The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About03 March 10, 1986 Citizens Advisory040240 R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1986 RIVERSIDE CITY HALL 5TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM 3900 MAIN STREET, RIVERSIDE 92522 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. 3. Transit Operations Quarterly Report. 4. Banning/Beaumont to Hemet Transit Service. 5. Freeway Emergency Call Box System. 6. Transportation Issues Update. 7. Other Business. 8. Remarks and Announcements. 9. Adjournment. (INFO) (REVIEW/COMMENT) (INFO) (DISC/POSS ACTION) Date March 10, 1986 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTi.. SIGN IN SHEET NAME REPRESENTU ` TEL. NO AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CDMMISS ON TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Transit Operations Report The attached table and graphs show transit operations data for the public transit operators in Riverside County during the second quarter of the year, October 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985. The information used to develop the report was provided by the transit operators. Ridership Total ridership in the second quarter of the year was 1.15 million passengers. Second quarter riderhsip is continuing to increase over prior years as shown in Attachment II. The increase over last year is 14.9%. The majority of the increase was reported by the SunLine Transit Agency with a 24.7% increase as shown in Attachment III. Operating Costs and Jaubsidies Total operating costs for the second quarter were $2.68 million, an increase of approximately 7.6% over last year. The year to date costs were $5.19 million, 16.4% over last year. The cost increase reflects an 8.6% increase in re- venue vehicle hours of service operated and significantly higher insurance premiums for the operators. Although ridership is increasing, the average subsidy/passenger is also increasing due to the significant increase in operating costs. The subsidy/passenger trip for the first half of the year has increased from $1.76 last year to $1.92 this year, a 9% increase. The only exception is the SunLine Transit Agency. The SunLine ridership increase of 27.2% has reduced the half year subsidy from $2.66 last year to $2.47 this year. The increase in subsidy due to higher costs will require both the RTA and SunLine to consider the need for fare increases next fiscal year in the development of their Short Range Transit Plans. The subsidy per passenger trip for various services operated by the RTA and SunLine are shown in Attachments V and VI. SunLine is continuing its efforts to reduce costs or elimi- nate the high subsidy/passenger trip services. The Western Village service was discontinued in December. The Palm Springs D -A -R will be contracted to a non-profit agency, Desert Blind Inc., in February or early March at a subsidy per passenger trip of $6.00. The North Palm Springs service is scheduled to be contracted to a non-profit agency, Hands 1 Agenda Item No. 3 of the Desert, in March at a subside per passenger trip of $5.00. RTA is working with local officials in Hemet to revise Route 30 and increase ridership. The Moreno Valley Routes 18 and 19 are relatively new services. Line 18 started in January 1985 and Line 19 started in September 1985. Ridership is expected to continue to increase on these lines and reduce the subsidy per passenger trip to more acceptable levels. PB:nk Attachments 2 ATTACHMENT I QUARTERLY TRANSIT OPERATIONS REPORT RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC TR ANSIT OPERATORS 10/1/85 TO 12/31/85 R ancho Riverside Banning Beaumont Corona LETS PVVTA** Mirage , Spec .SVc:s.. RTA Sunline T OTA, F.R. Pas se ngers 17,847 23,916 732,075 263,017 1,036,855 DAR Passe ngers 15,406 17,067 1,625 NA 31,857 37,130 9,637 112,722 Total Pa ssengers 17,847 15,406 17,067 23,916 1,625 NA 31,857 769,205 272,654 1,149,577 F. R. Expe nses $49,433 $34,038 $1,391,194 $672,316 $2,146,981 DAR Ex penses $34,234 $60,205 $3,304 NA $145,578 $212,521 $82,104 $537,946 Tota l Expenses $49,433 $34,234 $60,205 $34,038 $3,304 NA $145,578 $1,603,715 $764,420 $2,684,927 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE HR. FIXED ROUTE 12.98 NA NA 12.44 NA NA NA 23 .46 15.28 DIAL -A --RIDE NA 8. 16 6. 56 NA 4.92 NA 5.50 5 .48 4.47 COST PER VEHICLE HR. FIXED ROUTE $35. 95 NA NA $17.70 NA NA NA $44 .58 $39 .07 DIAL -A -RIDE NA $18.13 $23.14 NA $10.01 NA $25 .13 $31.34 $38 .06 FARE REVENUE RATIO 10.3% 26.9% 20.2% 22.5% 25. 0% NA 10.5% 18.8% 20.9% SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FIXED ROUTE $2.48 NA NA $1.10 NA NA $1 .52 $1 .98 DIAL -A --RIDE NA $1. f,2 $2.81 NA $1.53 $4.09 $4.99 $7 .97 * Rancho Mirage data was not submitted hut will he included in the next report. ** PVVTA costs renorted are low and are being review ed. ATTACHMENT II C) 0 u f,) W c 0 RIDERSH IP CO N N) _ m m N) co r r' CC++ 0) 1 1 1 I I 1 bl 1 1 I 1 I T 1 t M M r 0) CO h • N) N .- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fisea l ' fears rn CO h (D ul -t r7 Cl o ri o rio o ri d 0 0 (suo!II! "1) r.:aggyasspd (Fu o!II!Nl) sJaGuassnd ATTACHMENT III SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY RIDERSHIP 500 400 300 200 100 500 1981/82 1982/83 i f 11 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 Fiscal Years THIRD QUARTER RIDERSHIP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 400 — 300 - 200- 1007)/ o 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 Fiscal Years ATTACHMENT IV RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIDERSHIP 900 800 700 800 500- 400- 300 900 r 1 1 I I I I I I I I II 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/88 Fiscal Years SECOND QUARTER RIDERSHIP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 800 — 700 — 1982/83 1983/84 Fiscal Year 1984/85 ATTACHMENT V SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER RTA SECOND QUARTER LU 19 18 17 -- 16 H 15 — 14- 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 -J / / / 7 / / / / / / / r / / / / / 2 1 15 14 16 29 25 12 3 21 22 24 17 27 18 30 19 Service FIXED ROUTES 2 Corona - Riv 1 Magnolia Av 15 Arlington Av 14 Indiana Av 16 Moreno Valley - Riv 29 Rubidoux 25 Riv - Loma Linda 12 California Av 13 Arlanza 21 Country Village - Tyler Mall 22 Perris - Riv 24 Lake Els. - Perris - Riv 17 U C R - Mag Center 27 Hemet - Perris - Riv 18 Moreno Valley 30 Hemet - San Jacinto 19 Moreno - Perris DIAL -A -RIDES SC N P Perris D -A -R H Hemet/ San Jacinto D -A -R SC Sun City D -A -R N Norco D -A -R ATTACHMENT VI SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER SUNLINE: SECOND QUARTER $0.000 Per Pa-:seriger 30 - 25 - 20 - 15 10 20 19 2 FIXED -ROUTES f r w 1 4 20 Palm Springs - Coachella 19 DHS - Coachella 2 Palm Springs Local MV Mt. View- 1000 Palms 1 Palm Springs Local 4 La Quinta - Palm Desert PD Palm Desert Trolley WV Western Village PD 1W [V OHS PD PS NPS SERVICE DIAL -A -RIDES IV Intervalley Hdcp D -A -R DHS Desert Hot Springs D -A -R PD Palm Desert Dial -A -Ride PS Palm Springs D -A -R NPS North Palm Springs WESTERN VILLAGE and LINE 1 services were discontinued second quarter. LINE 2 service was expanded in the BANNING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP 5n 40 -I 2'0 41 C a6 �- Q v 7 N V CL `. 30 2n -I 101 0 50 1981,'62 1982/83 1983/84 Flseal Years 1984/85 BEAUMONT DIAL —A —RIDE RIDERSHIP 1985/88 40 - 30 -I 20 10 I I I I 1901/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 Fiscal Years I 1 1 1985/86 CORONA DIAL -A -RIDE RIDERSHIP 50 40 -r 0, C C Vl 0 D G t1 g 301 20 10 0 50—r 40 — 30- 20- 1 0 0 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 Fiscal Years LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT RIDERSHIP r i 1 981 /82 1982/83 1983/84 Fiscal Years I I r 1984,85 1985/86 PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT RIDERSHIP 20 19 — 1a 17 — 16 15 —7 14 — 1 3 — 12 11 10 9 — r1 7 — 5 -1 4 3 2 50 1 981 /82 r 1 r r I I 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 Fiscal Years RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES RIDERSHIP I r r 1985/86 40 — 30 20 10 I I I 3 ! I I T i 1.81/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 Fiscal Years AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISS=L \g TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Banning/Beaumont to Hemet Transit Service The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) has completed a study of the feasibility of starting bus service from the Banning/Beaumont (Pass) area to Hemet. A copy of the report is attached. The report is scheduled to be presented to the RTA Board of Directors at their meeting on March 27th. The study recommends that bus service operated Mondays -Fridays from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on a 90 -minute headway will meet the needs of the estimated 70 passengers per day expected to use the service. By operating this service with a van or minibus under contract to a private contractor, the expected subsidy per passenger trip is estimated to be approximately $4.00. Service would be implemented as a six-month demonstration project with passenger trip goals established prior to the start of service. Marketing would be accomplished by newspaper ads and local radio announcements and by placing material in the vehicles used to provide local service in Banning and Beaumont. The service is designed primarily to provide transportation for clients of social service agencies requiring services available in Hemet. The service will also provide Pass area residents a wider choice of medical services and shopping facilities. As the study points out, the basic needs for shopping and medical ser- vices are available in the Pass area. The service is not designed to serve work trips or to replace the college operated bus service to Mt. San Jacinto Community Col- lege. Interviews with major employers in Hemet and the Pass area indicated little, if any, need for serving work trips between the two areas. The college -operated bus provides free fare service to Pass area students at a cost of less than $10,000 per year to the school. Should actual non -school demand show that a basic level of bus service between the areas is warranted, then the service could be expanded to accommodate the students commuting to the college. The estimated demand of 70 passengers per day may appear low given a population of approximately 27,000 persons and age and income characteristics of the Pass area similar to the Perris - Mead Valley area. However, as noted earlier, the basic medical and shopping needs of the residents in the Pass area can be met locally and there is a significant amount of local employment opportunity. Local medical services, shopping and employment are not nearly as available in the Perris -Mead Valley and most other rural areas of Western Riverside County. PB:nk Agenda Item No. 4 March 10, 1986 SAN GORGONIO PASS TO HEMET TRANSIT SERVICE FEASIBILITY STUDY MARCH, 1986 Re pp SAN GORGONIO PASS TO HEMET TRANSIT SERVICE FEASIBILITY STUDY .15 au algo ua It RIVERSIDE +III ILI A... U OISIYwAO SW Li.rly e n. L.4 [LEINO IIE RMA IALIA i.a.� Miner. STUDY AREA a BEA ONT BANNING ar FU j ■O R.N • call wil l.. NOS SPRINGS INDIO MI SS CD AcwILLA wca SALTON SEA S AN NORTH 111010 TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION II STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION III POPULATION AND INCOME CHARACTERISTICS IV EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES AND USE V SERVICE ALTERNATIVES VI ESTIMATED DEMAND VII RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE I INTRODUcTIQN The San Gorgonio Pass area to Hemet public transit service feasibility study was conducted by the Riverside Transit Agency with assistance from the Riverside County Transportation Commis- sion. The study was undertaken in response to a need for transit service between the two areas identified in the unmet transit needs public hearings and Short Range Transit Plan development process in 1985. The Pass area is part of the Riverside Transit Agency ser- vice area. II ,STUDY MBA DESCRIPTION The San Gorgonio Pass study area includes the cities of Banning and Beaumont, and the unincorporated areas of Cherry Valley and High- land Springs. The area is located along I-10 approximately 25 miles northeast of Riverside and 15 miles north of Hemet. The area has direct access to Riverside, San Bernardino, Hemet and the Coachella Valley via I-10 and State Highways 60 and 79. Medical and social services, shopping and local employment opportu- nities are more readily available within the Pass area than other rural areas of Western Riverside County. The San Gorgonio Pass Memorial Hospital and Medical Offices provide most medical services needed by area residents. Referrals for specialized treatment are generally made to either the Eisenhower Medical Center in Palm Desert or to the Loma Linda University Medical Center in Loma Linda. County health and social services departments, and the Federal Social Security Administration have offices in the Pass area. Commercial outlets for shopping include several major grocery chain stores, a K -Mart, Thrifty Drug and Discounty Store, Kinney Shoes, Coronet Hardware and Discount Store, and numerous other small stores. The area has a movie theater for entertain- ment. There are two major employers - Deutsch Corporation with 950 employees and the Pass Hospital with 270 employees - and several smaller employers. A Westinghouse Service Center in Beaumont is nearing completion and will provide additional local employment opportunities. The Mt. San Jacinto Community College, a two-year college, is located approximately 12 miles southerly of the area along State Highway 79. Students from the Pass area attending the college are provided free bus service operated by the college. The bus leaves the Pass area at 7:45 a.m. arriving at the college at 8:30 a.m. Afternoon service leaves the college at 4:00 p.m. arriving in the Pass area at 4:45 p.m. III POPULATION AND INCOME CHAgAQT RISTICS The study area's population is estimated at 27,600 persons by the Riverside County Planning Department. The average family size is 2.8 persons. A breakdown of population by age and families by income is provided below. population hy Aag Under 5 Yrs. 5 Yrs. to 17 Yrs. 18 Yrs. to 59 Yrs. 60+ Yrs. Total Families by Income Under $10,000/Yr. $10,000-$19,000/Yr. $20,000-$34,000/Yr. $35,000+/Yr. Total persons 1,932 7% 5,244 19% 13,800 50% 6,624 24% 27,600 100% Families 2,445 25% 3,367 35% 2,838 29% 1,074 11% 9,724 100% The percentages of families by income level in the Pass area are approximately the same as the percentages in the Hemet Valley and the Perris -Mead Valley areas. The percentage of population by age are approximately the same in the Pass area and the Perris -Mead Valley area. The Hemet Valley has a much higher percentage of elderly persons. IV EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES AND DEE Local transit services in the area are operated by the two cities. Dial -a -ride services are available to the general public in Beaumont, Cherry Valley and Highland Springs and to the elderly and handicapped in Banning. Fixed -route service is available to most residents of Banning. Transfers between the two local operators are coordinated hourly at the Pass Hospital. Local transit rider- ship averages 400 passenger trips/day. The most common use of transit, 46% of all trips, is for persons attending workshop programs for the handicapped in Beaumont. The remainder of the trips are for medical appointments, shopping and social services. Intercity transit service to Riverside, San Bernardino, Redlands and the Coachella Valley is available on Greyhound and Trailways routes. An average of 10-20 passenger trips /day are made on these services Service to Yucaipa is operated twice daily by the City of Beaumont dial -a -ride. Passengers transfer to a cross -county route operated by the Omnitrans in Yucaipa. An average of 6 passengers per day use this service. Most riders on the Yucaipa service are going for medical services or to visit patients at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Loma Linda. V FERVICE ALTERNATIYE$ Two alternatives for providing transit service between the Pass area and Hemet were developed. Both alternatives would operate daily, Monday -Friday, on a 90 -minute headway. The difference between the alternatives is the number of hours of operation. 4 Alternative I would operate from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. like other RTA operated intercity services. Alternative II would operate from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. for medical, shopping and social service trips but would not serve work or school trips. The alternative for providing transit service less frequently, such as 3 days/week, was considered but eliminated. This type of ser- vice has not been successful in previous demonstration projects in the County. Routes operated in the past and cancelled due to inadequate demand were: Lake Elsinore -Corona -Riverside; Idyllwild- Hemet; and, Western Village Mobile Home Estates -Palm Springs. The subsidy per passenger trip for other intercity services ope- rated by RTA are: Perris -Riverside $2.75; Lake Elsinore -Perris - Riverside $3.50; and, Hemet -Perris -Riverside $4.90. Fares for these services are: Perris -Riverside $0.80 and Hemet or Lake Elsinore -Riverside $1.60. Discount fares are available to the elderly and handicapped. Listed below are the annual operating costs and average passengers per day needed to achieve a subsidy/passenger trip of $3.00, $4.00 and $5.00. Two costs are shown for Alternative I - RTA operated and RTA contracted. The RTA operated cost is for a large bus of 30+ seating capacity. Under the RTA agreement with its union employees, all services provided by a bus of 30+ seating capacity must be operated by RTA drivers and maintained by RTA mechanics. Services on which vans or minibuses are used are operated by pri- vate operators under contract to the RTA. ALTERNATIVE I RTA Operated RTA Contracted ALTERNATIVE II AVG DAILY PASSENGERS REQUIRED ANNUAL FOR A SUBSIDY OF COST $3/PASS TRIP $4/PASS TRIP $5/PASS TRIP $160,000 172 $121,000 130 RTA Contracted $ 84,000 90 135 111 102 84 71 58 The assumed fare for each alternative is $0.80, the same as from Perris to Riverside or Hemet, with discounts for the elderly and handicapped. VI gSTIMATED DEMAND The expected demand for public transit service between the Pass area and Hemet was assessed in two ways; as a percentage of vehicle trips between the areas, and by a newspaper questionnaire and follow-up telephone interviews with hospitals, social service agen- cies and major employers. Transit generally attracts 1/2 of 1% of the vehicle trips in an area. Caltrans vehicle counts for State Route 79 in Lambs Canyon show an average daily volume of 9,400 vehicles. A demand for 5 transit of 1/2% of vehicle trips would produce 47 passenger trips/day. In May, 1985, the RTA published a questionnaire in local newspapers in the Pass area and in Hemet to allow area residents the opportu- nity to identify their need for transit service between the two areas. A list of newspapers used and copies of the questionnaires are attached. A total of 43 questionnaires were returned to the RTA, 29 from the Pass area and 14 from the Hemet area. The ques- tionnaires showed a need for transit of 143 passenger trips/week for an average of 28 passenger trips/day. Follow-up telephone interviews were then conducted with the hospitals, major employers, and county and state social service agencies. The estimated demand for transit by trip purpose from the questionnaire and follow-up interviews is shown below. TRIP PURPOSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOLLOW-UP EST. DAILY RESULTS ADJUSTMENT PASSENGERS Shopping 10 - 10 Medical 7 20 27 Work 2 - 2 School 1 - 1 Other 8 20 28 Total 28 40 68 No adjustments were made to work, school or shopping trips as a result of the telephone interviews. The seven major employers contacted in the Hemet area reported having 1,160 employees of which only 26 were from the Pass area. None of the company repre- sentatives felt transportation was a problem for their employees. The Deutsch Corporation in Banning surveyed its employees on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift and reported no interest in bus ser- vice for their work trips. This information and the local employ- ment opportunities in the Pass area indicate little, if any, need for transit for work purposes. School trips were not increased since bus transportation is provided by Mt. San Jacinto Community College. Shopping trips were not increased because of the availa- bility of stores in the Pass area. Medical and social service agency (other) trips were increased as a result of the telephone interviews with the hospitals and the County Mental Health and Public Social Service Departments. The Hemet Valley Hospital surveyed its patients' records for a three-month period. The survey showed an average of 60 patients per week or 12 patients per day use the hospital from the Pass area. Four patients use the mental health program services and eight use the services of other medical programs. The 12 patients produce 24 trips/day. At most, 50% would use transit producing a demand of 12 trips/day. The County Department of Mental Health had recently surveyed its clients to identify problems for clients in using available ser- vices. The survey showed 6-7 individuals per day cannot use ser- vices available at the Mid Valley Clinic in San Jacinto due to a lack of transportation. These clients produce a potential demand of 12-14 trips/day. The County Department of Public Social Services office in Banning indicated that 300-400 of the 1,500 food stamp program clients served monthly have a transportation problem. Certification of eligibility is handled at the Banning office. The clients must, however, take their certificates to regional food stamp distribu- tion outlets in Hemet, Indio or Riverside. Food stamps are no longer distributed locally or through the mail due to theft and other misuse experienced in the past. The average for persons with transportation problems is 15-20 persons per day. Most of these persons get rides from friends, relatives or other program clients that have automobiles. Even -if bus service were available, there would be a tendency for clients particularly when trips to the food stamp outlets are combined with shopping or other types of trips to continue to ride with other persons who own automobiles. If 50% opted to use the bus, the transit demand would be 20 trips/day. The State Employment Development Department (EDD) and Department of Motor Vehicles (D MV) have offices in Hemet but not in the Pass area. The EDD office was contacted and reported serving an average of 300 persons/day. Their service area is large and includes the Pass area, Hemet Valley, eastern Moreno Valley, Perris, Idyllwild and the Rancho California area. There were no records available to estimate the number of persons served from the Pass area or the number of persons with transportation problems requiring service. No adjustments were made as a result of the telephone interview. VII RECOMMENDED ALTERN..TI VE Alternative II, service operated Monday -Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on a 90 -minute headway, operated by a private contractor is recommended. The service should be implemented as a demonstra- tion project for a minimum of six months. The maximum subsidy per passenger trip goal should be $4.00 and the average passengers per vehicle hour goal should be 9. The suggested fare is $0.80 with discounts for the elderly and handicapped. The recommended service is intended to meet the transportation needs of Pass area clients of social service agencies to services in Hemet and to provide additional shopping opportunities for Pass area residents. School trips are currently served by the Mt. San Jacinto Community College bus service. There is little need for transportation for work trips between the two areas. Initial marketing of this service should include providing service information to the County and State offices in the Pass area and Hemet, and advising them of the six-month demonstration period. 7 ATTACHMENT 1 EMPLOYERS CONTACTED IN HEMET/SAN JACINTO Firm # Employees # From Pass Area Eastern Municipal Water District 245 2 Hemet Federal Savings & Loan 210 4 Hemet Casting 350 11 General Telephone 120 1 Nomad Travel Trailers 95 3 Hillcrest Homes 60 2 RAMA Corporation 80 3 Total 1,160 26 ATTACHMENT 2 NEWSPAPER LIST FOR RTA QUESTIONNAIRE PRESS ENTERPRISE (Pass Edition) BANNING RECORD GAZETTE ADVANTAGE (Pass Edition) HEMET VALLEY NEWS PRESS ENTERPRISE (Valley Edition) SAN JACINTO REGISTER ADVANTAGE (Valley Edition) A R771: ��• �l/T %i�1ti`7 Jref V" — ATTENTION BANNING AND BEAUMONT RESIDENTS! DO YOU NEED PUBLIC BUS SERVICE FROM BANNING AND BEAUMONT TO HEMET? The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) is studying the possibility of providing public transit service from Banning and Beaumont to Hemet. If you have a need for this type of transportation service, would you please fill out the short questionnaire below and mail to: RTA, 1825 3rd Street, Riverside, CA 92507. If you have any questions about the questionnaire or public transit matters, call RTA toll free at 1-800-223- 7929. THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO ASSIST RTA IN DECIDING WHETHER PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE IS NEEDED FROM BANNING AND BEAUMONT TO HEMET BY FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE BELOW. Cut Along Ootted Lino F QUESTIONNAIRE 1. If public transit service was available to Hemet, how often would you use it on a weekly basis? (Number of one-way trips) 2. What type of trips would you be making? Please indicate the total number of one-way trips per week by the type of trip. _School _Work _Shopping _Medical _Personal 3. How much would you pay for a one-way transit trip to Hemet? Fare Mail to: RTA, 1825 3rd Street, Riverside, CA 92507 ATTENTION HEMETAND SAN JACINTO RESIDENTS! DO YOU NEED PUBLIC BUS SERVICE FROM HEMET AND SAN JACINTO TO BANNING AND BEAUMONT? The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) is studying the possibility of providing public transit service from Hemet and San Jacinto to Banning and Beaumont. If you have a need for this type of transportation service, would you please fill out the short questionnaire below and mail to: RTA, 1825 3rd Street, Riverside, CA 92507. If you have any questions about the questionnaire or public transit matters, call RTA toll free at 1-800-223- 7929. THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO ASSIST RTA IN DECIDING WHETHER PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE IS NEEDED FROM HEMETAND SAN JACINTO TO BANNING AND BEAUMONT BY FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE BELOW. r Cut +10172 Dote Una QUESTIONNAIRE 1. If public transit service was available to Banning, how often would you use it on a weekly basis? (Number of one-way trips) 2. What type of trips would you be making? Please indicate the total number of one-way trips per week by the type of trip. _School _Work _Shopping _Medical _Personal 3. How much would you pay for a one-way transit trip to Banning? Fare Mail to: RTA, 1825 3rd Street, Riverside, CA 92507 MAY 3 '1985 Riverside Transportation Ccn missi�., ATTACHMENT 3 COMBINED GREYHOUND/TRAILWAYS SERVICE PASS AREA BANNING/BEAUMONT TO REDLANDS, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE Lv. Beaumont Arr. Redlands 6:50 A.M. 7:14 A.M. 10:50 A.M. 10:55 A.M. 1:00 P.M. 2:00 P.M. 3:50 P.M. 6:45 P.M. 7:57 A.M. 11:26 A.M. 2:33 P.M. 7:17 P.M. Arr. San Bernardino Arr. Riverside 7:30 A.M. 8:00 A.M. 8:15 A.M. 8:35 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 12:05 P.M. 11:45 A.M. 12:05 P.M. 1:40 P.M. - 2:50 P.M. 3:10 P.M. 4:30 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 7:35 P.M. 7:55 P.M. RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND REDLANDS TO BANNING/BEAUMONT Lv. Riverside Lv. San Bernardino .Lv. Redlands Arr. Beaumont 7:05 A.M. - 7:28 A.M. 7:50 A.M. 8:55 A.M. 9:15 A.M. 9:33 A.M. 9:45 A.M. 10:20 A.M. 10:45 A.M. 11:40 A.M. 12:01 P.M. 12:20 P.M. 12:30 P.M. 1:00 P.M. 2:05 P.M. 2:30 P.M. - 3:25 P.M. 2:30 P.M. 2:50 P.M. 3:08 P.M. 3:30 P.M. 4:00 P.M. 4:20 P.M. 4:38 P.M. 4:59 P.M. 7:00 P.M. 7:50 P.M. - 8:35 P.M. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director '; SUBJECT: Emergency Call Box System This subject was discussed briefly by the Committee in January. The Commission, in January, requested additional information from staff (see attached information sheet) and in February authorized a more in-depth feasibility study by a private consultant. We hope to have a draft of the feasibility study available for discussion at the meeting. BB:nk Attachment Agenda Item No.5� March 10, 1986 SERVICE AUTHO$ITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENQIFS (SAFE) ILFORMATION SHEET WHAT Ia IT?: An Authority authorized by recent State legislation (SB 1199) to implement a system of emergency call boxes on a county's freeway system similar to the ones in Los Angeles County and other areas of the country. SYSTEM USAGE/PURPOSE: Based on experience in Los Angeles County, we could expect about 5000 calls per month, 15-20% for emergencies (ambu- lance, CHP, etc.) and 80-85% for disabled vehicles. HOW lQ INITIATE: In order to create SAFE, approval is required by Board of Supervisors and majority of cities representing majority of population. MMPOSITION QE SAFE: Two members appointed by County, five members appointed by cities. The seven -member RCTC could be designated as OCTC will be in Orange County, that would save the trouble of creating a new, single purpose agency. E..3FNUE SOURCE k AMOUNT: SB 1199 provides for a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations. This would generate about $600,000/year in Riverside County. This should be sufficient to phase in a system by 1992 and provide for ongoing maintenance operation and capital amorti- zation. No other revenue source would be required. SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY: Three technologies are available: hard wire (like Los Angeles County system), cellular, and radio. Recent studies show radio to be least costly. SYSTEM COST: Annual capital amortization would be about $300,000/year and annual maintenance and operating cost would be about $200,000 per year. Costs appear to be less than the annual revenue from vehicle registration surcharge. IMPLEMENTATION: Provided revenue bonds or leasing mechanism is used, construction of a system could begin within 18 months and be operational within 24 to 30 months. This assumes all State highways are in system including as yet uncompleted section I-15. On highways with light traffic, spacing would be up to 5 miles; on heavily travelled freeways, spacing would be at 1/2 mile intervals. 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CoMM;SSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Transportation Issues The Committee will continue its review of the attached list of transportation issues and priorities started at the last meeting. Staff will provide information on efforts made to address the issues at the meeting. Once again, Committee members are requested to review the list starting with High Priority Issue E (Highway 79) and to identify any new issues they wish to be added. PB:nk Agenda Item No. 6 March 10, 1986 CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES HIGH PRIORITY A. Should there be a universal telephone number for transit, vanpool, carpool and buspool information. B. Consideration should be given phasing out dial -a -ride, except for elderly and handicapped service, unless dial -a -ride can be made more cost effective. C. Should funding be made available for expanding service and carrying out an aggressive marketing program in a selected area as a pilot program, Example: fixed -route service in Moreno Valley with more than one route and headways of no more than 30 minutes. D. Transit operators should provide more information on bus services at bus stops (maps and schedules). E. Highway 79 (Lambs Canyon) - safety problems and update on possible widening or guard rail project. F. Highway 111 - safety and congestion problems. G. Highway 86 - safety problem. H. Highway 71 - safety problem, better markings on the asphalt. I. Highway 91 - safety and congestion problems. Should a diamond lane be constructed from Corona to Orange County. J. How are Citizens Advisory Committees used by other Commissions, what are the areas of activity, and should the Committee begin to act more as an advocacy group through the Commission? MODERATE PRIORITY A. Transit operators should increase efforts to promote transit subsidy programs such as merchant discounts, employer pass programs, etc. B. Should transit service be operated between Lake Elsinore and Corona. C. Should transit service be operated between Norco and Riverside tc accommodate persons needing to be in Riverside for work by 8 a.m. D. Public/private partnerships - should private developers participate more in transportation projects. 1 LOW PRIORITY A. Is there adequate information exchange within the transit community t identify innovative transit programs designed in other areas for possi ble implementation in Riverside County. B. Coordination should be improved between transit operators and Commute Computer. C. Provide an update report on efforts to establish local airline and rai services in Riverside County. RCTC MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM Y`IISS}CN Minutes of Meeting No. 1-86 January 16, 1986 1, Call to Order. The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison at 1:33 p.m. on Thursday, January 16, 1986, at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. The Chairman noted that a quorum was present. Members present: Kay Ceniceros Susan Cornelison Carmen Cox Alternates present: Don Baskett Naomi Feagan Pat Murphy Melba Dunlap Roy Wilson Ed Shepard Wayne Stuart 2. Approval of Minutes. M/S/C (DUNLAP/COX) to approve the minutes of the December 19, 1985 meeting as submitted. 3. Public Comments. There were no public comments. A. Miscellaneous Items. 1. Chairman Cornelison informed the Commission that a meeting on the Coachella Valley Transportation Study is being held tomorrow. She will not be able to attend and asked if any of the Com- missioners could attend the meeting. Commissioner Stuart offered to attend. 2. Barry Beck, Executive Director, informed the Com- mission that the San Bernardino Associated Govern- ments, on February 5th, will be holding a workshop on the feasibility of a local option sales tax for transportation purposes. They have invited the Riverside County Transportation Commission to participate. Agenda Item No. 3a r,.0 ...�..,, 10 10QC RCTC Minutes January 16, 1986 Chairman Cornelison requested staff to notify Commission members of the time and location of the SanBAG meeting. 3. Chairman Cornelison said that she and Barry Beck attended the TCC meeting at SCAG this morning. One issue on the agenda of particular concern to the Commission is the trade of UMTA Section 9 funds with Santa Clara County. The TCC has recom- mended SCAG Executive Committee approval of the trade. Also discussed is an UMTA requirement that there should be much more private participation in the transit planning and programming process. A more formal discussion and perhaps action is scheduled for the TCC February meeting. Barry Beck added that the immediate problem is a threat by UMTA to withhold all grants until the operators comply with the UMTA policies. 4. Barry Beck reported that Commuter Computer and RTA were able to put together three vanpools consist- ing of people who were riding the buspools to Orange County that were terminated last month. Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, added that a fourth vanpool is currently being developed. In response to Commissioner Cox's question, Durand Rall, RTA General Manager, said that vans and insurance are provided through the Chrysler Cor- poration. 5. Barry Beck recommended that the Commission appoint Tom Mullin of Senator Robert Presley's Office to the RIV/SAN Transportation Steering Committee. M/S/C (DUNLAP/CENICEROS) to appoint Tom Mullin to the RIV/SAN Transportation Steering Committee. 4. Transit Operator Performance Audits. Paul Blackwelder said that a performance audit on the transit operators is required every three years. He des- cribed the process of developing and implementing the audit recommendations. He then introduced the consultants, Jerry Kaplan and Tim Youmans of JHK & Associates, Inc. 2 RCTC Minutes January 16, 1986 Jerry Kaplan gave an overview of the scope of work used in the transit operators performance audits and how recommen- dations were developed. He said that the areas of analysis involved: 1) Five performance indicators for the period FY 1982-83 through FY 1984-85 to assess historical trends; 2) The transit operator's ability to meet its organizational goals and objectives; and, 3) Implementation of the recom- mendations from the 1983 performance audits. They also looked at the effectiveness and the efficiency of the tran- sit operator. Interviews were made with management, staff, and members of the policy board on comments and directions on how the transit operator is doing. Overall, the general findings of the County's transit operators is that ridership across the board is continuing to increase and productivity is also continuing to increase. He then reviewed their findings and recommendations for each transit agency. Commissioner Dunlap asked if the consultants had a chance to review the recommendations with transit operators' staff prior to the Commission meeting. Jerry Kaplan said that the transit operators have seen the report in draft form and they have responded through RCTC staff and most of their comments are reflected in the report. Commissioner Murphy stated that the SunLine Board truly does not understand what RCTC responsibilities are. That is the reason why the SunLine Board has designated two members to alternately attend Commission meetings. Commissioner Ceniceros asked the consultants if they have any recommendations on ways to attract ridership specifically for the RTA system. Tim Youmans said that they basically looked at the indi- cators and whether they have programs in place. They looked at whether there are any programs to monitor the services and if there are strategies in place. RTA has programs in place and they have a management objectives program which addressed many of the outstanding issues. At this time, Chairman Cornelison introduced Councilwoman Yolanda Coba of Coachella. Commissioner Murphy added that Councilwoman Coba will alternate with Councilman Fred Wolffe to attend Commission meetings. 3 RCTC Minutes January 16, 1986 M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP) to accept the transit operator performance audits, authorize the Executive Director to forward the audits to the operators and the State, and require the transit operators to submit a report on implementation of the audit recommendations by March 3, 1986. 5. Commission Performance Audit. Tim Youmans said that the Commission's performance audit approach is very similar to the transit operators. The difference is that there are not any indicators. The key is to see how effectively the Commission deals with the various members of the transportation planning community (transit operators, Caltrans, SCAG, UMTA, transportation commissions, etc.). Basically, they found that the Commission is oper- ating efficiently, effectively and economically in its phy- sical and financial operations and in dealing with the various agencies. The Commission has come a long way in developing computer tools to help analyze performance and various programs. On the highway and roads side, the Com- mission has been very effective in terms of getting funds at the State and federal levels for the County especially during a very difficult time. One issue found is that transit operators do not fully understand the Commission's role. Two things contributing to this are: 1) The Commission's role as written in the Transportation Development Act is not clear; and, 2) The high level of turnover in transit board members and transit staff. Their recommendations are: 1) That the Commission develop policies and procedural guidelines to document the Commission's role and responsibility in the transportation planning process; 2) To develop a guide to assist operators in applying for TDA claims; 3) Develop, with transit oper- ator input, a procedure for Commission evaluation of re- quests for service changes; 4) Improve the effectiveness of the Transportation Productivity Advisory Committees; and, 5) Formally evaluate whether all areas and major transit oper- ators are adequately represented on the Commission. The last recommendation is because the area is changing dyna- mically with population rapidly increasing and the level of service provided by the transit operator is growing. In SunLine's case, they have no voting members on the Commis- sion. Commissioner Murphy explained that representatives from the Desert area were selected by the Mayors and Councilmen's Conference's Selection Committee. They have selected Commissioner Wilson to represent the area and her as the alternate. 4 RCTC Minutes January 16 1986 Commissioner Wilson stated that he had made an offer to SunLine staff that at any time if there was an issue of concern or they would like him to attend their meeting that he would be glad to do so but, to date, he has never been invited. SunLine obviously does not know what the Commis- sion's role is. He added during his term as a Commission member, he has never seen anyone voting RTA versus SunLine. This is not the function of the Commission and it has never been. He questioned the effectiveness of the Commission if the Commission was composed of representatives of each transit agency. Barry Beck said that staff concurs with the consultant's recommendations and a schedule has been developed to respond to the recommendations. Regarding Recommendation No. 5, this is a policy issue that the Commission needs to address. Staff feels that it would be helpful if there were more members on the Commission in order to have broader geographical representation. Staff thinks that there would be some benefit in expanding the membership to get better input as well as output back to the local level. M/S/C (CENICEROS/COX) to: 1) Accept the Commission performance audit prepared by JHK & Associates. 2) Direct the Executive Director to submit the report to the State. 3) Approve the actions contained in the staff responses No. 1-4. 4) That Recommendation No. 5 regarding adequate re- presentation of all areas of the County on the Commission be included in next month's agenda and that staff gather information on the history of the composition. 6. Status of New Transit Services Proposed for FY 1985/86. Paul Blackwelder provided a status report on the transit services that were identified in the Short Range Transit Plan and unmet transit needs process as follows: 1) Banning fixed -route expansion and E&H dial -a -ride service; 2) Moreno Valley fixed -route expansion and E&H dial -a -ride service; 3) Torres -Martinez Indian Reservation; 4) Banning -Beaumont to Hemet service; and, 5) Corona -Norco fixed -route feasibility study. 5 RCTC Minutes January 16, 1986 In response to Commissioner Dunlap's question as to the status of Line 21 (Mira Loma) service, Barry Beck said that ridership on Line 21 has increased. Commissioner Dunlap added that the increase could have resulted from the minor change in the routing whereby the bus goes into Country Village to pick up the riders. Barry Beck said that this report responds to Commissioner Ceniceros' comment on ways to increase ridership. The issue is being approached on an area by area basis with the oper- ators trying to find ways to increase ridership. Changes in Moreno Valley, Rubidoux and Mira Loma have been very successful. Two target areas that still need to be analyzed are the Norco -Corona area and the Hemet Valley area. Staff feels that both areas have more potential. M/S/C (SHEPARD/DUNLAP) to accept and file the status report on the new transit services proposed for FY 1985/86. 7. Programming Transportation Projects. Barry Beck said that as requested by the Commission at its last meeting, staff prepared a brief summary of the process for programming transportation projects. Commissioner Ceniceros commented that the summary is sort of biased with regard to SCAG especially with the way the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is done at SCAG. Poten- tially there is a considerable amount of discretion if the planning process is strengthened at SCAG to conform with the land use plans. Barry Beck said that he supports SCAG trying to strengthen the RTP as the way to impact transportation programming. In its present form, the RTP is just too vague and ambi- guous to have an effect. Commissioner Ceniceros suggested that the Regional Transpor- tation Plan be agendized in the future. Staff has submitted some very focused, critical remarks on the RTP with most of the remarks very appropriate. But to do what staff wants it to do which is the systems approach would require quite an investment of effort and political controversy. Chairman Cornelison requested that as the issue develops relative to the 1986 RTP that a presentation be made by staff on the history of the RTP, the Commission's objec- tives, etc. 6 RCTC Minutes January 16, 1986 Barry Beck stated that the summary on programming process of transportation projects will be included in the information packet provided to new Commission and Committee members. 8. Use of Transportation Development Act Funds for Bikeways. Barry Beck informed the Commission on a recent interpreta- tion by the State Controller that TDA Article 8 funds cannot be used for bikeways that are not within a street right-of- way. The City and County of Riverside had planned on using TDA funds as well as SB 821 funds to build the Santa Ana River bikeway. The State Controller's interpretation could probably be challenged but a much easier way would be to try to get a minor statutory change to clarify the issue. At present, SCAG is sponsoring a TDA clean-up bill that is progressing through the Legislature and they have agreed to add the necessary change. Staff is requesting authorization to pursue the necessary legislative change. M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to authorize staff to work with SCAG to seek legislative changes that will allow TDA funds to be spent on bikeways that are not within street rights -of -way. 9. SB 1199 - Freeway Emergency Call Boxes. Barry Beck said that there is support in a number of counties to install a freeway call box system such as the one in Los Angeles County. As a result by an effort of San Diego and Orange Counties, SB 1199 was enacted to allow a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations to provide funding for the capital cost as well as operating and maintenance costs. To initiate the system requires the approval of the County as well as the majority of the cities in the County repre- senting a majority of the population. The cost is dependent on the spacing and the technology. The cost to install and operate a system in Riverside County, assuming the 1/2 mile spacing and the least expensive technology (radio), is ap- proximately $300,000/year for capital amortization and $400,000/year for operating cost. In Orange County, the Orange County Transportation Commission assumed the leader- ship and hired a consultant to do a feasibility study. In March, they hope to have the Department of Motor Vehicles commence with the collection of the surcharge. Also, the OCTC is to be appointed as the service authority rather than creating a new authority to oversee the development and operation of the system. He asked if the Commission wants to be involved. 7 RCTC Minutes January 16, 1986 Commissioner Ceniceros related that Ventura County has a four party agreement that included Caltrans and involved heavy city participation for the front end costs. After forwarding this matter to the County Road Department last month, she received a very negative response noting that Ventura County receives three times as much in road funds than Riverside County. She is not satisfied with the answer and an effort should be made to see how much city interest there is. Chairman Cornelison said that for the County to implement the system, it would take perhaps two years to build up the necessary funds. Carl West informed the Commission that San Diego County is looking at implementing the system on an incremental basis. They are aware that it will take several years before full implementation of the system. Ed Studor said that there are 300 freeway miles in Riverside County and it will take some time to implement the system. He also noted that a lot of people are getting more and more mobile telephones and people in the industry feel that in the next ten years, many of the drivers will have their own phones and will not need the emergency call boxes. He said that his department plans to contact the cities in the County to see what their feelings are on this matter. Commissioner Baskett said that it is important that informa- tion with regards to the source of fund be made available especially for those cities not close to a freeway. M/S/C (DUNLAP/CENICEROS) to continue to be kept in- formed and to pursue the idea of implementing the freeway emergency call boxes. Barry Beck said that staff will be back to the Commission with some idea on city acceptance of the concept and with figures on revenues, cost and feasibility. 10. Hearings on Unmet Transit Needs. Chairman Cornelison noted that the RCTC unmet transit hear- ings are scheduled to be held in the morning and afternoon of February 20th. The SCAG TCC is also scheduled to meet on February 20 where the UMTA policy on greater private parti- cipation in transit will be on the agenda. 8 RCTC Minutes January 16, 1986 Commissioners Ceniceros and Dunlap added that the County will be holding its department heads meeting on February 20th. M/S/C (DUNLAP/CENICEROS) that the Commission: 1) Change its February meeting date from February 20th to February 19th. 2) Hold hearings on unmet transit needs in Riverside and Hemet on February 19th and Palm Desert on March 20th and direct staff to locate appropriate facilities for the hearings. 11. City of Banning State Transit Assistance Fund Claim. M/S/C (SHEPARD/DUNLAP) to adopt Resolution No. 86 -6 -BAN allocating $22,114 in State Transit Assistance funds to the City of Banning to purchase a van for the elderly and handicapped program. 12. Olympic Legacy Program.' It was the consensus of the Commission that the presentation be postponed until the next meeting and that the item should be placed at the beginning of agenda in order that all members of the Commission will be present during the presentation. 13. Adjournment. Chairman Cornelison adjourned the meeting at 3:52 p.m. The next Commission meeting will be held on February 19, 1986. Respectfully submitted, r r fir Barry Beck ExecutivelDirector nk 9