Loading...
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