were very minor. Rubidoux dial -a -ride,
for example, had only 70 passengers/day and the reason that the
service was changed was because the ridership was so low and
costs were high. RTA was trying to provide lower cost service
that has the potential of generating ridership rather than
2
CAC Minutes
October 25, 1983
continue the higher cost dial -a -ride system.
Sheila Velez said that she is concerned that the costs for
overhead are high and expected ridership is low.
Barry Beck stated that ridership for the last 1 1/2 - 2 years
has not changed much at all. The only thing that has affected
ridership one way or the other is fare levels.
Sheila Velez asked what the transit agencies are doing in terms
of marketing programs to increase their ridership.
Ken Kaufher gave an update on RTA's marketing effort. RTA has
just completed a direct mail campaign for Line 24 in Rubidoux
and for Line 17 in Riverside. These lines have the lowest
number of riders in the system. In addition, a direct mail
campaign will be done for Line 30 (Hemet) and Line 27
(Hemet/Riverside intercity service) during the next month.
In response to Barry Beck's question as to how successful the
direct mail campaign performed by RTA had been, Ken Kaufher said
that the result has been pretty dismal. He said that the direct
mail campaign includes information on the service as well as a
free ride coupon. Neither line showed an increase in ridership
but rather remained at the same level prior to the campaign.
Discussion followed between those present on ideas to attract
ridership.
4. Proposed SunLine Transit Agency Service Changes.
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that SunLine staff had
proposed service changes to their Board early this month and a
public hearing will be held on November 2nd on the proposals.
Proposed changes include: (1) Realignment of the northerly
portion of Line 1 (Palm Springs Local) ,service to provide
service to the Palm Springs Mall and direct access to Desert
Hospital; (2) Discontinue Line 4 (La Quinta/Palm Desert Country
Club) and replace it with a dial -a -ride service; (3) Add service
to the Canyon Hotel on the Palm Springs Sun Special; (4) Addi-
tion of another bus on the Line 19 (Desert Hot
Springs/Coachella) to accommodate increased demand and to main-
tain an hourly schedule; and, (4) Implement a Sun Special ser-
vice in Palm Desert to serve the shopping areas along Highway
111 in that area.
In response to Ben Minnich's question as to how successful the
Sun Special service in Palm Springs has been, Barry Beck said
that it has been pretty successful in that it carries
approximately 65,000 passengers/year. He added that SunLine
3
CAC Minutes
October 25, 1983
increased its fare in the Sun Special service from $0.25 to
$0.50 which may have caused some loss in passengers but that
this is one of SunLine's relatively successful lines given the
operating cost. He has doubts that the proposed Palm Desert Sun
Special service will experience the same success since the
proposed route connects only to commercial areas. The service
will be used by shoppers and those taking care of business that
would have to drive to one place, take the shuttle and then
return on the shuttle to their car.
Larry Weinberg agreed with Barry Beck's comments. As a matter
of fact, last year for several months, there was a free bus
which was operated on virtually the same route and did not
attract many riders. He does not think that it makesa great
deal of economic sense because as Barry Beck pointed out, it is
connecting two business areas and because people going shopping
are going to have to use their car anyway as it is difficult to
carry a big load of groceries on the bus.
5. Proposed U.S. Department Of Transportation 504 Regulations.
Paul Blackwelder briefed the Committee on the current and pro-
posed regulations for implementing Section 504 of the Rehabili-
tation Act regarding transit system accessibility. The current
requirements are that 50% of -the vehicles be lift equipped
within three years and 100% of the vehicles be lift equipped
within ten years. There is no other option and a para-transit
service could be substituted only until such time as the entire
fixed -route fleet was accessible. The proposed regulations
would allow local options with suggested options as follows:
(1) accessible fixed -route service; (2) supplemental paratransit
services for the handicapped; or, (3) some combination of
accessible fixed route and paratransit service. A change is
also being proposed with regard to the amount of funds that
transit operators are required to expend. Current regulation
has an expenditure cap at 2% of UMTA Section 5 funds received
by the operator. There are two alternative maximum cost caps
being proposed: (1) 7.1% of the federal assistance funds re-
ceived by an operator; or, (2) 3% of the operator's total opera-
ting expenses. To give the Committee an indication as to the
amount of money involved, Paul Blackwelder said that using
RTA's federal grant at $1.3 million, the current regulation
would be approximately $26,000/year while the proposed 7.1% cap
alternative would require $99,000/yeas and the 3% of total
budget alternative would require $150,000/year to be spent on
accessibility.
Barry Beck summarized the existing regulations and proposed
changes. He said that currently operators should be making
progress in getting 50% of their fleet accessible and eventually
100%. They should spend at least $25,000/year in making
4
CAC Minutes
October 25, 1983
progress toward their goals. The proposed regulation will allow
transit operators flexibility to either have 1/2 of their fixed
route fleet accessible, provide some kind of paratransit ser-
vice, or a combination of the two. They would have to spend
anywhere from $99,000 to $150,000/year on operating paratransit
services, buying lifts for the fixed route vehicles, or some
combination of the two. He pointed out that in the city of
Riverside, there is a paratransit service not operated by the
Riverside Transit Agency. The proposed regulations would not
allow RTA to be credited for this service and, thus, would
require RTA to provide a separate service or install lifts on
their vehicles or a combination. He added that the amount being
spent on the Riverside Special Services alone is about $350,000
- $400,000/year which is way over the proposed amount RTA would
have to expend on accessibility. He also pointed out that over
half of RTA fixed route fleet is currently lift equipped.
In response to Rand Martin's question whether the Commission had
commented on the proposed 504 regulations, Barry Beck said that
the Commission had not commented on it but that staff has pro-
vided comments to SCAG. One of the comments submitted to SCAG
concerns eligibility. The U.S. Department of Transportation is
thinking of limiting the eligibility to persons with
identifiable mobility handicap. Staff pointed out that there
are persons with mental handicaps equally needing special
services and suggested that the eligibility include all persons
that are disabled if they can produce documentation.
Rand Martin stated that since the proposed regulations were
printed on September 8th, it should have been brought to the
Committee for discussion earlier.
Paul Blackwelder explained that the proposed regulations were
not received by RCTC staff until two weeks ago.
Rand Martin pointed two concerns that RARC has regarding the
proposed regulations. Under "Cost Cap", it states that "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". He
thinks that this is an act of discrimination as they will only
provide service to handicapped persons if funds are available.
Paul Blackwelder explained that the proposed regulations acknow-
ledge that with a limited amount of funds, operators should be
able to either meet the criteriaor if they can't meet them that
it should be decided locally by electd officials and their
handicap advocates which criteria should be met.
5
CAC Minutes
October 25, 1983
Rand Martin felt that there really is no call for trading off
between criteria that are basic rights of the citizens of the
United States. This is basically what 504 is, a civil rights
law for persons with handicaps.
Barry Beck said that this matter was discussed before and the
argument is that even if local agencies would like to accomplish
all of the requirements in some areas it may be too costly.
This is not the case in Riverside as we are able to meet the
criteria with no problems. Cost, however, is a problem with
fixed rail systems required to modify their systems to make them
accessible for the handicapped.
Sheila Velez felt that the intent of 504 is met as long as some
system is maintained and available to a handicapped individual
who wishes to use that system.
Rand Martin said that RARC is not only concerned with allowing
options to either use lift equipped fixed route buses or operate
paratransit services. They are also concerned that the cost of
the alternatives will exceed the cost caps and there is nothing
to stop an area from only spending the minimum amount of funds
to provide accessibility.
Barry Beck'said that as part of our own local determination
process, we have committees and we get input from them.
Riverside County has been responsive to the people in the
area, has spent more than required, and does not need the
federal government to tell us what we need to do.
Rand Martin stated that RARC is concerned with this effort of
deregulation because the 504 regulations were issued because many
local agencies were not providing accessible service. This does
not apply to Riverside County as they have an excellent system.
Barry Beck said that he cannot disagree with Rand Martin's
comments. It's obviously that the federal government has been
much more responsive in general to special interest groups and
minority concerns and if it is all left to local agencies, there
are some that will not make an effort to make their systems
accessible. A continuing argument is whether the federal
government should have more control or should there be more
local control.
Ben Minnich added that he could understand that they would want
as much accessibility as possible but the cost to do these
things are horrendous. He cautioned that when a special
interest group makes demands which are too great, it could
result in there being nothing for anyone.
Sheila Velez commented that everyone wants to live life to the
fullest and all they are saying is that handicapped people
6
CAC Minutes
October 25, 1983
should be given an opportunity to have a means to do that - not
necessarily the most expensive way but some way. People should
have the right to choose.
Ken Kaufher explained to the Committee that what works in
Riverside may not work in other areas. The current regulations
only have one way to achieve transit system accessibility. The
proposed regulations recognize the fact that there is more than
one way to accomplish accessibility. The most sensible and
reasonable way to accomplish that is through the local option
mechanism proposed.
Rand Martin agrees with "local option", however, he felt that
there should be some assurances in the regulations that adequate
services will be provided. He felt that a committee such as CAC
or a committee of handicap representatives needs to be entrusted
with some authority in making these kinds of decisions in
cooperation with the transportation commission.
Ben Minnich said that what happens.in many cases is that
something is mandated but the funds are not mandated.
Fred Fickas asked if the Commission has data on usage of
wheelchair lifts.
Barry Beck said that staff does have the data and it will be
placed on the next Committee's agenda.
Larry Weinberg commented that since the Committee could not take
action on this matter because of lack of quorum and the cut off
date for comments is two weeks away, he felt that a communica-
tion should go to U.S. DOT from Mr. Martin's organization and
anybody else in the Committee that has any comments as an indi-
vidual.
6. FY 1983-84 SB 821 Projects.
Herb Krauch stated that he does not think that these funds
should be used for sidewalks.
Barry Beck said that the projects that have been submitted have
generally been in areas where developments exists prior to the
time when sidewalks were required. In many cases, the projects
are along routes to schools and will provide sidewalks for
school children to use rather than their having to walk in the
middle of the street.
7. Committee Membership Status
Barry Beck provided an update to the Committee. At the last
meeting, he mentioned that the Commission is in the process of
7
CAC Minutes
October 25, 1983
changing the terms of members. They did take final action and
established a four-year term for members that will be staggered
every two years. There will be no limit on the number of terms.
In order to determine whose terms were up for reappointment or
new appointment, the Commission drew seven names by lottery.
Those people were then notified that their terms expired and
asked them if they wish to be reappointed. As a result of that
survey, Marian Carpelan, Earl Shade, Sheila Velez, Larry
Weinberg, and Rand Martin have indicated that they wish to be
reappointed. Donna Crowe and Lloyd O'Connell have both indi-
cated that they did not wish to be reappointed. The Commission
also asked staff to poll those members whose terms have two
years remaining to see if they wish to retire or serve the
remainder of their term. Gordon Hass and Jordan Huntley have
indicated that they did not wish to serve the remainder of their
term. The Commission has not made the appointments or taken
action to reappoint the members yet.
Sheila Velez said that she knows someone who works at the Corona
Employment Office that might be interested in being on the
Committee. In addition, she said that the Poly High School
Principal might be persuaded to be a member of the Committee.
Barry Beck asked that if Committee members know of potential
candidates, they should advise them to contact him. It would
also be helpful if they could submit a brief summary of their
interests.
8. Adjournment.
With no other items to discuss, Chairman Ben Minnich adjourned
the meeting at 3:08 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, November 29, 1983, at 1:30 p.m., to be held at the
Riverside City Hall, 4th Floor Conference Room, 3900 Main
Street, Riverside.
Respectively submitted,
-Paul Blackwelder
Assistant Director
nk
8
ITEM 3
it IF E; OUN TJ T P..A S?0E-I J Ar sS. N
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency Fare Increase
Attached is a report regarding proposed fare policy and structure amendments
for the Riverside Transit Agency presented by RTA staff to its Board of
Directors on November 10, 1983. The RTA Board adopted the Proposed Fare
Policy (Exhibit I) and authorized staff to advertise for public hearings
on fare increase alternatives. Attached is a copy of the press release
which RTA will use to advertise its hearings in Riverside on December 15th
and in Hemet on December 16th, The RTA Board is expected to make a final
decision on increasing fares at its meeting on either December 22, 1983 or
January 8, 1984.
The approach used by RTA in developing its proposed fare changes is discussed
below:
o Increase dial -a -ride fares by 25st from $1.00 to 51,25 and increase
local fixed -route fares by 5t -from 50t to 55¢. Intercity fares
would also increase, for example: Hemet -Riverside fares would
increase by 10(t from $1.50 to $1.60.
o Reduce student demand for high cost service and encourage student
demand for lower cost services, Student discounts would be elimi-
nated for dial -a -ride service and expanded for fixed -route services.
The restriction on limiting student discounts on local fixed -routes
to school days only would be lifted in order to encourage greater
use of services and monthly pass purchases.
o Simplify theprocess for determining eligibility of persons for elderly,
handicapped, and student discounts. The eligibility age for elderly
persons would be reduced from 62 to 60 years of age and RTA would
accept cards issued by the. Office on Aging as well as other agencies
as adequate identification for the elderly discount. Student I,D.
cards issued by junior and senior high schools would be adequate
I.D. for the student discount. RTA and the Office on Aging would
make I.D. cards available for handicapped persons.
Also evaluated, but not recommended, by RTA staff was a 5t transfer fee. This
fee was not recommended because RTA staff wanted to minimize the increase for
local fixed -route riders and most transfers occur on the local fixed -route
services. RTA staff also did not -recommend increasing the zone fare for inter-
city trips. A 5¢ increase on zone fares from 25 to 30(t combined with the 5(t
base fare increase would have increased the Hemet -Riverside fare from $1.50 to
$1.70. By notincreasingthe zone fares however the intercity increase (6.7`,x)
Agenda Item No, 3
CAC November 29, 1983
RTA Fare Increase Page 2
is slightly less .than the local fixed -route increase (10%). RTA staff
advised us that they had considered increasing either the base fare or the
zone fare but not both.
The last fare increase for local services was in February, 1982 when local
fixed -route fares were increased from 45¢ to 50t, dial -a -ride fares were
increased frorn 75 to $1.00, and intercity zone fares from Hemet -Riverside
were implemented.
A representative from the Riverside Transit Agency will attend the meeting
to answer questions, provide additional information on the alternatives
under consideration, and report on comments received from the City of
Riverside Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee,
BB/PB:nk
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
"::PNERJtioIE fCOUNr RAINS?O T:'A�
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Wheelchair Lift Use on Fixed -Route Transit
At its last meeting, the Committee requested staff to prepare a report on
the extent to which wheelchair lift equipment on fixed -route transit
service is used. Staff has prepared the attached tables and graph showing
wheelchair lift use and inspection and maintenance costs for fixed -routes
operated by Riverside Transit Agency.
As shown in the graph, wheelchair lift use has increased steadily over the
past two and one quarter years. In FY 1931-32, lift use averaged only one
trip/day. In FY 1982-83, lift use climbed to an average of 3.1 trips/day.
During the first four months of 1983-84, lift use has increased to 4.2 trips/
day. If lift use continues to increase for the remainder of the year at
the rate experienced in the first four months, lift uses would average 6
trips/day for the current year.
During the past two years Riverside Special Services has transported 109,000
handicapped persons of which approximately 17% are in wheelchairs and require
use of the lift. The average daily lift use for this service has increased
from an average of 23 trips/day in FY 1981-82 to an average 37 trips/day in
FY 1932-83.
The figures for Riverside Transit Agency and Riverside Special Services
Program serve to validate two statements made by advocates for accessible
transit service over the past several years. First, that use of accessi-
ble fixed -route transit service would start slowly and continue to build
as handicapped persons became aware of the availability of accessible
fixed -route transit and confident that lift operations would be reliable,
Second, that a large number of handicapped persons are either unable or
afraid to use accessible fixed -route transit but would increasingly use
accessible dial -a -ride services, if offered,
Staff has also monitored the additional costs for RTA to inspect, maintain
and repair wheelchair lifts on its fixed -route buses, As shown in the
tables, these additional costs per lift use have been high (FY 81-82 S19,93
and FY 82-33 $10.29). However, if lift use continues to grow as expected
over the next two to three years to 4,000 uses/year, the additional cost per
handicapped passenger would decrease to approximately $3.00. The accessible
fixed -route in Riverside would then help to reduce the overall cost for pro-
viding accessible transit by reducing the need to add additional dial -a -ride
service which costs approximately $4.00 per passenger.
BB/PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No. 4
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
WHEELCHAIR LIFT USE
FIXED ROUTE SERVICES
L
M I
O F
N T
H U
L S
Y E
s
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TOTAL YEAR 306
LIFT USED AVG 1 .0 TIMES/DAY
\\\\
\\\\
\\\\ \
\\\\ \\\\ \
\\\\\ ' \\\\\ \ \
\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
JASONDJFMAMJ
1981/82
TOTAL YEAR 952
- LIFT USED AVG 3.1 TIMES/DAY
- \\
- \\\V \\
- \\\\\\ \\
- \\\d\\\\\\ \\
- \\\\\\\\\ \\
- \\\\\\\\\ \\
- \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\N.
- 77\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- \\ 1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- \\\\\ \\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- .\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- \\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- \\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- \\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- r\\\\\\\1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\r
- ,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
— r\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- r\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\r
- r\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\`
-\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
J A S O N D J F M A M J
1982/83
J A S 0
1983/84
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
F.R . WHEELCHAIR LIF T USE
F.Y . 1983/84
JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE TOTAL
LINE 1 46 52 50 56 F 204
LINE 12 3 20 13 14 50
LINE 13 2 2 2 0 6
LINE 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * 0
LINE 15 10 8 13 10 41
LINE 16 7 13 7 18 45
LINE 17 2 0 1 4 7
LINE 21 0 0 0 0 0
LINE 22 1 3 4 1 9
LINE 24 0 2 7 2 11
LINE 25
13
LINE 27 5 6 135 14 40
LINE 29 0 0 0 1 20
1
TOTAL 76 119 115 124 434
PRIOR YEAR 53 55 30 76 1712
INCREASE (DECREASE) 23 64 85 48 440
LIFT MA INT COST $5fi5 $2,865 $212 $190
$3,852
AVG MAINT COST/PASS $7.70 $17.69 $11. 81 $8.88
$8.88
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
F.R. WHEELCHAIR LIFT USE
F.Y. 1882/83
JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB ' MAR APR MAY JUNE TOTAL
LINE 1 37 47 28 32 27 52 57 67 74 38 52 33 544
LINE 12 5 1 1 13 7 11 15 )6 10 14 21 16 130
L1NE 13 5 3 0 1 5 2 4 3 4 3 2 2 34
LINE 14 1 0 0 * * * * * * * * * 1
LINE 15 1 1 0 4 4 5 4 2 7 2 6 6 42
LINE 16 4 3 1 11 4 3 15 25 11 18 18 20 133
LINE 17 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 3 4 2 14
LINE 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LINE 22 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 6
LINE 24 0 0 0 9 5 4 4 4 0 2 2 4 34
LINE 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LINE 27 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 1 1 1 2 1 14
LINE 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 53 55 30 76 56 81 101 120 107 81 107 85 952
PRIOR YEAR 44 44 19 12 20 28 33 21 18 30 14 23 306
INCREASE (DECREASE,) 9 11 11 64 36 53 68 99 89 51 93 62 646
LIFT MAINT COST $1,289 $438 $319 $324 $304 $420 $445 $1,434 $885 $573 $1,694 $1,638 $9,763
AV G MAINT COST/PASS $24. 32 $15.99 $14.83 $11. 07 $9. 90 $8.8] $7.83 $8.69 $8.63 $8 .46 $9.37 $10.26 $10.26
* Line 14 inc luded with Lin e ]?.
AGENDA ITEM 5
r' iVERS DE rte. �� ��`� BANS?C TA ,'O N.
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: SCRTD Line 149 Funding Problem
On November 14, 1983, we received a letter from the Southern California
Rapid Transit District advising us that Orange County Transit District had
decided to discontinue funding for a segment of SCRTD Line 149. Line 149
is a regional service which runs between Riverside, Anaheim, and Long Beach.
The current service level is five -round trips/day, seven days/week from
Riverside. The segment which Orange County Transit District no longer wants
to fund is from the Riverside County line to Disneyland. Their reason for
not funding this segment is low ridership. A copy of the letter received
from SCRTD and our response is attached.
As indicated in our reply to SCRTD, we are very disturbed by the way this
matter has been handled by SCRTD and OCTD, We hope that we will at least
have the opportunity to meet and discuss this problem with SCRTD and OCTD
prior to either of their Board of Directors making a final decision, The
alternatives available, as we see them now, are that.if OCTD refuses to
fund this service for the remainder of the year, Riverside County can:
a) discontinue service from Riverside; b) pay an additional $103,000 to
SCRTD for service between the County line and Disneyland; or, c) have
Riverside Transit Agency operate service between Riverside and Disneyland,
Staff will inform the Committee at the meeting of any additional actions
taken regarding this problem.
BB/PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No, 5
CAC November 29, 1983
R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
3616 Main Street, Suite 402 • Riverside, California 92501 • (714) 787-7141
COMMISSIONERS
RILSO\
C C,..MAN
_1T':' OF PALM DESERT
plc\ -LNi
.C_ i H
i
CIT:ZI:N MEMBER
YO['NGLOVE
r r OF RIVERSIDE
CF`ICERUS
ER i;OR
.=_'•T'1 OF RIVERSIDE
'l.s_['• t DL'\L \F'
soy.
• OF RIVERSIDE
N O F. C O
\•:.+':SVIELD
_:T,- OF RIVERSIDE
fl .C., [:F'\MNDS
• :EPNcR „ APPOINTEE
: 4.L TP -1,1S DISTRICT 6
• =„T;VE DIRECTOR
November 15, 1983
Mr. John A. Dyer, General Manager
Southern California Rapid Transit District
425 South Main Street
Los Angeles, California 90013
Dear John:
Thank you for your November 14th letter regarding RTD
Line 149. We certainly would have appreciated more
timely notification that there was a problem over
funding for this regional service. At this late date
our options for resolving this problem are limited.
We are disturbed not only about late notification but
also the fact that the -Orange County Transit District
can unilatarally, without bothering to even inform us
of their decision let alone discuss it with us, ask
that the middle section of a long, regional route be
simply terminated. The OCTD would graciously allow the
route to continue if funded by others, according to
their August 19th letter (copy provided by you) to your
transportation planner, Scott Holmes. Now, here we are
in mid -November, having budgeted all our transit funds,
just learning of OCTD's reticence. We recently bent
over backwards to coordinate the restructuring of some
commute service between Riverside and Orange Counties
at considerable savings to OCTD (we're picking up the
entire cost of the service including mileage in Orange
County). Apparently, OCTD thinks it is Riverside
County's obligation to not only house but also
transport workers to and within Orange County.
I'm sorry if I sound bitter, but I'm really
disappointed at not being informed of this problem
sooner. I would urge that neither the SCRTD nor the
OCTD Board act on terminating or terminating funding
for Line 149 until we have an opportunity to sit down
and discuss the issue further. I would suggest that
your staff arrange such a meeting with the involved
principals at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. John A. Dyer
November 15, 1983
Page 2
truly yours,
BARRY BE
Executiv Director
BB:nk
cc: Jim Reichert, General Manager - OCTD
OCTC
LACTC
bc: Durand Rall, RTA
Jim Gosnell, SCAG
2
43k
RTD
John A. Dyer
General Manager
Mr. Barry Beck
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
3616 Main Street -Suite 402
Riverside, California 92501
ifV
1'J J
Dear Mr. Beck:
RECEIVED
NOV
141983
Riverside County
Transportation Commission
Each fiscal year, the Southern California Rapid Transit District negotiates
cooperative service agreements with transit agencies in Orange, Riverside,
and San Bernardino Counties which govern the operations of the SCRTD
inter -county services. To date, agreements have been concluded which
govern the regional services operated by the District in Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties.
In negotiations relative to the annual agreement between the SCRTD and the
Orange County Transit District, OCTD has decided not to fund service
operated by Line 149 (Long Beach -Disneyland -Riverside) over the Orange
County route segment between Disneyland and the Riverside County Line
retroactive to September 18, 1983. OCPD's position in this matter is
outlined in the enclosed copies of memoranda sent to District Planning
staff. Regrettably, in view of this action, the SCRTD must either 1)
secure replacement funding, or 2) operate a separate service between
downtown Riverside and a mutually agreeable location near the Orange County
Line, or 3) discontinue Line 149 service east of Disneyland at the earliest
date consistent with Federal public hearing guidelines.
Presently, Line 149 operates 10 one-way trips between Disneyland and the
Riverside County Line on weekdays and 8 one-way trips on weekends.
Ridership data indicates approximately 110 to 120 passengers use Line 149
service to travel between Orange and Riverside Counties on weekdays and
Saturday; approximately 90 riders travel between the counties on Sunday.
District staff estimates that approximately $103,000 would be required to
continue current service levels between Disneyland and the Riverside County
Line for the balance of the fiscal year retroactive to September 18.
Should your Riverside County Transportation Commission conclude that Line
149 service should be discontinued east of Disneyland, public hearings will
be required in both Orange and Riverside Counties in conformance with
regulations implementing Section 5(i)(3) of the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration Act of 1964. If necessary, SCRTD staff will attend the
hearings and provide supporting information as required.
South rn California Rapid Transit District 425 South Main Street, Los Angeles, California 90013 (213) 972-6000
Mr. Barry Beck
Page 2
In the meantime, your consideration in this matter of mutual concern is
certainly appreciated and we look forward to hearing from you in the near
future.
Sincerely,
P jT f A
i• f �J [.
--John A.`Dyer
Enclosures
cc: SCRTD Board of Directors
Durand L. Rall, General Manager, RTA
James P. Reichert, General Manager, OCTD
Thomas F. Riley, Chairman, OCTC
S T.
AUG 2 3 1983
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
August 19, 1983
AU^ 2 3 1483
Mr. Scott Holmes
Transportation Planner
Southern California Rapid Transit District
425 South Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Dear Scott:
The combination of recent increases in SCRTD service costs with OCTD
Cooperative Service Budget limitations has necessitated a reduction in
SCRTD service within Orange County during FY 1983-84.
After careful study, service revisions have been identified which would
have the least impact on riders while meeting OCTD budget constraints,
if implemented early in the fiscal year.
For these reasons, OCTD is requesting that the following changes be
made on Lines 149 and 470 on September 18, 1983:
Route 149
Terminate all trips on Route 149 at Disneyland and reroute service west
of Disneyland from Garden Grove Boulevard onto Beach Boulevard and the
Riverside and Santa Ana Freeways (See Attachment I).
Route 470
Reroute the terminal operation of Route 470 at Brea Mall to Bus Zone 1
(See Attachment II). -
We realize that the timing of the requested change on Line 149 may
cause procedural complications. Please be aware that although we are unable
to continue funding of this operation beyond the outlined proposal, we
would recognize the operation beyond Disneyland if funded by another source
or sources.
11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE (714) 971.6200
Mr. Scott Holmes
August 19, 1983
Page Two
In closing, I would like to thank you for your consideration and
attention on this matter. Resolution of this situation will now
allow us to focus our efforts on finalizing the FY 1983-84 Contract
agreement between our two agencies.
Mary V. Downey
Associate Planner
MVD:SC
Attachments
C
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
RECEIVED
AUG 2 6
PLANNING DEPT
S. T. P.
AUG 3' "�:
August 24, 1983
Mr. Stephen T. Parry
Planning Manager
Southern California Rapid Transit District
425 South Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Dear Steve:
In recent months, there have been discussions concerning a realignment
of Southern California Rapid Transit District Line 149 between the Los
Angeles/Orange County line at Seal Beach and Disneyland.
Listed below is the proposed alignment:
From the county line along Westminster Avenue, Seal Beach Boulevard
(serving.Seal Beach Leisure World)-, Garden Grove Freeway, Beach
Boulevard, Riverside Freeway, Magnolia, Fullerton Park -And -Ride Lot
roadways, Orangethorpe, Magnolia, Santa Ana Freeway, Harbor, Katella
and West Street to Disneyland. The return routing would be the re-
verse except for the roads in the vicinity of Disneyland.
The District is also aware that Line 149 is being rerouted between downtown
Long Beach and the county line along Ocean Boulevard, Livingston Drive,
Second/Westminster as discussed at meetings of the Inter -County Transit
Coordination Study Team.
This alignment also continues our inability to fund operation of Line 149
east of Disneyland as outlined in Mary Downey's letter of August 19, 1983
to Scott Holmes concerning the FY 1983-84 Cooperative Service Agreement.
Very truly yours,
Edmund A. Buckley
Manager of Servic Development
EAB:SC
cc: William L. Foster
Ed Clifford
Mary Downey
Joe Lyle, SCRTD
11222 ACACIA PARKWAY • P.O. BOX 3005 • GARDEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA 92642 • PHONE (714) 971-6200
RCTC MI NUTES
"
. ` - ��'