HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 7, 1986 Citizens' Advisory040241
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1:30 P.M., APRIL 7, 1986
RIVERSIDE CITY HALL
3900 MAIN STREET, 5TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
RIVERSIDE, CA 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Unmet Transit Needs. Disc./Action
4. Transportation Issues. Disc./Action
5. Transit Planning & Programming Information
Responsibilities of the Commission.
6. Other Business.
7. Adjournment.
ATTENWiNCE AT THIS MEETING la IMPQ1nNT IQ TARE
ACTION QNT ITEMS 1 AND 4,
R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 2-86
March 10, 1986
1. Call to Order
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by Chairman Terry Allen at 1:50 p.m. on March 10, 1986 at
the Riverside City Hall, 5th Floor Conference Room, 3900 Main
Street, Riverside. Since a quorum was not present, the Committee
operated as a Committee as a Whole.
Members present:
Terry Allen
Marian Carpelan
Jim Kenna
Members absent:
Harry Brinton
Jordis Cameron
Bill Freeman
Herbert Krauch
Others present:
Don Kurz
Joanne Moore
Rena Parker
Don Senger
Shiela Velez
Bertram Vinson
Ran Wyder
Jesse Roach, RTA
2. Approval of Minutes
There being no additions or corrections to the minutes of the
January 13, 1986 meeting, the minutes were approved as submitted.
3. Transit Operations Quarterly Report.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, reported that total county
ridership continues to grow and has increased by 14.9% over last
year. Total operating costs increased by 7.6% over last year.
The cost increase was due to an 8.6% increase in revenue vehicle
hours of service operated and significantly higher insurance pre-
miums for the transit operators. The overall subsidy per
passenger trip for the first half of the year increased 9%. The
exception was the SunLine Transit Agency. Sunline's ridership
increase of 27.2% reduced their half year subsidy per passenger
from $2.66 last year to $2.47 this year. He then reviewed efforts
being made to reduce the high subsidy per passenger trip for
various services operated by the RTA and SunLine.
1
Paul Blackwelder reported that: 1) the Western Village service was
discontinued; 2) service for residents of the North Palm Springs
area will be provided by the Hands of the Desert using a van to be
obtained through an UMTA 16(b)(2) grant; 3) the Palm Springs
dial -a -ride service is now provided through a contract with Desert
Blind. He then stated that the Commission had approved funding
for the Palm Desert Trolley through May, 1986 but will not approve
additional funding unless the $3 per passenger trip subsidy es-
tablished by the Commission is met.
Marian Carpelan asked what is RTA's overall subsidy per passenger
trip.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, stated that overall it is approxi-
mately $1.75.
4. Banning/Beaumont to Hemet Transit Service
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that the Riverside Transit
Agency has completed a study of the feasibility of implementing a
bus service from Banning/Beaumont to the Hemet area. The study
estimated that approximately 70 passengers per day will use the
service. The study recommends that the service be operated
Monday -Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on a 90 -minute headway.
The RTA staff will be recommending to their Board that the service
be implemented as a six-month demonstration project with the
service goals of 9 passengers per vehicle hour and a subsidy of no
more than $4 per passenger trip. The RTA will have to determine
the type of equipment to use to start the service. The options
available are: 1) a 15 -passenger van that is not lift equipped;
2) a lift equipped 12 -passenger van; 3) contracting the service
out and leasing a vehicle; or, 4) apply for a federal operating
grant to purchase a vehicle. The RTA Board will be making their
determination on the service at their meeting on March 27th.
Terry Allen asked where the stops will be located in Hemet and
whether the new route will duplicate the Line 30 service.
Jesse Roach said the route being recommended by RTA staff would
operate along San Jacinto Avenue to the Sears Plaza and to San
Gorgonio Hospital. Line 30 operates on State Street.
Terry Allen inquired what the response was on the Line 30 mailout
done by RTA.
Jesse Roach responded that there was approximately a 4% return
from the effort. The survey indicated that people from Hemet
wants service to Riverside rather than service to travel within
Hemet.
Terry Allen suggested that perhaps RTA staff should look at re-
aligning the route to attract more ridership for Line 30. He said
that there is a lack of transportation in Hemet easterly of San
Jacinto Avenue along Florida Avenue.
2
Jesse Roach said that the proposed service from Banning/Beaumont
to Hemet will travel from San Jacinto to Hemet along San Jacinto
Avenue. If the new line is successful, the Line 30 service could
be restructured to serve east -west trips within Hemet.
Terry Allen thanked Jesse Roach for coming out to Hemet and making
a presentation on the need for more bus stop locations for Routes
27 and 30 before the Hemet City Council and the citizens.
5. Emergency Call Box System
Barry Beck stated that the Committee, at its meeting in January,
requested additional information on the emergency call box system.
He said that the Commission authorized a contract with a private
consultant for a feasibility study for Riverside County. Initia-
ting an emergency call box system would require the approval of
the County Board of Supervisors, and approval of the cities repre-
senting a majority of the population. The draft report from the
consultant indicates that the revenue source, a $1 surcharge on
automobile registrations, would generate approximately
$600,000/year. Capital amortization would be approximately
$300,000/year and operating costs such as dispatching and the
maintenance of the boxes would be approximately $200,000/year.
The spacing of the boxes could be 1/2 mile on heavily used routes
and up to 5 miles on least used routes. An educational program
could be set up so that a traveller who sees that someone's
vehicle is disabled on a freeway would stop at a call box and
report it. With regards to system technology, although radio
technology appears to be the cheapest, it does not look like there
would be enough frequencies available to handle the entire county
area. The cellular system would be an alternative but, unfortu-
nately, it does not cover the whole county area at this time.
Thus, the system would probably be a mixed technology using
cellular system in the Western County area and a radio system in
the Coachella Valley area.
In response to Jim Kenna on what the life expectancy of the system
is, Barry Beck replied that it is about 10 years.
Don Kurz stated that he saw a show on TV regarding a call box
system. The show indicated that boxes at the base of a radio
system are frequently stolen.
Paul Blackwelder told the Committee that Bill Freeman had called
and stated that he is in support of the implementation of $1
surcharge and the system and supports a 2 -mile spacing in the
desert area.
Jim Kenan asked if the County would incur liability if the unit is
not working.
Barry Beck responded that this matter needs to be investigated.
3
i
Barry Beck said that the next step, if the Commission wishes to
pursue the system, is to obtain the approval of the County Board
of Supervisor. If the Board approves the system, the proposal for
a the system will be presented to the cities for their approval.
6. Transportation Issues Update.
Don Kurz asked if improvement of the center divider along Mission
Boulevard could be added to the list of transportation issues.
Barry Beck said that this should be taken up with the County of
Riverside.
Rena Parker suggested that Moderate Priority, Item C - Should
transit service be operated between Norco and Riverside to accom-
modate persons needing to be in Riverside for work by 8 a.m., be
moved a the high priority category. .
Joanne Moore stated that she would like to add safety improvements
for Highway 74 as a moderate priority.
Barry Beck said that staff could provide the Committee with a
status report on the safety problem on Highway 74.
Joanne Moore asked about an article in the newspaper regarding
making Cajalco Road into a freeway.
Barry Beck stated that this matter came up as a result of communi-
cation received from Senator Robert Presley wanting a study of the
feasibility of a new freeway connecting I-215 in the Perris -Moreno
Valley area to Route 91. The Commission's response was to include
this link in the ongoing Riverside -San Bernardino Transportation
Study to see how many people might use such a link and what the
impact would be on the routes that would be bypassed.
It was determined that the transportation issues update be
continued to the next meeting when more Committee members
are present.
9. Adjournment.
There being no other items to be discussed, Chairman Allen
adjourned the meeting at 3:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
nk
aul B ackwelder
Assistant Director
4
ITEM NO. 3
R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
17-)
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Directori
SUBJECT: Unmet Transit Needs
The Commission has held three public hearings to identify
the unmet transit needs of Riverside County. The hearings
were held on February 19th in Riverside and Hemet, and on
March 20th in Palm Desert. On April 17th, the Commission is
scheduled to review the testimony from the hearings and to
determine which transit needs can reasonably be met by
expanding transit services. Service expansions determined
to be reasonable to implement will be incorporated into the
FY 1987-1991 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The SRTP is
scheduled to be approved by the Commission at its meeting in
May. The Committee will review the proposed SRTP at its
meeting on May 5th.
Staff is working with the transit operators to determine the
feasibility of meeting the various transit needs identified
at the hearings and to prepare a report for presentation to
the Commission on April 17th. A list of the unmet transit
needs and staff responses will be presented at the Committee
meeting for review and comment.
PB:nk
CAC Agenda Item No. 3
April 7, 1986
Z
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director 'fin
SUBJECT: Transportation Issues
The Committee will continue its review of the attached list
of transportation issues and priorities. Staff will provide
information at the meeting ton efforts that have been made
to address the issues. 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
CAC Agenda Item No. 4
April 7, 1986
CITIZENS ADVISORY COYM:TTEE
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
vrr.v
A. Should there be a universal telephone number for transit, va.pcc-,
carpool and buspcol information.
3. Consideration should be given phasing out dial -a -ride, except for
elderly and handicapped service, unless dial -a -ride can be made mc:e
cost effective.
C. Should funding be made available for expanding service and carrying cut
an aggressive marketing program in a selected area as a pilot pros:a-.
Example: fixed -route service in Moreno Valley with more than one rcu:e
and .heedways of no more than 30 minutes.
D. Transit operators should provide more information or. bus services
bus stops (maps and schedules).
E. Highway 79 (Lambs Canyon) - safety problems and update on possib_e
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 Count..
J. How are Citizens Advisory Committees used by other Commissions, what
are the areas of activity, and should the Committee begin to act more
an advocacy group through the Commission?
MODERATE RRIORITY
A. Transit operators should increase efforts to promote transit subsidy
programs such as me:chant discounts, employer pass programs, et;..
B. Should transit service be operated between Lake Elsinore and Corona.
C. Should transit service be operated between Norco and Rive:side
accommodate persons needing to be in Rive:side for work by 8 a.m.
D. Public/private partnerships - should private developers participate
more in transportation projects.
LQw PRIORITY
A. Is there adequate information exchange within the transit community t'c
identify innovative transit programs designed in other areas for possi-
ble implementation in Rive:side County.
H. Coordination should be improved between transit operators and Co-.-ute_
Computer.
C. Provide an update report or. efforts to establish local airline and rai_
services in Riverside County.
Agenda Item No. 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Citizens Advisory Committee },
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director \r
Transit Planning and Programming Responsibilities
of the Commission
The Commission performance audit approved in January
recommended that a policy statement and procedural guide be
developed. to specify the Commission's role and
responsibilities in the transit planning process for
Riverside County. The attached "Transit Planning and
Programming Responsibilities of the Riverside County
Transportation Commission" was approved by the Commission at
their meeting on March 20th. The paper specifies the
Commission's responsibility for transit planning and out-
lines the roles of the transit operators and the Commission
in each step of the process leading to the development and
approval of the Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside
County. Copies of the this paper are being provided to the
transit operators for distribution to meembers of their
governing boards. This information will also be incor-
porated into materials provided to newly appointed members
of the Commission and its Committees as part of their
orientation package.
PB:nk
CAC Agenda Item No. 5
April 7, 1986
TRANSIT PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
March, 1986
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION
II UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS
III ALLOCATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS FOR
TRANSIT
IV PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF OPERATORS
V SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The Riverside County Transportation Commission was
created by the State in 1977 as the agency resp si for toe
r
short range transportation planning and p n9ine
County of Riverside and cities.its Commission's u tlrespon that
tribe the
follows is intended to de o in and how
lities for public transit planning and prgramn� aal of the
it inter -relates with transit operators.
The q
Commission is to provide a coordinated transit
ra sitsserviceanethat
meets the needs of Riverside County
i-
cient and effective manner.� en theiComm�ssion andthis ltheQ
maximum cooperation bet
oper-
ators.
The material presented is divided into four sections.
The first section describes the process for identifying
transit needs in Riverside CThetseco d sectionand ndesing crhbes
ich
needs can be reasonably met.
the process for allocating funds for transit operating The third section describes
sub-
sidies and capital projects. and im roving the efficiency
the requirements for evaluating P
and effectiveness of the transit system.
The fourth development andtapn
discusses the short range transit
proval process.
II UNMET TRANSIT NE=
The Commission is legally responsible for allocating
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, the major source
funds are
of funds for transit in Riverside County. TDA TDA funds
derived from 1/4 of 1% of the State sales tax.
can be used for transit and non-transit pora io
ur
poses. However, prior to using any must TDA funds
non -
transit purposes, the eCommission county that can be reason-
a determine that there
bly no unmet transit n
ably met by the expenditure
of of developing This
ranhe
e
first step in the annual process
transit plan.
The Commission annually holds public hearings to pro-
vide an opportunity for individuals and groups to inform the
Commission of transports Tie Camm�ssions tare not rnust thenmdeterm ne
by the
existing transit system. e
whether or not the individual or eeds expans�on of the t can
$�t
reasonably met through revisions
syste?'. The Commission must take great care in making its
needs can be
determinations on which =� tl t, about 5�$ of the avail«ble
met
to avoid lawsuits. Cur y
TDA funds for Riverside County are used for street and road
purposes.
While the final decision and responsibility for deter-
mining which transit needs can be reasonably met rests with
the Commission, the transit operators play an integral part
in the process by working with the Commission to develop and
consider service alternatives and determining the cost of
each alternative.
COMMISSION ROLE
o Conduct the annual public hearings to receive testimony
regarding transit needs in Riverside County that are
not met by the existing transit system.
o Identify and evaluate, with the assistance of the
transit operators, service alternatives and cost esti-
mates to meet the transit needs identified at the
public hearings.
o Determine which transit needs can be reasonably met.
OPERATORS ROLE
o Assist the Commission in developing service alter-
natives and cost estimates to meet the transit needs
identified in the public hearings.
o Provide recommendations to the Commission on the
reasonableness of the service alternatives and costs
considered to meet the transit needs.
o Incorporate services into their Short Range Transit
Plans and budgets.
III ALLOCATION Q. STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TRANSIT
All transit subsidies in Riverside County are funded by
State and federal sources over which the Commission has
allocation responsibilities. The primary fund sources are:
the Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, discussed in
the previous section; the State Transit Assistance (STA)
fund; and, the federal Urban Mass Transportation Act (GMTA)
Section 9 and 18 Programs. The Commission in allocating
these funds must make sure that all available funds are used
efficiently and effectively. The Commission annually deve-
lops allocation programs for each of the sources listed
above.
To maximize revenues, the Commission's first priority
is to allocate federal operating and capital assistance
funds to all eligible projects. State funds are then allo-
cated to projects that are not eligible for federal funding
and for local match funds for federal funds. Careful atten-
tion is paid to carryover funds available to the transit
operators and to the timing of capital projects. State
funds not required for transit subsidies and capital pro -
9
jects are available and allocated by the Commission to the
county and cities for street and road construction and
maintenance.
COMMISSION ROLE
o Develop fund estimates for each of the federal and
state fund sources.
o Identify operating subsidy and capital project needs
for each of the transit operators.
o Estimate carryover funds available to each transit
operator.
o Determine the eligibility of projects for federal fund-
ing sources.
o Develop with the operators' assistance, and approve
programs for allocating each of the federal and state
fund sources and submit the programs to the regional,
state and federal agencies as required.
OPERATORS ROLE
o Provide operating subsidy
quirements and estimates
available from the current
and capital assistance re -
of carryover funds to be
year.
o Assist the Commission in developing the state and
federal funding programs.
o Adopt budgets consistent with the funding programs
approved by the Commission.
IV PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF OPERATORS
The Commission is required by law to make recommenda-
tions to transit operators that may improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of their operations. The Commission is
further required, prior to allocating funds, to determine
whether or not the operator is making a reasonable effort to
implement the Commission's recommendations. This responsi-
bility is met by the Commission through three processes:
the Triennial Performance Audits; the Commission's Transit
Productivity Advisory Committees; and, the Transit
Operations Quarterly Reports.
It is important to note that the process calls for
recommendations from the Commission to the operators.
The Performance Audits are required by law to be con-
ducted every three years by an outside entity selected by
the Commission after consultation with the operators. The
audit consists of an in-depth analysis of each functional
3
area operations, maintenance, planning, etc. The operators
have an opportunity to review the audit recommendations and
advise the Commission on whether or not a recommendation can
be implemented and, if so, when it will be implemented, or
to explain why a recommendation cannot be implemented. -
The Transit Productivity Advisory Committees of the
Commission are required by law to annually provide recommen-
dations to the Commission on how operators can improve the
efficiency of their operations. The Committees are com-
prised of transit management, transit employee repre-
sentatives and system users appointed by the Commission.
The Transit Operations Quarterly Report is prepared
using data supplied by the operators. The report includes
tables, graphs and staff comments on ridership and cost
trends and on the performance of individual services. The
purposes of the report are to monitor the overall per-
formance of transit services as well as to identify indivi-
dual services that are not performing to expectations.
COMMISSION ROLE
o Conduct the triennial performance audits of the transit
operators. Submit copies of the performance audit
reports to regional and state agencies as required.
o Create and staff the Transit Productivity Advisory Com-
mittees.
o Conduct periodic reviews of transit service performance
through the Quarterly Transit Operations Reports.
o Review, approve and forward to the operators recommen-
dations developed from the three processes listed
above.
o Review and approve the transit operator responses to
the recommendations and monitor efforts toward imple-
mentation.
OPERATORS ROLE
o Provide operations data necessary to prepare Quarterly
Transit Operations Reports and materials for the pro-
ductivity advisory committees.
o Respond to recommendations of the performance audit.
o Make reasonable efforts to implement all recommen-
dations determined by the Commission and the operator
to be reasonable to implement.
4
V SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
The Commission is responsible by statute for developing
and approving a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for
Riverside County. The SRTP is intended to serve three
purposes. First, the SRTP identifies the transit services
and capital improvements required to meet the transit needs
of Riverside County over a five-year period and the proposed
sources of funding to carry out the plan. Second, the SRTP
is intended to be a management tool for the operators to
guide their activities over the next year. Third, the SRTP
is intended to provide justification for operating and
capital assistance grant applications to be submitted to
State and federal funding agencies.
The Commission, with assistance from the operators,
develops the plans for the small transit operators in
Riverside County. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and
the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) have been delegated the
responsibility for preparing the plans for their respective
agencies. The Commission provides RTA and SunLine with
guidelines for developing the SRTP and with technical
assistance upon request. The Commission is responsible for
approving the plans for all of the operators.
The Commission reviews the SRTPs of each operator for
conformance with planning and programming responsibilities
of the Commission. Service levels are reviewed for con-
sistency with the Commission's unmet transit needs findings
discussed earlier. Capital projects are reviewed for ade-
quate justification relative to the level of service to be
operated and to guidelines of federal funding agencies. The
financial plan is reviewed for consistency with the funding
programs approved by the Commission. The projected fare
revenue to operating expense ratio is checked against the
minimum ratio required by law. The performance of services
is reviewed to determine whether or not performance improve-
ment recommendations are being implemented and are improving
performance. The subsidy per passenger trip for individual
services are reviewed to identify services with subsidy per
trip rates that may be too high in comparison to similar
services of the operator or other operators in the County.
The approved Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan
is forwarded to regional, State and federal planning and
funding agencies as required for their planning efforts and
grant approval processes.
COMMISSION ROLE
o Develop, with assistance from the operators, the SRTP
for the small transit operators.
o Provide guidelines and technical assistance to RTA and
SunLine for developing the SRTP.
5
o Review the SRTP for conformance with:
o Unmet transit reeds findings.
o Approved State and federal funding programs.
o Required minimum fare revenue to operating expense
ratios.
o Performance improvements.
o Capital project justification.
o Approve the Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan
and submit copies to regional, State and federal agen-
cies as required.
OPERATORS ROLE
Small Operators
o Provide operations and capital project information and
costs to the Commission.
o Review the Commission -prepared SRTP.
o Adopt a budget consistent with the approved SRTP.
RTA and $unLine
o Prepare the draft SRTP consistent with the guidelines
provided by the Commission.
o Respond to Commission review comments and prepare a
final plan for approval by the Commission.
6
i
RCTC MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 2-86
February 19, 1986
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commis-
sion was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison at
1:45 p.m. on Wednesday, February 19, 1986, at the Hemet City
Council Chambers, 450 E. Latham Avenue, Hemet. The Chairman
noted that a quorum was present.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Susan Cornelison
Carmen Cox
Melba Dunlap
Alternates present:
Bill Edmonds
Jean Mansfield
Roy Wilson
Naomi Feagan Wayne Stuart
Pat Murphy
2. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
3. Consent Calendar.
M/S/C (MANSFIELD/CENICEROS) to approve the following
Consent Calendar items:
A. Approve the minutes of the January 16, 1986 meet-
ing as submitted.
B. Receive and file the quarterly transit operations
report.
C. Approve the inclusion of the widening of Highway
111 between El Paseo and Magnesia Falls in the FAU
Program and the costs to be spread to the affected
agencies as described in the report.
D. Approve the inclusion of portions of Clark Street,
Old Elsinore Road, San Jacinto Avenue, Navajo Road
and Indian Circle as shown on the map into the FAS
and FAU systems.
E. Appoint Don Senger to the Commission's Citizens
Advisory Committee.
F. Approve the aviation projects submitted by the
County and forward them to SCAG and the California
Transportation Commission for consideration of
inclusion in the 1986 STIP.
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
G. Receive and file the quarterly financial report
for the quarter ending 12/31/85.
4. Election of Officers.
Jean Mansfield and Kay Ceniceros were unanimously elected as
Chairman and Vice Chairman, respectively.
It was the consensus of the Commission that Chairman
Cornelison continue as chairman for today's meeting.
Chairman Cornelison noted. that there is a SCAG Transporta-
tion and Communications Committee meeting and a previous
action by the Commission appointed the Vice Chairman and the
Chairman, as the Commission's representative and alternate
to the Committee. On the agenda is the IIMTA requirement
that there be more private participation in the transit
planning and programming process. Commissioners Mansfield
and Ceniceros indicated that they will be unable to attend
the meeting.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/COX) to appoint Susan Cornelison as the
Riverside County Transportation Commission's represen-
tative to the SCAG's TCC meeting tomorrow.
5. Public Hearing on Unmet Transit Needs.
Chairman Cornelison gave a brief summary of the
Transportation Development Act, how TDA funds are generated
and expended, and the purpose of holding the unmet transit
needs hearings.
(Transcripts of the hearings will be included in the
Commission's April agenda.)
6. SCAG's Olympic Legacy Program.
Bill Rosenwald of Commuter Computer presented the video "The
Olympic Legacy: Let's Keep It Moving" to the Commission.
Commissioner Ceniceros noted that the film was mostly paid
for by private contributions and it was made under the
direction of the chairman of the Olympic Legacy Task Force,
David Grayson. She has requested County staff and Commuter
Computer to try and develop a program for County employees.
She noted that the film showed only those strategies used
during the Olympics even though there are other things that
can be done to alleviate traffic. Since the film was made,
there has been talks with the teamsters to try and continue
off -hour deliveries which helped the freeways during peak
hours.
2
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
Eric Haley, SCAG, said that a task force consisting of
representatives from the grocers, shippers, teamsters,
labor, and business industry and public agencies has been
formed to address off -hour deliveries. Its goal is to get
legislation to require major shippers to make their deli-
veries at night and also to work on local ordinances con-
cerning noise and look at the street systems for preferred
routing for heavy vehicles. This item will be included in
the .General Assembly's agenda on April 3rd which will be
held in Ontario.
Eric Haley continued and said that proposals for ridesharing
will also be brought up. Hughes Aircraft has annually been
receiving approximately $1 million in tax credits to promote
their van program. The tax credits will expire at the State
level on December 31st of this year. SCAG will try and get
the program reauthorized. Last year, the treatment of
employer benefits to employees taxation -wise was completely
changed so that now all of the employer benefits to
employees for ridesharing are taxable.
Commissioner Ceniceros noted that one of the recommendations
is the creation of a task force composed representatives
from the trucking, labor, business and government sectors.
The Commission should take a look at this at a very early
meeting and identify who that ought to be. She also
stressed the need for local agencies to work together on
managing such things as traffic flow, the implementation of
flex work time, carpooling, etc. She suggested that the
Commission review this matter and identify who ought to be
in charge of this kind of program.
Commissioner Dunlap said that there is a small but yet a
very important project in the Corona area. The people of
the Coronitas area and the County are trying to lighten the
burden of traffic on surface streets through the Coronitas
area. She stated that she particularly liked the Freeway
Flow Management recommendation that strongly urges Caltrans,
cities, and counties in the SCAG region to accelerate the
provision of ramp meters. This is one of the things that
the County is looking at in the Santa Ana Canyon area.
Chairman Cornelison, on behalf of the Commission, thanked
Bill Rosenwald for the presentation and Eric Haley for
updating the Commission.
3
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
7. Executive Director's Report
A. SanBAG Local Sales Tax Workshop
Barry Beck said that SanBAG held a workshop earlier
this month to discuss a local sales tax for transpor-
tation. Chairman Cornelison, Commissioner Cox, repre-
sentatives from the Monday Morning Group and the
Building Industry Association, and County staff
attended the workshop. There were presentations made
by those involved in the Orange, Santa Clara, and
Maricopa Counties' elections on local sales tax for
transportation. They explained what tactics worked and
what didn't work. There was also a presentation by San
Diego County, which at the last session got legislative
authority for a ballot measure. The tactics that San
Diego is using differ from the tactics that worked for
Santa Clara and Maricopa Counties. He said that the
messages that he has heard on sales tax for transporta-
tion is that it is going to be very difficult to pass
any kind of measure even assuming that in the public's
mind, there is a need for..additional transportation
facilities, maintenance or rehabilitation work. The
key is convincing the public that' you really need 'a new
tax source because many people will admit that there is
a problem but they will say why not use your existing
tax resources. The one critical thing that needs to be
overcome is convincing the people that tax resources
are being used well and that more funds are needed.
Also, it would take a broad public support. It was
explained that one reason that the Orange County mea-
sure did not pass is because it was perceived that the
only support was from the development and the business
community. Only in the very last stages of the game
did they try to bring general public into it. He said
that he does not think that things are bad enough in
Riverside County to pass a new tax. That is not to say
that the Commission shouldn't start thinking about it
down the road because it is a long process. But just
given the conditions that we have today in the County,
it would be awfully tough to get a measure passed.
Chairman Cornelison agreed with Barry Beck and added
that the presentations were excellent. The Orange
County presentation was very good in that they spelled
out the things that led to their failure.
A
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
Commissioner Cox commented that Santa Clara County did
a tremendous marketing effort. She added that Santa
Clara had put a time limit on how long the tax would be
in effect, how much money would be raised and which
projects would be built.
B. yegislation
Barry Beck mentioned that Orange County is considering
sponsoring a constitutional amendment that would dedi-
cate the sales tax on automotive products for transpor-
tation purposes. The figure that they identified is
$800 million/year which are not new funds but funds
taken out of the State's general funds. While there is
no likelihood of it getting approval of the legis-
lature, they have talked informally about an initiative
process.
C. ScAG'g Overall Work Program
Barry Beck informed the Commission that SCAG is in the
process of putting together.. their overall work program
for next fiscal year. Concerning Riverside County,
SCAG staff is recommending continued funding for the
Coachella Valley Transportation Study and the
Riverside -San Bernardino Transportation Study to com-
plete the studies. Also, they are proposing that a
study of the Route 91-215 corridor between San
Bernardino, Riverside, Corona and to the junction of
Route 55-91 freeway in Orange County be made as a
follow up on the RIVSAN Study. The purpose would be to
look at the feasibility of adding lanes and whether
those lanes would be HOV lanes or mixed flow lanes and
also to assess the desirability of adding any extra
capacity inasmuch as it would encourage further
job/housing imbalance.
8. Status of. the Development of the 1986 State Transportation
Improvement Program
Barry Beck said that staff had previously reported to the
Commission that the California Transportation Commission had
adopted a fund estimate that would make $200 million avail-
able for new programming in the 1986 STIP. Staff had com-
mented then that the figure was on the optimistic side. In
considering what the effects of Gramm-Rudman would be and
given that the estimate was already overly optimistic, the
California Transportation Commission decided at their last
meeting to eliminate the $200 million bid pot. So, for the
FY 1986 STIP, there will be no new major projects added.
The only projects that will be added will be minor safety
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
and rehabilitation projects. For information purposes,
included with the staff report is a listing of Caltrans'
proposal for new safety and rehabilitation projects in
Riverside County. One schedule change is being proposed, on
Haun Road. With regards to the Haun Road project, the
problem is related to environmental processing due to an
Indian burial site.
Commissioner Bill Edmonds said that the project will have to
go through the 106 process which will take approximately two
years and $200,000 to clear the project. He said that
Caltrans is working with the County Road Department to
define what could be done in the interim. One of the things
that could be done if the County does not wish to wait five
years, is to pave along where the dirt tracks are.
Commissioner Ceniceros noted that the area is a low density
residential area but it is the only access. The frontage
road leads to Menifee Union Hall which is the center of the
community.
Chairman Cornelison asked if in eliminating the $200 million
bid pot, the long lead time list will still remain.
Barry Beck said that the long 1-ead time list will remain
intact but the schedule for the projects on the list will be
longer and no other projects will be added to the list. In
fact, he expects that there may be a negative bid pot situa-
tion and that we may see further project delays.
9. Emergency Freeway Call Box System.
Barry Beck said that, as requested by the Commission at its
last meeting, information on the feasibility of establishing
an emergency freeway call box system on the County's free-
ways was prepared. It appears that the revenue source that
is created by SB 1199, the $1 surcharge on vehicle regis-
trations, would be adequate to finance a system although it
might not be countywide and it might have to be phased in
over a few years. Staff met with SanBAG staff, the
California Highway Patrol and Caltrans to discuss the feasi-
bility of such a system. The CHP and Caltrans representa-
tives were both supportive. If the Commission wants to move
forward toward a system, some kind of a joint development
with San Bernardino County would be desirable and advisable
from an economy of scale standpoint. While a fact sheet has
been put together, a more in-depth analysis is needed
before a decision can be made and before seeking
County/cities' approval. The legislation requires approval
by the County Board of Supervisors and the majority of the
cities representing a majority of the population. Staff
6
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
believes that prior to the Commission attempting to line up
the support, a feasibility study is needed. He suggested
that the Commission retain Arthur Young and Company to do
the study. Arthur Young did the study for the Orange County
Transportation Commission and is familiar with the issue.
They have offered to do the study for both Riverside and San
Bernardino Counties for $12,000 which would be split by the
two counties. SanBAG has approved their share. The report
could be delivered in time for the Commission's con-
sideration at the next meeting.
Commissioner Dunlap asked why the 90 -mile stretch of I-10
between Indio and Blythe would not be included. She felt
that because- there is so little traffic on that stretch that
there is more need for the system.
Barry Beck said that there are arguments on both sides. One
argument is given the cost versus the amount of traffic on
the road, there is a low cost/benefit ratio. On the other
hand, there is nowhere else to go to phone for help. One of
A the things being suggested is that perhaps there should be
larger spacing (3-4 miles) on that stretch. He said that
the study will look at all a-lternatives, the issue of
spacing and location is still to be determined.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) .to approve the retention of
Arthur Young and Company to prepare a feasibility study
for implementing a freeway emergency call box system at
a cost not to exceed $6,000.
10. Proposal for New Freeway Connecting I-215 and Route 91.
Barry Beck referred to letters from Senator Robert Presley
and Art Pick of the Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
regarding a proposal for a new freeway connecting I-215 and
Route 91. He said that one of the things that staff is
looking at is the possibility of upgrading the Cajalco Road
alignment to make it more of an expressway or perhaps a
freeway with the existing connection at the Ramona Express-
way on to I-15 and then to Route 91. The Chambers of
Commerce is suggesting a route that would be along Cajalco
Road then north of Lake Matthews to the junction of La
Sierra Avenue and Route 91. Staff is recommending that both
proposals be reviewed as part of the RIVSAN Study. He has
discussed it with SCAG staff and they have indicated that
both alternatives can be modeled to see what the traffic
demands are if they were constructed, the traffic that it
would take from other parts of the freeway and arterial
network. This could be incorporated into the study which
should be completed in the next 6-8 months.
7
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
Chairman Cornelison informed the Commission that a letter
from Councilwoman Pat Herron of Hemet was received asking
that the Commission consider the present Highway -74 align-
ment as the possible connection.
Commissioner Cox stated that she is concerned that with the
traffic experienced in Perris on Highway 74. A connection
from I-15, Highway 74 and Ethanac to Hemet would relieve
that traffic. Traffic will come in from Corona south to
Highway 74 east all the way to the city limits and bypass
the City of Perris which will help with the traffic
problems.
Barry Beck said that Commissioner Cox's proposal is to take
the leg of Route 74 that runs east of I-215 and extend it
due west along Ethanac Road to Route 74. This would be a
bypass for people going from Hemet and Lake Elsinore, Hemet
and Corona and Orange County. He said that this proposal
could also be put in the network and computer modeled.
Commissioner Dunlap said that she is concerned that expe-
diting people from 1-215 to Route 91 is not going to help
the Route 91 problem. Since people traveling from Moreno
Valley to Orange County will have to go through the canyon,
the first priority should be to do something going through
the canyon. -
Commissioner Edmonds informed the Commission that Caltrans
District 8 has assigned staff to look at the 91 corridor.
Barry Beck noted the importance of getting the routes down
in the long range plan so that local entities could start
preserving the right-of-way.
Commissioner• Edmonds stated that the Commission should not
dismiss the idea of a sales tax for transportation so
readily. He noted that it takes five years to get the
public aware of it and it takes Caltrans 5-10 years to get a
project ready. Caltrans is receiving more and more
inquiries on what is going to be done about the traffic on
Route 91. He felt that it is not too early to start think-
ing about this and start educating the public.
M/S/C =MAP/COX) that staff work with SCAG to include
an analysis of the impact of the following as part of
the RIV/SAN Transportation Study:
A. Constructing a freeway between I-215 and Route 91
along the general alignment of Cajalco Road/La
Sierra Avenue.
a
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
B. Extension of Route 74 along the Ethanac Road
alignment.
C. To consider the present Route 74 as the possible
connection between I-215 and Hemet.
M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP) that the Chairman send letters to
Senator Robert Presley, Riverside Chambers of Commerce
and other interested parties informing them of the
Commission's intended course of action.
11. SunLine Transit Agency Line 4 and Palm Desert Trolley
Service Funding
Barry Beck stated that last October, the Commission set
specific goals for SunLine's proposed Line 4 Saturday
service and the Palm Desert Trolley service in order to
qualify for continued funding. Regarding the Line 4
Saturday service, while the average cost per passenger did
not meet the goal that was established, the trend line of
improving ridership indicates that current and projected
ridership will be sufficient to meet the $5.00 maximum cost
per passenger goal that was established. Therefore, staff
recommends that funding for the Saturday service on Line 4
be continued through May 3, 1986 as requested by SunLine.
Regarding the Palm Desert Trolley service, the goal of $3.00
per passenger trip established was not met. The subsidy per
passenger for the Trolley service was $8.55 in December and
$6.09 in January. The January figures is still twice the
goal set by the Commission. Furthermore, SunLine does not
project that the situation will improve. The subsidy was
based on the Trolley getting 3-4 passengers per trip but
unfortunately, the experience has been half the 3-4 passen-
gers per trip goal that was established. Based on this
data, staff recommends that no further funding for the
Trolley past February 28, 1986 be approved and .if SunLine
wishes to continue the service that it be funded exclusively
by the local business community or the City of Palm Desert.
Commissioner Wilson informed the Commission that there are
two hotels with a total of 262 rooms that will be opening
soon and the impact of this has not been addressed. He
feels that there is a potential for the Trolley service to
attract more riders especially with the opening of the two
hotels. In addition to providing service for riders, one
other important transportation element that the Trolley will
provide is to keep the cars of those 260+ guests off of
Highway 111 and other congested areas of the cities. He
commended SunLine for their marketing efforts in creating a
great awareness of the service to the community. He said
9
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
that he is concerned over the Commission discontinuing fund-
ing of the service too quickly without really assessing what
might be some real transportation needs. He suggested that
perhaps the service could be continued in order that SunLine
could do a study on the impact of the new hotels that are
going to be opened.
Commissioner Wilson added that he had a chance to ride the
Trolley yesterday and there were 5 passengers. He suggested
that SunLine request the hotels to have someone ring a bell
or otherwise inform guests when the Trolley has arrives to
eliminate having the Trolley sit for a period of time in
front of the hotel.
Barry Beck asked Dick Cromwell if SunLine would object if
one of the requirements for continuing Commission funding
beyond this year would be that some kind of continuing
matching funding by local businesses.
Dick Cromwell replied that SunLine staff would like the
service to eventually go private. The City of Palm Desert
is .in support of this theory. SunLine has already received
a commitment from the Town Center and they are waiting for
approval from the hotels for permanent funding.
M/S/C (COX/DUNLAP) to approve additional funding for
the Saturday service on Line 4 through May 3, 1986 as
requested by SunLine.
M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP):
A. To approve additional funding for the Palm Desert
Trolley service through May 3, 1986 with the
understanding that the SunLine Transit Agency will
not request that the Commission continue funding
after May 3, 1986 unless the goal previously set
by the Commission was met.
B. That the SunLine Transit Agency submit a ridership
and cost analysis report immediately following May
3, 1986.
12. Route 55 High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Project.
M/S/C (IKTMAP/CENICEROS) that the Chairman send letters
to Caltrans and the Orange County Transportation
Commission urging them that the Route 55 HOV lane
project be continued based on the results of the
demonstration project to date.
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
13. Commission Membership.
Barry Beck said that the Commission, at its last meeting,
requested further information on the history of the present
composition of the Commission. He talked to several people
including the author of the legislation that formed the
Commission. He was told that the objective was to have a
balance between the cities and the county. The other prin-
cipal was to guarantee membership on the commission to large
cities. With regards to the cities/County balance, it does
not appear to staff that it is absolutely essential. The
County is mainly responsible for transportation in unincor-
porated areas and generally they are treated as a munici-
pality. Also, there does not seem to be a county versus
cities conflict on issues before the commission. If the
Commission wishes to expand the membership, staff does not
think that it would be essential that an even split between
the County and the cities be maintained.
Commissioner Wilson commented that he feels that the the
present Commission as it is presently formed is performing
well and he does not see any reason to amend the membership.
Chairman Cornelison reiterated that the auditor's recommen-
dation to expand the Commission's membership was to give
local entities access to the Commission.
Commissioner Murphy said that Commission staff is in the
process of developing policies and procedures documenting
the Commission's role and responsibility in the transporta-
tion planning process. The guideline will be helpful to the
transit operators board members and the cities.
Commissioner Dunlap agreed that the mechanism is there but
it is not being utilized. She added that she agrees with
Commissioner Wilson that the Commission membership should
not be expanded.
Commissioner Edmonds commented that as a member of both
SanBAG and RCTC, he believes both commissions are doing a
fine job in a different fashion. He said that most of the
cities do not know the interworkings of RCTC as some cases,
the cities approach Caltrans on items where they in fact
need to go to the Commission. He does not know how this
could be handled without expanding the Commission membership
and agrees that more education of the cities is needed.
Commissioner Feagan noted that the cities are not aware of
what goes on at the Commission and there is a need to
disseminate the information.
RCTC Minutes
February 19, 1986
Commissioner Wilson said that as it was suggested at a
previous meeting, the Commission should hold some of its
meetings in other cities and perhaps have a meeting with
members of the city council prior to the meeting as an
information session. He added that with the Commission
holding its meeting in Palm Desert next month, perhaps a
luncheon meeting could be arranged prior to the meeting. He
feels that this way, the Commission would get its message
across much more effectively than the Commission changing
its structure.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/COX) that the Commission:
A. Accept and file the report.
B. Take no action to change its composition at this
time, but that the issue could be brought back in
the future, if necessary.
C. Request staff to bring to the Commission a program
in which to educate and inform the cities of
RCTC's role and responsibility in the trans-
portation planning process.
At this time, Commissioner Ceniceros, on behalf of the
Commission, expressed her gratitude and commended Chairman
Cornelison for doing a fine job -as Chairman.
14. Adjournment.
There being no other matter to come before the Commission,
Chairman Cornelison adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m.
Respretfully submitted,
/� /
61-//(//
I_
arry Beck/
Executive/Director
nk