HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 24, 1984 Citizens' Advisory040229
�-y i VERSiDE COUNTY : ANS?O;iF A i' Oi\
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1984, 1:30 P.M.
RIVERSIDE CITY HALL
4TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
3900 MAIN STREET, RIVERSIDE 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Unmet Transit Needs. (INFO/ACTION)
4. FY 1985-89 Short Range Transit Plan. (ACTION)
5. Route 86. (INFORMATION)
6. Legislation. (INFORMATION)
7. Meeting Dates. (DISC/ACTION)
8. Adjournment.
1
R IVERSIDE COUNTY RANSPDR T A`i;ON Co `'Miss
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 1-84
February 28, 1984
1.. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by Chairman Richard Jandt at 1:31 p.m., on Tuesday,
February 28, 1984, at the Riverside City Hall, Fourth Floor
Conference Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside.
Members present:
Fred Fickas
Richard Jandt
Herb Krauch
Joanne Moore
Rena Parker
Bertram H. Vinson
Larry Weinberg
Ran Wyder
At this time, Joanne Moore introduced herself to members of
the Committee. She said that she is employed by the
California Employment Development Department as a Placement
Counselor,One of her interests is to have transportation for
those that are living in the Lake Elsinore area and are
working in the Corona/Norco and Perris areas.
Ran Wyder reported that at a meeting was held this month in
the desert area where discussion of a proposed transporta-
tion plan for the area took place. He related that there is
an increasing traffic congestion problem on Highway 111. As
a member of the Committee, he felt that the Committee should
be apprised of the problem.
Chairman Jandt commented that the Coachella Valley is unique
in that there are 130,000 permanent residents but the popu-
lation increases during the winter to approximately 260,000.
This is a problem for year-round residents as they are used
to lighter traffic in the summer months, and the roads while
built to handle more than the summer traffic are grossly
inadequate for the winter population.
Barry Beck stated that he totally agrees with Ran Wyder and
that the winter traffic congestion condition could only get
much worse. He is a member of the CVAG's Transportation
Committee which has been trying to obtain funding for an
overall transportation study of the Coachella Valley to
project what the needs are going to be by the year 2000-2010
and to develop plans and reserve the additional right of way
for roadway capacity that is going to be needed to meet
those demands. Unfortunately, this type of planning should
have been done in the past whereby a road could have been
built parallel to Highway 111. That action is probably
foreclosed now by the development of the country clubs and
golf courses along the wash area. He noted that there are
still a lot of things that can be done even if it is on a
checkerboard/zigzag pattern and that there is still some
opportunity to widen Highway 111.
Larry Weinberg added that one of the things being done is to
put signs at appropriate locations to try and direct traffic
away from Highway 111. Caltrans has been asked to place
signs on I-10 near the Highway 111 off ramp to Palm Springs
to induce people whose destination is not Palm Springs to
stay on I-10 instead of getting off on Highway 111. The
other thing that would help divert traffic away frn Highway 131
is to have signing on South Palm Canyon Drive to get people
to use Vista Chino or Ramon Road to direct them to the
communities further down the valley.
Chairman Jandt said that part of the problem is due to
advertisements for Palm Springs inducing people to go through
Palm Springs even though their destination is elsewhere in
the valley.
Ran Wyder added that there is a need to direct people
further down valley away from Palms Springs and that publi-
cizing the congestion problem would help inform the people
of the problem.
In response to Larry Weinberg's question regarding an item
that would be discussed at the the CVAG Transportation
Committee meeting, Barry Beck said that he will be
discussing the development of a specific transportation plan
for the Coachella Valley. The study would be more detailed
than the SCAG regional plan because it would address the
major arterials in the valley as well as the state highways.
Chairman Jandt asked Barry Beck if the Committee could do
anything to influence the Commission to see that this kind
of a plan is being done.
Barry Beck replied that funding has been made available to
do the study. The study will detail what the traffic demand
is going to be and describe what facilities are going to be
needed to meet the projected trafffic demand. Funding for
the study will be finalized on Thursday, March 1st by the
SCAG Executive Committee.
2. Approval of Minutes.
There being no corrections or additions to the minutes of
November 29, 1983, the minutes were approved as submitted.
2
3. Transit Operations Report for July 1 - December 31.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, informed the Committee
that overall countywide ridership has increased by 11% with
the exception of RTA dial -a -ride services. Ridership on
RTA's dial -a -ride services has decreased for three reasons:
1) The conversion of the Rubidoux dial -a -ride service to a
fixed route; 2) Changing the zonal system in Hemet to an -
open system resulting in eliminating transfers previously
included in ridership counts; and,. 3) Problems experienced in
radio communications and dispatching when all dial -a -ride
dispatching was consolidated into one center in Perris.
Operating costs are 3% higher than the previous year. There
are no apparent problems for transit operators to meet
minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio
this year.
For the benefit of new Committee members, Barry Beck
reviewed the tables showing operations data for each public
transit operator in the County.
4. 1985-89 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan.
Paul Blackwelder told the Committee that the annual
Riverside Short Range Transit Plan update process had begun
with two working sessions held to brief Committee members of
the services currently provided and proposed service
improvements included in the 1984-88 Short Range Transit
Plan. The working sessions were held in Riverside on
January 31st and in Palm Desert on February 3rd. He then
reviewed the schedule for completing the plan update pro-
cess.
Barry Beck encouraged Committee members to attend the unmet
transit needs hearings in their respective areas.
Herbert Krauch requested that RTA study the possibility of
establishing transit service between the Banning/Beaumont
area and the Hemet/San Jacinto area. He suggested that they
conduct a survey to determine the number of riders that
might use such a'service, develop a cost estimate for provi-
ding service and report back to the Commitee so that a
recommendation for or against such a service could be made
by the Committee for inclusion in the 1985-89 Short Range
Transit Plan. He said that the reason for this request is
because there is heavy morning and evening traffic between
the two areas and because opportunities for work in the
Banning/Beaumont area are very small compared to the oppor-
tunities for employment in the Hemet area. There is
presently no private or public transit service between the
two areas.
Paul Blackwelder stated that a similar request has been made
to RTA staff by RTA Board Member Fred Shaw.
3
Barry Beck gave a brief summary of the purpose of the unmet
transit needs hearings. He explained that before any Trans-
portation Development Act funds are released for street and
road purposes, the Commission must hold a public hearing on
unmet transit needs. After reviewing the Short Range
Transit Plan and testimony received at the hearings, the
Commission must make one of three findings: 1) That there
are unmet needs but that they cannot be reasonably be met;
2) That thare are no unmet public transportation needs; or,
3) that there are unmet needs which can reasonably be met.
The County is estimated to receive approximately $11 million
next year. Between 30 and 50% of the amount will probably be
used for street and road maintenance. -
In response to Larry Weinberg's question if TDA funds could
be used for state highways, Barry Beck said that it could be
used for that purpose but the amount of funds is not enough
to construct a major project.
Bert Vinson related a road maintenance problem in the Mira
Loma area, 700 yards from the San Bernardino County line.
He asked as to the proper person to contact regarding this
problem.
Barry Beck commented that since the area is in the County's
jurisdiction, Roy Smoot, Road Commissioner and Surveyor, is
the person to contact.
5. Social Service Transportation Consolidation Efforts In The
Coachella Valley.
Paul Blackwelder stated that last year, Sunline conducted a
study to identify what transportation services are provided
to elderly and handicapped persons by social service agen-
cies in the Coachella Valley. The study had three compo-
nents: 1) an inventory of existing services; 2) identifica-
tion of duplicative services; and, 3) identification of
agencies interested in consolidation of transportation ser-
vices. The report to the SunLine Board identified social
service agencies that are interested in consolidation of
social services agencies if the quality of service would be
maintained and operating costs could be reduced. The Sun -
Line Board has appointed Larry Weinberg to assist SunLine
staff to determine the feasibility of developing a non-
profit agency to consolidated transportation services of the
social agencies in the Coachella Valley area. Staff has
requested Mr. Weinberg to give the Committee an update on
the status of his efforts.
Larry Weinberg stated that they are still at a very prelimi-
nary- and very exploratory status. The purpose of such an
effort are as follows: 1) to hopefully deliver a better
system of specialized transportation; and, 2) to reduce cost
for the various agencies that will participate. This agency
under consideration would be a non-profit corporation and
4
controlled by a Board of Directors comprised of representa-
tives from SunLine Transit Agency, Office on Aging, and
other participating agencies. This entity would take over
the entire specialized transportation services for Coachella
Valley. At the present time, contact is being made with all
interested agencies. Financing for the first year will be
provided by the SunLine Transit Agency and Office On Aging.
A capitalization fund would not be set up in the beginning
but would establish one when needed. They will use to the
greatest extent possible volunteers for office personnel,
administrative personnel and drivers to reduce operating
costs. A meeting with representatives of all interested
agencies is planned for the latter part of March. They will
be able to determine soon whether there really is a strong
enough support for this kind of a program and whether or not
to go forward with it. A decision will be made after ,the
March meeting and after review of input from the various
agencies and descriptions of their transportation needs.;;:He
feels that this is a good chance to develop a system tkiat
will deliver transportation service to the elderly 'and
handicapped in Coachella Valley at a lower cost. Participa-
tion by social service agencies will be on a contract basis
where there is an understanding with the agencies as to what
its need is going to be and what the costs will be to
provide service for the constituents of that agency. Sup-
port from agencies receiving transportation services will be
defined in the contract that the company will enter into
with them calling for periodic payments. They will also
have another kind of contract whereby an agency having
facilities, personnel, vehicles, etc., can make them availa-
ble to the company on a contract basis for a predetermined
price.
Chairman Jandt asked how many different agencies are
furnishing transportation to their clients and if most of
the agencies are government supported entities.
Larry Weinberg noted that not all social service agencies
furnish transportation to their clientele. There are appro-
ximately 15-20 agencies in the Coachella Valley that do
furnish transportation services. The senior centers are
government supported but many of the other agencies are
private foundations supported by private contribution.
In response to Joanne Moore's question as to what type of
vehicles will be used, Larry Weinberg said that they will
use whatever vehicles can be made available. At present,
there are 18 vehicles that can be made available and most of
them are large vehicles. They will use vans and also expect
to use taxicabs by having a contract arrangement with taxi-
cab companies to provide low-cost transportation.
Joanne Moore asked if the general public would be able to
use the proposed transportation service and Larry Weinberg
said that the intent is to serve elderly and handicapped
5
persons and it will be handled through social service agen-
cies.
Chairman Jandt asked whether the service also have to meet
the required farebox revenue ratio.
Barry Beck said that would depend on how the agency is
funded. If they get near the degree of volunteer support
that they are striving for, he feels that the fares will
cover at least 10% of operating cost. At worst, only 10% of
the operating costs would have to be covered by fares if TDA
funding is used.
6. Miscellanous Items.
Rena Parker asked about the status of the Route 71 Improve-
ment Study and what consideration was being given to the
portion of the route near Route 91 and the access to a
proposed dump site west of Prado Dam.
Barry Beck said that Route 71 is located on the very western
edge of the County. Caltrans is doing a major study of Route
71 from Route 91 to I-10. Route 71 is being studied
regarding the impacts of planned development of Chino Hills.
One concern us access to Route 71 from a proposed dumpsite
which is currently the Owl Quarry site. An action was taken
at the last Commission meeting to request Caltrans to in-
clude a possible interchange at the Owl Rock Quarry site in
the study to provide ingress and egress to that site if in
fact it were to be chosen as a new waste disposal site.
With regard to intersection of Route 91 and Route 71, he
understands tixat it will eventually have to be entirely
rebuilt because of the proposed raising of the Prado Dam.
In response to a request by Chairman Jandt to explain the
action by the Commission to reallocate SB 821 funds for Palm
Desert, Barry Beck said that Commission allocated $31,800 to
the City of Palm Desert for construction of a bikeway on
Route 74 in 1981. Palm Desert then requested that the funds
be used for the Whitewater Channel bikeway project instead
of the Route 74 bikeway project. The Commission approved
their request. Staff did not make a recommendation to the
Commission pointing out that while staff felt that the
Whitewater Channel bikeway project is certainly a high
priority project and probably would have been a top priority
had it been submitted originally, staff had some concerns
that some agencies might compete for funds with a high
priority project and then later use the funds for another
project. The Commission recognizing that the Whitewater
Channel bikeway project was a hign priority projsct approved
the transfer and cautioned other agencies not to use this
type of a tactic.
6
7. Adjournment.
With no other items to be discussed, Chairman Jandt
adjourned the meeting at 3:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Blackwelder
Assistant Director
nk
7
off Pi fl , T TF 1 •
'RIVERSIDE COUNT TANS?ORTA T Off;
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Unmet Transit Needs
Public hearings were held on March 8th in Palm Desert and on March 15th in
Riverside to determine whether or not there were Unmet transit needs in
Riverside County. Responses to the identified needs could not be prepared
in time to be presented to the Committee at its meeting scheduled for March
27th. The meeting was cancelled and a list of the' service requests identi-
fied at the hearings were mailed to the Committee with the draft 1985-1989
Short Range Transit Plans. Committee members were requested to provide
comments to staff by April 13. The only comments received were from
Mr. Herb Krauch.
The enclosed staff report on unmet transit needs in Western Riverside County
and the Palo Verde Valley was prepared by staff and has been forwarded to
the Commission. The report could not be prepared prior to the last scheduled
Committee meeting. Review by the Committee prior to the Commission presenta-
tion would have required a special meeting. A special meeting was not called
for two reasons.* First, there were no unmet needs identified in the Palo
Verde Valley area at the hearings and no comments were received from the Com-
mittee. Second, the needs identified for Western Riverside County are minor
and only Mr. Krauch provided comments. RTA staff advised Mr. Krauch by letter
on April 9, 1984 that a study of transit needs between Banning/Beaumont and
Hemet would be completed by November, 1984. The RTA staff subsequently advised
us that the study would be expanded to include a study of transit needs between
Banning/Beaumont and Loma Linda and Riverside.
Also enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to the SunLine Transit Agency listing
the unmet transit needs identified at the Palm Desert hearing, We requested
their assistance to assess the transit needs and to develop and evaluate alter-
natives for providing service. SunLine staff has advised us that the information
will be submitted after the SunLine Board reviews the information at its meet-
ing on April 25th. We expect that the SunLine staff report will be available
to us in the SunLine agenda packet which we would normally receive on Monday,
April 23rd, prior to the Board meeting. If the report is available, we will
provide copies for the Committee at the meeting. If it is not available, the
Committee should decide whether or not a special meeting should be held to
allow the Committee to review the material prior to staff submitting a report
to the Commission for action in May,
PB:nk
Attachment
Agenda Item No. 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COON: s S = N:
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Unmet Transit Needs
The Commission held two public hearings in March to receive
testimony on unmet transit needs. There were several needs
raised in the Desert area that staff has asked the SunLine
Transit Agency to review and comment on. SunLine was not able
to do this in time for this meeting so a determination on
unmet transit needs for the Coachella Valley area will be
scheduled for the Commission's May meeting. Attached to this
report is a summary of written comments and comments received
at the hearings pertaining to the Western County area together
with staff responses. Also attached are a copy of the hearing
transcript and copies of letters received. There was no
testimony received, written or oral, on any unmet needs in the
Palo Verde Valley area.
Staff has analyzed all the comments received about needs in
the Western County area. In two instances, the bus stop at
Buchanan Street and Magnolia Avenue in Riverside and service
to the Children's Center of Riverside, the problem has been
largely resolved through discussions with City of Riverside
staff. There were two requests for additional or revised
service. Mr. Chuska asked that Sunday service be provided on
RTA Line 12. Our analysis shows that most public transit
operators provide little or no Sunday service because of low
ridership. RTA's Lines 1 and 16, the two highest patronized
lines and the only two which have Sunday service, carry only a
small fraction of the weekday ridership on Sundays. Based on
this experience, staff does not feel that Sunday service on
Line 12 to be cost-effective, i.e. this is not a need that
could be reasonably met.
Mr. Pamatot wrote asking for a revision to RTA's Line 25 sche-
dule to allow for a better timed 'transfer so one could travel
from Beaumont to Riverside via Loma Linda. Changing the Line
25 schedule would disrupt afternoon service to North High
School which is highly patronized. We also note that even
under ideal conditions, the trip from Beaumont to Riverside
would be an over 4 hour round trip. We doubt many would
attempt such a lengthy trip. Greyhound offers 5 round trips
daily between Riverside and Beaumont with a round trip travel
time of only 1 1/2 hours. The cost, however, is $3.25 each
way - high compared to subsidized public transit fares.
Agenda Item No. 4
1 April 19, 1984
" t
B a s e d o n t h e t e s t i m o n y r e c e i v e d a n d o u r a n a l y s i s , s t a f f d o e s
n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e a r e a n y u n m e t t r a n s i t n e e d s t h a t c a n b e
r e a s o n a b l y m e t i n t h e W e s t e r n C o u n t y a n d P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y
a r e a s . A g a i n , a r e p o r t a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o n t h e C o a c h e l l a
V a l l e y w i l l b e p r e s e n t e d f o r y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t y o u r M a y
m e e t i n g .
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N
1 . T h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n f i n d t h a t t h e r e a r e n o u n m e t t r a n s i t
n e e d s t h a t c a n b e r e a s o n a b l y m e t i n t h e W e s t e r n C o u n t y
a n d P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y a r e a s .
2 . T h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n r e q u e s t t h a t S C A G c o n c u r w i t h t h e
C o m m i s s i o n ' s f i n d i n g .
B B : n k
E n c l o s u r e s
t L 2
COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE
RIVERSIDE CITY PUBLIC HEARING ON
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS
MARCH 15, 1984
NAME
COMM ENT
STAFF R ESPO NS E
E. CHUSKA
FRANK MURPHY
CONNIE L. BEASLEY
Requested Sunday service on RTA
Line 12 (California Avenue) in
City of Riverside.
The Riverside -Special Services
Program fare is too high for
seniors attending Nutrition
Program.
Stated that children attending
the Children's Center of Riverside
could not get served by the
Riverside Special Services Program.
Most public transit operators off
little if any service on Sundays.
For example, Omnitrans in San
Bernardino County has no service
Saturday or Sunday. The reason i
simply that experience shows a mu
smaller ridership than on weekday
For example, on Lines 1 and 16,
Sunday ridership is 20% and 15%
respectively of weekday ridership
The Riverside Program already has
one of the lowest fares in Southe
California, 45t. Any further re-
duction would jeopardize the syst
ability to meet the mandatory far
box to operating cost ratio of 10
We discussed this problem with
Riverside staff and they have sen
us a letter indicating that chil-
dren attending the Center will be
gin to be provided service.
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED ON
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS IN WESTERN COUNTY AREA
NAME
COMM ENT
STAFF RESPONSE
RICHARD HUBE
DOROTHY HEARN
EMIL PAMATOT
Commented on the need to improve
bus stop at Buchanan and Magnolia
in Riverside. He complained
about the drainage ditch at the
stop and the lack of a bench and
shelter.
Thanked the Commission for the
new RTA Line 17.
Asked that RTA's Line 25 schedule
be modified to allow for better
timed transfers for people travel-
ling from Beaumont to Riverside
via Loma Linda.
City of Riverside has agreed to extend
a drainage pipe and regrade area aroun
the bus stop. RTA's policy is to plac
benches at locations with at least 10
boardings per day. According to the
latest boarding and alighting study,
this location had only 3 boardings.
Because of low ridership, RTA is activ
ly considering reducing or eliminating
the Line 17 service.
Revising the Line 25 schedule would di
rupt service to North High School stu-
dents in the afternoon. That run has
the highest number of boardings each
day (over 40). Even if the Line 25
schedule were modified, it would still
take 4 hours and 20 minutes round trip
from Beaumont to Riverside. It is
doubtful that many would make this
trip given such a lengthy travel time.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
3616 Main Street, Suite 402 + Riverside, California 92501 • (714) 787-7141
COMMISSIONERS
HC'I IIILSON
CH41P,\1.1\
CGUI CIL M
CITY Or PALM DESERT
`I'SAN CO1;NLL]S()`.
N1CF. CilAlt;Ma`:
CITIZEI.'MEMBER
A NORTON YOUNGLOVE
SUPERVISOR
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
KAY CEN10EROS
SUPERVISOR
COUNTY CF RIVERSIDE
MELBA DUNLAP
SUPERVISOR
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
ID1-111_ JONES
CCUNc!_MAN
CITY Or NORCO
JEAN MANSFIELD
COUNCIL WOMAN
CITY OF RIVETSIDE
tit_.L 1A�.1 Fm„ (ND-
GCIVEF.NOR S APPGINTEE
DIR.ECTOF
CAL -TRANS DISTRICT
B llii''' BECK
EXECUTIVE DIFiECTOk
,7
March 9, 1984
Mr. Lee Norwine, General Manager
SunLine Transit Agency
P.O. Box 2185
Palm Springs, California 92263
Dear Lee:
At the unmet transit needs public hearing in Palm Desert on March
8, 1984, the following unmet transit needs were identified:
1. The need for service between Western Village Mobile Home Park
and Palm Springs.
2. The need for expanded dial -a -ride service hours in Palm Desert
(petition attached).
3, The need for service to the Mt. View Seniors Complex on 34th
Avenue (petition attached).
4. The need for transit service from North Palm Springs to Desert
Hot Springs and Palm Springs.
The Commission is scheduled to determine whether or not these transi
needs can reasonably be met at its meeting on April 19, 1984. In
order to make its findings, the Commission needs the assistance and
advice of SunLine. We would appreciate your assessment and evaluati
of alternatives to meet the stated need including cost,•ridership,
impacts a particular alternative may have on existing services or
ridership, etc.
We would appreciate your input by April 6th to give us adequate time
to review the material and prepare a report to the Commission. Pleas
feel free to call to discuss any aspects of this matter.
Ve'y truly yours,
u R?Y BECK!
Executive 'Director
BB/PB:nk
Attachments: Petition from Palm Desert Residents
Petition from Mt. View Complex Residents
•
I
r
TRANSIT SERVICES REQUESTED
DURING THE TRANSIT NEEDS HEARINGS
PALM DESERT HEARING, MARCH 8, 1984
1. Service between Western Village Mobile Home Park and Palm Springs.
2. Expanded dial -a -ride service hours in Palm Desert.
3. Service to the Mt. View Seniors Complex on 34th Avenue in Cathedral City.
4. Service from North Palm Springs to Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs.
RIVERSIDE HEARING, MARCH 15, 1984
1. Service for two clients of the Children's Center of Riverside by
Riverside Special Services.
2. Line 12 (California Avenue) fixed -route Sunday service.
3. Banning -Beaumont service to Riverside via Loma Linda.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
,
RIVERSIDE COUNT`; T RANS?O RTASON , c
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: FY 1985-1989 Short Range Transit Plan
On March 30th, copies of the draft' 1985-1989 Short Range Transit Plans and
a summary of service improvements were mailed to the Committee for review
and comment. Committee members were requested to submit comments by April
13th and the Committee is scheduled to make a formal recommendation to the
Commission at this meeting.
With the exception of comments from Mr. Herb Krauch requesting a feasibi-
lity study of transit service from the Banning/Beaumont area to Hemet and
to Redlands, Loma Linda and Riverside (Attachment "A"), no other comments
have been received. RTA staff has advised us that the feasibility study
requested by Mr. Krauch will be completed by November 1984 and presented to
the RTA Board.
'Staff has reviewed the proposed service levels in the draft 1985-1989 Short
Range Transit Plans and recommends that the Committee recommend approval
by the Commission of all the transit operator plans except the SunLine
Transit Agency plan. These plans provide minor service improvements listed
on Attachment "B" and address the unmet transit needs identified in the
public hearing process. A staff recommendation on the SunLine Transit
Agency plan will not be made until information requested regarding unmet
transit needs is received and reviewed. We expect to have the information
from the SunLine Transit Agency prior to the meeting.
Committee members should bring their draft Short Range Transit Plans to the
meeting for reference.
PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No, 4
April 24, 1984
T ' t` I ,' l'.-,`_ �• t
Herb Krauch Commentary 0 n
n n
Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan 1985-39
To Barry Beck, Director
Paul Blackwelder, Asst. Director
Riverside County Tra :sport: tion Commission
Compliments are due the staff for the preparation of the l9E5-C9 transit plan.
It is of necessity very detailed but still easy to read and readily understandable
in outlining the scope of activities to meet the transportation needs for ti_•�
next five years.
AlthouT1: it thoroughly covers the needs of the entire county, I as e merbcr
of the Advisory cormittee,believe it best that I confine my comments to the
areas with which I am familiar -Hemet Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass areas
Relatly_ to the staff report on the March 15 Riverside hearing at which
requests were made for the establishment Of a Beaumont -Banning trancit3 e
line via Loma Linda to Riverside were made ----
This is an area of the county :here there is no proper public transportation
and the request should be given full consideration as soon_ as possible.
From both Banning and Beaumont there is need for service not only to Riverside
but to Redlands, Redlands Com;unity hospital, the new Veterans Hospital and
Loma Linda University and Hospital.
This line should: start at San Gorgonio Pass hospital at Highland Sprites
Avenue to pick up Banning and then Beaumont passengers to Cal Mesa, Redlands
the three major hospitals and service to Riverside
Arrangements could be made for this line to service San Bernardino bound has
passen`ers for transfer at Cal Mesa to Omnibus, eliminating the double transfer
now in effect from Banning.
Also coj::s1ie _nt_nr' t-zi- line would be the establishment of another new
service from r'-,_aet valley to _he Beaumont -Banning area as is noted" in the
staff report ( Page 52) that states " Tilat there is a need for tr
ansit
service from Hen:et to the Beaumont -Banning area.Re-idents in both arease Cr!
asking for this service.""
If the Beaumont -Banning -Riverside line is established at the same time the
lin is stF rtes t3: would s ve Hemet valley residents
Riverside and San Bernardi:
transortation .;o the three hos'_t_l s,
co-ord' Stec: ..jth O rbus :t Cal Mesa would give these
r " transportation =-stem t et has been needed for a lcr-. time:.
Y areas of '�._ county a
---000---
TO FROM INFO
ACii..
Director
777 WED
84
APR 1 6 i9�
L
1 825 Third Street • Riverside, C,4 52507 • Phore 71 4 884-0850
RIVERSIDE
TRANSIT AGENCY
1 i
T" j FI ACT1ON
D -rctcr
1 •
I - .
Cam;:;. =.:TS
.Mr. Herbe t Krouch
20324 Sub ette
Gilman Ho` Springs, _CA 92340
Dear Mr. Krouch:
April 9, 1984
This letter is to advise you that the Riverside Transit
Agency (RTA) has received your request for an assessment
of the need for public transit services from the Banning/
Beaumont area to Hemet. We have also received a similar
request from Mr. Fred Shaw, a member of our Board.
We have just completed our FY85-89 Short Range Transit
Plan in which we noted that a study of the transit needs
between Banning/Beaumont and Hemet would be conducted by
November, 1984. We will survey both areas to assess the
potential ridership and then define the type and cost of
service needed, if the surveys indicate the service is
warranted. The results of the study will be presented
to our Board. We will also mail you a copy prior to the
Board meeting so that you will have an opportunity to
respond with your comments.
If you have any questions about the progress of the study,
please contact me at (714) 684-0850.
KVS/eb
cc: Paul Blackwelder, RCTC
Sincerely,
16-1 Sze.L.R
Kay Van Sickel
Manager Marketing/Planning
177 -
!
_-'L V �
APP 1 s 1384
r
FY 1985-1989
SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
PROPOSED SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
FY 1985
Riverside Transit Agency o Increase Line 16 (Sunnymead-Riverside) fre-
quency from 60 minutes to 30 minutes on
weekdays.
o Convert the Moreno Valley DAR to a fixed -
route service (pending completion of study
and public hearings).
SunLine Transit Agency
o Study the feasibility of service between
Beaumont/Banning and Hemet.
o Increase Line 19 (Desert Hot Springs-Coachell
frequency from 60 minutes to 30 minutes
(December -April) and implement Sunday service
on a 2 -hour headway.
o Implement Saturday service on the Desert Hot
Hot Springs tel-a-ride.
Banning o Add a second route to serve the city area
south of 1-10.
FY 1986
Riverside Transit Agency
o Implementation of Norco -Corona fixed -route
service (pending further study).
FY 1987-1989
No additional service improvements.
Agenda Item No. 5
P 1VERSIDE CO,uNT i TRANSPORTATION Co M. -;s:
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Route 86
The Commission has increased its efforts to obtain funds to improve State
Highway 86 from a two-lane roadway to a four -lane expressway between
Indio and the Riverside/Imperial County line. In addition to continuing
to have this project funded as part of the State Transportation Improve-
ment Program, the Commission is attempting of obtain funds for this pro-
ject directly from Washington. The Commission hopes that funding can be
obtained for Route 86 as a special project in the next highway funding
bill. The firm of Smith & Egan Associates, Inc., has been hired by the
Commission to lobby in Sacramento and Washington. We are working closely
with Congressman Al McCandless and his staff who are actively supporting
our efforts. Attached is a copy of the status report on Route 86 to be
presented to the Commission on April 19, 1984.
BB/PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No. 5
April 24, 1984
R!VERS!DE COUNTY ::iAI 3?OL; A, JC. i\:
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Route 86
Congressman Al McCandless and Smith & Egan Associates have been actively
trying to promote Route 86 in Washington. We are hopeful that funding
for Route 86 will be included in a House bill that will be out any time
now. We should have more information on this by the day of the meeting.
Enclosed is some correspondence that has been sent to Congressman Glenn
Anderson and his staff. If we are able to get Route 86 included in the
House bill, the next step is the Senate. The Senate in the past has been
staunchly opposed to special project funding so a major obstacle still
lies ahead.
BB:nk
Agenda Item No. 6
April 19, 1984
COMMITTEES,
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLIMY
SUBCOMMITTEES:
TRANSPORTATION. AVIATION AND MATERIALS
INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEES:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
HUMAN RESOURCES
GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION
Congress of the'United States
tiouse of Reproentatiues
Washington, 39.0. 20515
AL McCANDLESS
37TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
March 28, 1984
Mr. Barry Beck
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3616 Main Street
Suite 402
Riverside, California 92501
Dear Barry:
510 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON. DC 20515
(202) 225-5330
DISTRICT OFFICES:
6529 RIVERSIDE AVENUE
SUITE 165
RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92506
714( 682-7127
74-075 EL PASEO
POST OFFICE BOX 1495
PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA 92261
(619) 340-2900
APR 6 1984
riverside County
Transportation Commission
In order to keep you up to date on the Highway 86 situation, I am
enclosing a copy of the letter I sent to Congressman Glenn Anderson in
which the demonstration project concept was officially proposed.
While Congressman Anderson seems sympathetic to our concerns, the key to
success lies with distinguishing our project from all other highway
projects around the country. No matter what Congressman Anderson's
personal view of the merits of the project may be, there is heavy
institutional pressure not to place projects into the highway bill. You
can be sure that I will be doing everything I can to overcome that
institutional pressure by demonstrating the uniqueness of Highway 86.
I'll keep you posted as events occur.
Sincerely,
AL McCANDLESS
Member of Congress
AAM:brl
COMMITTEES:
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBCOMMITTEES:
TRANSPORTATION. AVIATION AND MATERIALS
INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEES:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS ANO
HUMAN RESOURCES
GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION
Congress of the 2anited Mates
Manse of 'iixpresentaaues
illDeshiggtun, B.C. 20515
AL McCANDLESS
37TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
March 23, 1984
The Honorable Glenn M. Anderson
Chairman
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation
Committee on Public Works and7'Transportation
2165 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
510 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDIN
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20615
1202) 225-6330
DISTRICT OFFICES:
6529 RIVERSIDE AVENUE
SUITE 165
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506
171 4) 062-7127
74-075 EL PASEO
POST OFFICE BOX 1495
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92201
(619) u0-2900
This is to follow up our conversation about Highway 86, which'runs through
my district.
Highway 86 is a two-lane highway that stretches from the City of Indio in
Riverside County all the way to Mexicali, Mexico. The highway is
extremely hazardous: fatalities occur at four times the rate of similar
highways.
Several factors combine to make Highway 86 so extremely treacherous.
First, the engineering itself: with its shoulders sloping at severe
angles to the narrow roadway, the slightest misjudgment can be fatal.
Second, because it is the only north -south artery servicing the fertile
Mexicali, Imperial, and Coachella Valleys into the Los Angeles Basin,
Highway 86 carries a heavy agricultural and commercial truck traffic.
These wide, slow -moving vehicles, necessary as they may be, both surprise
and. frustrate the more rapid automobile traffic, creating an environment
for misjudgment. This problem is compounded geometrically at night.
Third, because of its arterial function, Highway 86 carries an inordinate
amount of daily school bus traffic.
Given this extremely hazardous scenario, I am seeking your assistance in
establishing a demonstration project on Highway 86 in Riverside County to
obtain federal funding to make needed safety modifications to the highway.
You may wonder why, as I did, that given this hazardous scenario, the
State of California has not given it an immediate priority for funding. I
have been informed by Riverside County transportation officials that the
County is stuck between a rock and a hard place: federal law requires
that the State spend money on Interstate improvements in the district, and
state law caps the amount of funds coming into a county. As a result, the
State has not scheduled Riverside County improvements to Highway 86 until
Fiscal Years 87-88, and then only 3 of 21 miles. The carnage will
continue.
The Honorable Glenn M. Anderson
March 23, 1984
Page 2
I know of your concern for highway safety nationwide, and hope that you
will give this request favorable consideration. I extend to you as well
as the other members of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee an open
invitation to come to Riverside County and inspect the situation first
hand.
Sincerely,
AAM:brl
AL MCCANDLESS
Member of Congress
emi
e
Memorandum
To: Paul Schle•f er
From: Irving Si rth
TO FROP.1 INFO AC i Ivo4
Associates Inc.
APR 4 1984
Riverside Cou.• rye/
Transportation Ccmmissbn
April 2, 1984
The following is some of the information that you requested
relative to the Ro to 86 improvement project in Riverside -County, Califor
SAFETY
The following are CALTRANS statistics relative to accident and
fatality rates on the 18.9 mile (approximate) section of Route 86
between the Riverside County line north to Indio. This information covers
a three year period from July 1980 to July 1983.
Total accidents 163 1.2 times the state average rate for thi
type of highway.
Total serious injury
accidents: 80
Total fatal accidents:11
Total fatalities: 11
EcL
1.25 times the state average.
2.06 times the state average.
3.77 times the state average.
The inajoritytof fatal accidents and highest relative fatality
rates have, and continue to be, on the Riverside County segment of
this highway.
Based on a 1980 study by Wilber Smith and Associates it was conclud
that "for the individual route segments, improvements to the Oasis to Ind
section of Route 86 in Riverside County consistently exhibits the greates
anticipated cost effectiveness from a safety standpoint"
The study also cited the large number of trucks (28% of total vehic
as being a contributing factor to safety problems.
eAl
Sac a " 303 8_ ee: _GA 9.5814 l31 6i 441-034C
_- E,e �. J S_ . _ E .. L:C 2:73-173E: (2=2.
I have attached for your convenience an extract from the
Wilber smith report of 1980. The findings, and conclusions of that
report are as valid today as when they were first written.
CALTRANS identified and evaluated four project alternatives for the
improvement of Route 86.The alternatives encompass those types of roadwa
modifications which would be expected to have a favorable effect
on traffic safety. It was agreed that for both the Riverside and IuLperia
County segments a 4 lane expressway/freeway with partial new aliginnet
is the most desirable solution to the problem. It is my understanding
that this is the type of road being built in Imperial County. It is
also the type of road for which funding is now being sought in Riverside
County.
I know that the Committee is getting down to the wire on the
drafting of a Bill, please let me know if there is any additional
information that can be provided or if I and Brian Lockwood .of
Congressman Mc Candless' office can be of help.
CC Brian Lockwood
Barry Beck
RIVERSIDE -IMPERIAL ROUTE 86
State Route 86 in Riverside and Imperial Counties has been
the subject of considerable local and regional attention in re-
cent years due to the number and severity of traffic accidents
along the -route. The focus of attention has, been the 68_miles
of roadway between Brawley and Indio. (See Figure 1.) This
portion of the route is a predominantly two-lane roadway, with
varying shoulder widths and pavement conditions, which traverses
relatively. flat desert and agricultural areas.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
has prepared a study of alternative projects for this tran-
sportation corridor. The study report, entitled Project De-
velopment Feasibility Report, Route 86 Transportation Corridors
between Brawlev & Indio, and a companion report digest were
distributed in April, 1980. The Caltrans report identifies a
range of alternative projects and the effect each would be ex-
pected to have upon the number of traffic fatalities.
For analysis purposes, the 68 mile long roadway study section
is divided into three units:
1- 7 miles from Brawley to Westmoreland,
2- 41 miles from Westmoreland to Oasis, and
3- 20 miles from Oasis to Indio.
-1-
ENO OF STUDY
11-RIV-36 RM.221
COACHELLA
ADOPTED
FREEWAY ALIGNMENT
MECCA
UNIT
3
oASIs
T `'l'11i111�1'!1f�1�,7 .
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
- Iftp>=131gL COUNTY
SAN DIEGO COUNTY ~� nl ^-c3T S�1oFEs `r-
ADOPTER
FREEWAY ALJGNAiENT
I
e SALTON SEA
SALTON CITY 111l' If.
5ALTON.1
86
85GTNNING
UNIT tS EA 3upE11-ItAR-e3v
2 i
�T ATRIA
WESTMORLAND
UNIT
S
OF STUDY
21.o
IMPERIAL
EL CE•NTRO
LOCATION MAP
T.
BRA47CEY
a
CAL EXICO
tin
MEXICALI
I
Figure 1
AGENDA ITEM NO, 6
a 1V=RSiD COUNTY _ RAiS,'SPO,R_; A_: ON
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director If
SUBJECT: Legislation
. 2359 LCLIJTE}_
This bill was sponsored by the Commission. It would allow trans-
ferring of State Transit Assistance funds between county commis-
sions. This would allow the Commission to give federal transit
capital funds that it cannot use to Los Angeles in exchange for
State Transit Assistance funds that can be used for transit opera-
ting expenses and for streets and roads. The bill passed out of
the Assembly Transportation Committee on March 27th.
. 2720 (MOUNTJOY)
This bill would transfer the responsibility for establishing rules
and regulations for administering Transportation Development Act
funds from the Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing
to Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (in our case SCAG).
Los Angeles and Orange Counties may request amendments to transfer
this responsibility to county commissions where they exist. The
county commissions already have programmatic authority over TDA
funds and programmatic and administrative authority over State
Transit Assistance funds. This issue should be discussed and
explored further before a position on this bill is taken.
AM 122 (MOORE)
Because of considerable opposition, Assemblywoman Moore has
dropped her bill AB 613 which would have established weight -
distance fees for large trucks. (The Commission supported this
bill, in concept.) Assemblywoman Moore has now introduced ACR 109
which would request Caltrans to conduct a study of the costs to
the highway system of different vehicle classes and to evaluate
alternative tax structures to make user taxes and fees consistent
with cost responsibilities, i.e., make sure everyone pays their
fair share.
ACR 2A (BERGESON)
This resolution would request the RCTC, SCAG, and the Imperial
Valley Association of Governments to work with Caltrans to eva-
luate the feasibility of accelerating the implementation of Route
86 improvement projects that are alreadx la the STIP. There is
one $7 million project in Riverside County and there are four
projects totalling $50 million in Imperial County.
1
Agenda Item No. 7
April 19, 1984
COMMENDATION
That the Commission support ACR 109 and ACR 94.
BB:nk
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7
P 3 Y ERS DE COUNTY' T PA3NS O;R TAR; V°!1!
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Committee Meeting Dates
The Citizens Advisory Committee meeting dates have been on the last Tuesday
of the month since the Committee was formed. This date worked well when"
the Commission met on the second Thursday of the month. Last year, the
Commission meeting date was changed to the third Thursday of the month to
eliminate conflicts with other meetings such as the State Commission meet-
ings attended by some Commissioners and staff.
The additional week between the Committee meeting and the new Commission
meeting dates has presented some scheduling problems for presenting infor-
mation to the Committee prior to the presentation to the Commission. The
unmet transit needs report for the Western County area is an example of
this problem. Review by the Committee would have required a special meet-
ing. Staff feels that moving the Committee meeting closer to the Commission
meeting would improve the process for providing Committee recommendations
to the Commission. The Committee is requested to consider a change of
meeting dates. Committee members should check their calendars for stand-
ing appointments during the first week of the month that might conflict
with rescheduling the Committee meetings.
BB/PB:nk
Agenda Item No, 7
ROTC MINUTES
Filtr:RSIDE COUNT'
Minutes of Meeting No. 2-84
February 16, 1984
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Roy Wilson at
1:31 p.m. on Thursday, February 16, 1984, at the Riverside
County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Chairman Wilson noted that a
quorum is present.
Members present:
Susan Cornelison
Melba Dunlap
Bill Edmonds
Alternates present:
Jim Adams
Pat Murphy
Phil Jones
Roy Wilson
Ed Shepard
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (ADAMS/WILSON) to approve the minutes of the
January 19, 1984 meeting as submitted.
3. Election of Officers.
M/S/C (JONES/ADAMS) to elect Susan Cornelison as Chairman
of the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
M/S/C (JONES/SHEPARD) to elect Melba Dunlap as Vice
Chairman of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission.
Commissioner Wilson continued as Chairman until the arrival
of Chairman Cornelison or Vice Chairman Dunlap.
4. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
5. Executive Director's Report.
A. Barry Beck, Executive Director, stated that it was
determined at the last meeting that the Commission jointly
host a luncheon with the San Bernardino Associated
Governments for Ivan Hinderaker, whose term in the
California Transportation Commission is coming to an end.
The luncheon will be held on March 7th at Pitruzzello's.
RCTC Minutes
February 16, 1984
Invitations have been extended to members of RCTC and
SanBAG, as well as several members of the State
Commission in the Southern California area. This will be
a good opportunity for RCTC members to get acquainted
with SanBAG and CTC members.
B. Barry Beck informed the Commission that the North Palm
Springs issue discussed at the previous meeting has still
not been resolved. Commissioner Ceniceros and Lee
Norwine, General Manager of SunLine, have met and the
possibility of alternative service for that area is still
being investigated. This item will be placed on the
Commission's agenda next month.
The possibility of a joint meeting between RCTC and
SunLine was discussed. Whether it will be with the full
SunLine Board and Commission is not clear at this time.
The meeting has been tentatively scheduled on the same
day that the unmet needs hearing will be held in
the Coachella Valley. Staff will notify Commission
members as to the time and location of the meeting.
C. Barry Beck told the Commission that an AB 1246 meeting
will be held next month. AB 1246 requires that two
meetings/year be held between SCAG and the county trans-
portation commissions. An AB 1246 meeting is scheduled
for March 1st after the SCAG Executive Committee meeting
to discuss the Regional Transportation Plan. He suggested
that Chairman Cornelison and Commissioner Ceniceros be
appointed as RCTC's representatives by the Commission to
attend the meeting.
M/S/C (JONES/SHEPARD) that Chairman Susan
Cornelison and Commissioner Kay Ceniceros
be RCTC's• representatives at the AB 1246 meeting
on March 1st.
At this time, Chairman Cornelison arrived for the meeting
and assumed the Chair.
D. Barry Beck informed the Commission that SCAG has adopted
policies related to the Regional Transportation Plan and
Developmental Guide consistency last month which is in
line with the recommendations made by the Commission. He
said that the RTP is scheduled for adoption by SCAG in
April. A presentation o -n the full RTP will be made at
the Commission's meeting next month.
2
RCTC Minutes
February 16, 1984
E. Barry Beck briefed the Commission on AB 2359, introduced
by Assemblyman Steve Clute on behalf of RCTC to
allow RCTC, SanBAG and LACTC to exchange State transit
assistance and federal transit capital funds. He does
not anticipate any problems with this bill.
Tim Egan, RCTC consultant on Route 86, informed the
Commission that he attended the Assembly Transportation
Committee hearing on February 14th and that AB 2359 has
run into a problem with the Committee's Chairman,
Assemblyman Bruce Young, who wanted an amendment stipula-
ting that the funds could not be used for the Wilshire
Subway project. At the hearing, Assemblyman Steve Clute
strongly expressed to the Chairman that the two issues
were separate.
Barry Beck commented that he did not know that there were
going to be any problems considering that the amount of
funds being traded is less than 1% of the Subway project.
Tim Egan suggested that the Commission pursue an option
in the bill whereby if Riverside is unable to trade with
Los Angeles that it be allowed to trade with another
county. The problem with this though is that there are
probably no other counties with excess funds.
6. Status of Federal Funding for Route 86.
A memo prepared by Smith & Egan Associates on federal fund-
ing of Route 86 were distributed to Commission members.
Tim Egan said that he is optimistic about obtaining federal
funds for Route 86 but timing is critical. He reiterated
that he personally feels that the Riverside Commission has a
good selling point with Route 86 because of its history and
its priority primary route designation qualifying it for a
95%-5% Federal/State matching ratio. He reviewed current
legislative activities in Washington. Options for funding of
Route 86 at the federal level are as follows: 1) Enactment
of S.2025 (Senator Nunn) and a companion House measure will
create a new pot of funding for designated priority primary
routes will have a significant impact for future funding for
routes with this designation. 2) HR 3103, which could
include a line item amount for Route 86, is now before
Congress; and, (3) Designation of Route 86 as an interstate
route. The latter alternative, he feels, is unlikely to
occur as a language was included in the Surface Transporta-
tion Assistance Act of 1982 directing the Federal Highway
Administration to complete the construction of the existing
interstate program by the end of the decade. It will be
virtually impossible to add Route 86 to the program. Their
3
RCTC Minutes
February 16, 1984
efforts on obtaining federal funding for Route 86 at the
State level include meeting with Assemblyman Steve Clute.
They intend to meet with Senators Presley and Ellis as well
as Assemblywoman Bergeson and Assemblymen Kelley and Bradley
to seek their assistance. They would also like to get the
California Transportation Commission's support as he feels
their support will help immensely. His partner, Iry Smith
will meet with Congressman Al McCandless in Washington next
week as well as with Congressman Anderson. He suggested
that the Commission get the support of SCAG for the Commis-
sion's efforts for funding Route 86.
Chairman Cornelison asked why S.2025 did not include the
designation of an amount for each priority primary project
and Tim Egan said that they had not done this as they felt
that this is the State's responsibility.
A discussion followed regarding getting SCAG's support for
the Commission's efforts on Route 86.
Barry Beck said that he is going to talk with Commissioner
Ceniceros, Councilman Bob Bowers, and Councilwoman Regena
Zogosky who are members of the SCAG Executive Committee
about the need to get the support of SCAG for the Commis-
sion's efforts.
7. Status of 1984 STIP.
Barry Beck told the Commission that he has recently learned
from Caltrans that California will likely be receiving more
federal interstate funds, thus, less 85% funds than had
originally been estimated. He explained that the 85% funds
are used for construction on federal primary routes such as
I-215, Routes 86, 74, etc. Caltrans' draft recommended STIP
(PSTIP) is reflective of the new reduced estimate of funding
available for primary routes and does not include any signi-
ficant new projects for Riverside County or additional
funding other than what was in the 1983 STIP for I-215 and
Route 74.
Commissioner Edmonds commented that it is difficult for
Caltrans to estimate funding five years in advance.
Barry Beck said that with regards to the proposal by Senator
John Foran to modify county minimums, it appears that the
proposal is now dead. The proposal was opposed by everyone
with the exception of Los Angeles County. Revisions are
unlikely now but it may come up again in conjunction with a
gas tax increase which needs to be considered in 1-2 years
in order to match federal funds. As far as Riverside
County, with I-15 and I-215 to be completed in 4 years, it
4
RCTC Minutes
February 16, 1984
will shortly be a deficit county and the county minimum
provision will be working in our favor.
8. Route 71 Alternative Analysis and Environmental Impact
Statement.
Barry Beck stated that a meeting consisting of staff from
RCTC, County's Planning, Road, and Parks Departments and
Route 71 consultant was held in December to discuss factors
affecting Riverside County. Factors identifiedwere: 1)
Provision for getting the proposed Santa Ana River Bikeway
across Route 71; 2) Affect of the traffic -on Route 91; 3)
Providing access to existing private properties west of
Route 71. The County Road Department has requested the
Commission to endorse a proposal by the County that a
provision be included in the study for an interchange to
provide access to the Owl Rock Quarry site which is being
considered for a solid waste disposal site.
M/S/C (WILSON/JONES) to endorse the County's request
that an interchange to serve the Owl Quarry site be
included in the Route 71 Study and Environmental Impact
Statement.
9. SunLine Transit Agency Loan.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/JONES) to:
1. Allocate $431,872 as a loan to the SunLine Transit
Agency subject to the following conditions:
a. That the loan be repaid immediately upon
receipt of federal operating grant funds.
b. That the loan be disbursed in three equal
installments in April, May, and June.
c. That documentation be submitted to the
Commission prior to the June disbursement
showing that the total loan amount is
required to fund operations this year.
2. Continue to reserve $211,032 for potential use by
the SunLine Transit Agency for the construction of
the proposed maintenance facility.
10. RTA Request for Additional Operating Funds.
Barry Beck said that in addition to the recommendation shown
in the staff report, it is being recommended that the
Commission also adopt the resolution allocating the funds to
RTA.
RCTC Minutes
February 16, 1984
M/S/C (SHEPARD/JONES) to:
1. Approve a loan of $900,000 of STA funds previously
reserved for capital to RTA to be used for
operating purposes on the condition that these
funds be repaid to the Commission immediately upon
RTA's receipt of their federal operating
assistance grant.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 84-9-RTA allocating $900,000
to RTA.
3. Approve appropriate changes to the Transportation
Improvement Program and State Transit Assistance
Program.
11. Transit Productivity Committee Recommendations.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, said that the
Commission last November appointed two Transit Productivity
Committees: 1) The Western County Area Committee to review
transit -operations of RTA and the Riverside Special Services
Program; and, 2) The Desert Area Committee to review the
transit operations of SunLine. Both Committees were
comprised of representatives of management, employee union
representatives and transit service users of the operators.
Each Committee held a meeting in December and January. The
Western Committee has forwarded one recommendation to the
Commission for consideration: That RTA investigate the
feasibility of increasing the weekday frequency on Line 16
between Riverside and Sunnymead from 60 minutes to 30
minutes. The Desert Area Committee has forwarded three
recommendations: 1) That the SunLine Transit Agency fully
investigate the potential for converting all local tel-a-
ride services to subsidized taxi services; 2) That the
SunLine Transit Agency continue in its attempt to find a
private transit operator for the intervalley handicapped
service, if this would lead to lower costs; and, 3) That the
SunLine Transit Agency consider soliciting input from system
users when developing its annual marketing plan. Staff
recommends that the Commission accept the recommendations
developed by the Transit Productivity Committees and direct
the Executive Director to forward the recommendations to the
transit operators.
M/S/C (WILSON/JONES) to accept the recommendations
developed by the Transit Productivity Committees and
direct the Executive Director to forward them to the
transit operators.
6
RCTC Minutes
February 16, 1984
12. UMTA 16(b)(2) Grant Applications.
Paul Blackwelder informed the Commission that each year,
federal capital assistance funds are available through the
UMTA 16(b)(2) Program to non-profit agencies to purchase
vehicles for transporting the elderly and handicapped. The
program is administered by Caltrans. Three applications
were received: 1) Goodwill Industries, $76,388 ($61,110
federal' and $15,178 local match), to purchase two 15 -
passenger lift -equipped vans to transport handicapped indi-
viduals from.Western Riverside County to a rehabilitation
workshop in San Bernardino; 2) Lighthouse For The Blind,
$26,250 ($21,000 federal and $5,240 local match), to pur-
chase one 15 -passenger van to transport blind persons from
Western Riverside County and San Bernardino County to
programs and classes at their facility in San Bernardino;
and, 3) Hands Of The Desert, $35,254 (28,203 federal and
$7,051 local match), to purchase one 15 -passenger lift -
equipped van to transport elderly and handicapped persons in
Desert Hot Springs and the unincorporated areas of Sky
Valley, North Palm Springs, and Painted Hills to services in
Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs. The applications have
been reviewed by Commission staff with Caltrans staff.
Staff supports the applications because they meet transpor-
tation needs that are currently not being met by public or
private transportation providers. Public transit operators
in Riverside County has reviewed and support the projects as
well.
M/S/C (JONES/DUNLAP) to endorse the UMTA 16(b)(2)
capital grant applications submitted to Caltrans by
Goodwill Industries, Lighthouse For The Blind, and
Hands Of The Desert.
13. Quarterly Transit Operations Report for July 1 - December 31.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/DUNLAP) to accept and file the transit
operations report for July 1 - December 31.
14. Unmet Transit Needs Hearings.
Barry Beck suggested that the Commission hold its unmet
transit needs hearing for the Western County area in
conjunction with RCTC's regular meeting on March 15, 1984 at
the Riverside Council Chambers, 1:30 p.m., and the hearing
for Coachella Valley area on March 8, 1984 at the Palm
Desert Council Chambers, 1:00 p.m. The latter time schedule
will allow Commission members who are also RTA Board members
to attend the RTA meeting set for 4:00 p.m.
7
RCTC Minutes
February 16, 1984
M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP) to set the unmet transit needs
hearing for the Coachella Valley area on March 8, 1984
at 1:00 p.m., to be held at the Palm Desert Council
Chambers, and on March 15, 1984 for the Western County
area at 1:30 p.m. at the Riverside City Council
Chambers.
15. Commission Meeting Dates.
Barry Beck said that based on the survey of regularly sche-
duled meetings that the Commissioners and alternates attend
each month, the third Thursday is the most convenient .day to
hold the Commission meetings. The fourth Thursday conflicts
with CTC meetings. The Commission had changed its meeting
dates to accommodate staff as well as Commission members to
attend the California Transportation Commission meetings
which are held on the second and fourth Thursdays.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/JONES) that RCTC meetings be held on the
third Thursday of the month.
16. Revision to SB 821 (Bicycle & Pedestrian) Program.
Barry Beck introduced Ramon Diaz, Palm Desert's Director of
Environmental Services, to the Commission.
Ramon Diaz gave a brief presentation pointing out why the
Whitewater Channel bikeway project would have received a
higher rating than the Highway 74 bikeway project. He said
that the proposed Whitewater Channel bikeway will increase
the use of bicycles as a transportation mode as the bikeway
is in the vicinity of the a 160 -acre industrial park,
College of the Desert and the Palm Desert Town Center. In
addition, the Whitewater Channel bikeway is a part of the
Coachella Valley Regional Bikeway which will extend from
Palm Springs south and east through India and Coachella,
when completed. The proposed project includes first, the
installation of a Class II bikeway along Magnesia Falls
Drive; second, a Class I bikeway alongside the Whitewater
Channel l; and, third, a Class II bikeway alongside a public
parking lot and access road linking the route with Cook
Street, a proposed major north/south thoroughfare. They
request that the Commission approve the transfer of funds
rather than going through the 1984-85 SB 821 process as they
would like to begin planning and construction of the project
as soon as possible in order that it be completed by
December. He noted that if this is approved by the Commis-
sion, the only precedent that they would be setting is
funding a project with a higher rating.
8
RCTC Minutes
February 16, 1984
Chairman Cornelison questioned the status of the Highway 74
bikeway project.
Ramon Diaz responded that they are proposing that the
project be deleted as it will only be used by professional
bikers because the terrain is quite steep.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/DUNLAP) to approve the request of Palm
Desert to expend $31,800 (plus' accrued interest) for
_ the Whitewater Channel Bikeway that was previously
granted for the Route 74 bikeway.
17. Quarterly Financial Report.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/JONES) to receive and file the quarterly
financial report.
At this time, Chairman Cornelison noted the presence of
State Commissioner Walt Ingalls.
Walt Ingalls commented that the problem with the 85% funds
is complicated further as there are only $56 million
available statewide for 58 counties. He added that a
request of a gas tax increase will probably not be done
until next year.
18. Adjournment.
The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission will be held on March 8, 1984 at 1:00 p.m., Palm
Desert Council Chambers, 73,510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert.
M/S/C (WILSON/JONES) to adjourn the meeting at 3:12
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Beck
Executive Director
nk
9
IVER SIDE COUNTY S.ANS?OK> A ; :,.3N
Minutes at Meeting No. 3-84
March $, 1984
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison
at 1:10 p.m. on Thursday, March 8, 1984, at the Palm Desert
Council Chambers, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert.
Chairman Cornelison noted that a quorum was present and
then introduced members of the Commiss,ion.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros Roy Wilson
Susan Cornelison
Alternates present:
Jim Adams
Lewis Hull
Pat Murphy
Ed Shepard
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/WILSON) to approve the minutes of the
February 16, 1984 meeting as submitted.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. Tentative Plans for Transit Services in FY 84-85.
Chairman Cornelison introduced Lee Norwine, General Manager
of the SunLine Transit Agency, to those present.
Lee Norwine, with the use of a map, gave a brief summary of
current transit services (fixed —route and tel-a-ride) being
provided in the Coachella Valley. Proposed service improve-
ments in FY 1985 included increasing frequency on Line 19
(Desert Hot Springs -Coachella) from 60 minutes to 30 minutes
during the months of October through April and, on
experimental basis, a two-hour headway Sunday service on
Line 19 and Saturday service in the Desert Hot Springs tel-
a-ride system.
RCTC Minutes
March 8, 1984
5. Unmet Transit Needs Hearing.
Chairman Cornelison gave a brief summary of the
Transportation Development Act (TDA), how the TDA funds will
be expended and the purpose of holding the public hearing.
She then opened the public hearing. After all testimony was
heard, the Chairman closed the public hearing. She informed
those present that the public hearing for the western county
area will be held on March 15, 1984 at the Riverside City
Council Chambers.
(Transcript of the -public hearing will be included in the
Commission's April 19, 1984 meeting agenda packet.)
6. Adjournment.
There being no other items to consider, Chairman Cornelison
adjourned the meeting at 2:00 p.m. The next meeting will be
held on March 15, 1984 at 1:30 p.m., Riverside City Council
Chambers, 3900 Main Street, Riverside.
nk
Respectfully submitted,
/
//)
Barry Be4k
Executive Director
2
R IVERS6DE COUN a-'! : R ,N SPOFI o'AT O!�.
Minutes of Meeting No. 4-84
March 15, 1984
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission
was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison at 1:37 p.m.
on Thursday, March 15, 1984, at the Riverside City Council:
Chambers, 3900 Main Street, Riverside. Chairman Cornelison
noted that a quorum was present. Introduction of Commission
members followed.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Susan Cornelison
Melba Dunlap
Alternates present:
Jim Adams
Phil Jones
Jean Mansfield
Norton Younglove
Pat Murphy
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/ADAMS) to approve the minutes of the
March 8, 1984 meeting as submitted.
Commissioners Dunlap, Jones, and Mansfield abstained from
voting as they were not present at the meeting.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. Review 1984/85 Transit Service Plans in Riverside County.
Kay Van Sickle, Director of Planning and Marketing of the
Riverside Transit Agency, briefed those present of transit
services being provided in the western part of Riverside
County. Proposed service improvements in the RTA system in FY
1985 are as follows: 1) To increase peak -hour frequencies on
fixed -routes in the Riverside area to 30 minutes; 2) To imple-
ment fixed route service between Norco and Corona; 3) The
possible conversion of the Moreno Valley dial -a -ride to fixed
route service; and 4) To increase commuter buspool service to
Orange County. In the Banning area, a proposal was made to add
a second route to serve the city area south of I-10 and to
increase frequency to 30 minutes in the shopping area.
1
RCTC Minutes
March 15, 1984
Commissioner Younglove commented that the Sunnymead area is
part of the Moreno Valley which is the high growth area. In
addition, he commented on the format of the agenda whereby an
information item was placed prior to a public hearing.
Chairman Cornelison stated that the rationale for having the
existing and proposed transit services report precede the unmet
transit needs hearing in Palm Desert and Riverside is so that
the Commission and others would be aware of what currently
exists and what is being proposed.
Commissioner Younglove suggested that the report should have
been made a part of the unmet transit needs public hearing
instead of placing it as a separate item on the agenda.
Kay Van Sickle continued and informed the Commission of three
public hearings that RTA has scheduled on April 10th: 1)
Feasibility of reducing service on Route 30 (Hemet -San Jacinto)
at 12:30 p.m., Hemet Neighborhood Center; 2) Service reduction
or elimination of Route 17 (Canyon Crest) at 3:00 p.m.,
Riverside Poly High School; and, 3) Proposed service changes to
Route 29 (Rubidoux) at 5:30 p.m., Rubidoux Memorial Hall.
5. Unmet Transit Needs Hearing.
Chairman Cornelison told those present that this is the second
of two public hearings held on unmet transit needs. The first
hearing was held on March 8th at the Palm Desert City Council
Chambers. Staff will compile the testimony and letters re-
ceived and it will be submitted with staff evaluation and
recommendation to the Commission at its April 19th meeting. At
that time, the Commission will determine whether or not there
are transit needs that can be reasonably be met. She then
briefed those present of the TDA Act, the purpose of the public
hearings and how TDA funds will be expended. At 1:55 p.m.,
Chairman Cornelison opened the public hearing. After all the
testimony were heard, the public hearing was closed at 2:19
p.m.
(Transcripts of the March 8, 1984 and March 15, 1984 public
hearings are included in the Commission's agenda packet.)
6. 1984 Transportation Improvement Program.
A. State Highways.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, stated that under the
guidelines established by the California Transportation
Commission this year, Riverside County is now a deficit
county and should be able to bid for up to $17 million
worth of projects to meet its minimum. There are $89
2
RCTC Minutes
March 15, 1984
million in additional discretionary funds that are
available to the Southern California region. In theory,
Riverside County would be in good shape but in reality, it
is not because most of the funds available are interstate
funds. Riverside County needs primary funds to fund pro-
jects such as I-215, Route 86, and Route 74. Neverthe-
less, the Commission should go forward and bid for pro-
jects. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the
list of projects recommended by Caltrans and the following
additional projects:
Route 86 - Construct 4 -lane expressway from Oasis
to Dillon Road. Cost: $60 million.
I-215
I-215
- Construct interchange at Nuevo Road.
Cost: $6 million.
- Acquire right-of-way, construct
frontage roads and overcrossings
between Van Buren Boulevard and Nuevo
Road. Cost: $8 million.
Route 74 - Widen to 4 lanes through Downtown
Perris. Cost: $3 million.
Barry Beck continued that a late development that is good
news for I-215 is that an interim highway bill was ap-
proved by Congress 1-2 weeks ago which included a new
clause allowing Interstate 4-R (I -4R) funds to be used
for "non -chargeable interstate routes". Non -chargeable
interstate routes (I-215) are routes that have an inter-
state designation but, heretofore, have not been eligible
for interstate funding, only for primary funding. It is
very likely that Riverside County will be able to obtain
some I -4R funds as a number of the projects being funded
by I -4R funds are of a much lower priority than I-215.
Because of the uncertainty of the type of funds available
and the new provision in the federal legislation
concerning I -4R funds that was not factored into the
Caltrans proposal, flexibility in the approach at the SCAG
level and at the State level is needed. He suggested that
Route 86 be the Commission's top priority for additional
primary or 85% monies. In addition, we should seek the I -
4R funds for I-215 maybe even substituting I -4R funds for
the portion of I-215 through the Edgemont area that is
already funded with primary funds in order that primary
funds may be used for Route 86. Lastly, Route 74 should
only be considered for funding as a fall back project.
Chairman Cornelison asked if an increase in I -4R alloca-
tions decrease other funds.
3
RCTC Minutes
March 15, 1984
Barry Beck replied that it is not an increase in the
allocation itself and we are not going to get additional
I -4R funds. If we did, Chairman Cornelison is correct
that it would reduce the 85% funds. He told the
Commissioners that the amount of funds available statewide
are approximately $330 million in Interstate funds, $294
million in Interstate 4R funds, $172 million Primary funds
and $131 million in 85% funds. Even though I -4R funds
have the second highest total, it has a much more limited
applicability as there are fewer needs on existing inter-
state routes.
In response to Commissioner Ceniceros question if the
Ethanac Road interchange construction project is funded by
I -4R funds, Barry Beck said that this project is
programmed for primary funds. One of the things that he
is suggesting is that if I -4R funds could be substituted
for primary funds that have already been programmed for
the Ethanac Road project, it could free up primary funds
which could be used for another project in Riverside
County such as Route 86. •
Commissioner Ceniceros commented that Route 74 widening
project in Perris is an important project but it would
only be eligible for primary funds.
M/S/C (JONES/MANSFIELD) to:
1. Approve the projects proposed by Caltrans plus
the additional projects on Route 86, I-215 and
Route 74 for inclusion in the Commission's STIP
proposal.
2. Authorize the Chairman and Executive Director to
negotiate at the regional level any necessary
reductions in the Commission's proposal.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to pursue I -4R funds and
reprogram I -4R funds for primary funds currently
programmed on I-215 in order to free up primary funds
for additional programming on Route 86 as the first
priority and Route 74 as the second priority.
Walt Ingalls, California Transportation Commission member,
informed the Commission that according to CTC staff and
Caltrans, there is approximately $56 million statewide in
discretionary funds this year. He is uncertain as to how
the I -4R fund substitution will affect the discretionary
pot. The discretionary funds available are less than $1
million per county so he does not have an optimistic view
for this year. Caltrans is conducting a significant
systemwide study throughout the State on street and road
4
RCTC Minutes
March 15, 1984
unmet needs. He is hopeful that Caltrans will finish the
study in order that it could be presented to the Governor
and the Legislature in January 1985. He pointed out that
as part of the STIP process, the CTC should match federal
revenues with funds available through gas tax and there
are problems just matching federal funds. There is not
flexibility to deliver major needs and requests from local
agencies. He reiterated that in order to fund these kinds
of additions and needs, the gas tax must be increased. In
addition, local agencies should ask their legislators to
protect the local gas tax share as he has received
information that those at the Department of Transportation
feel that most of the funds should go to the State level.
Chairman Cornelison asked if it is the CTC's strategy to
pursue I -4R funds for non -chargeable interstate projects.
Walt Ingalls said that they are going to look at this as
this is a new factor that has just been entered into the
equation. He is curious as to how the substitution of I -
4R funds for primary funds will work. He noted that
although Riverside County is a deficit county in the STIP,
it is not as severely a deficit county as Tulare, Kern,
and San Bernardino Counties. He cautioned the Commission
to be very careful about proposing substituting I -4R funds
for I-215 primary funds unless there is commitment from
State Commission members that the primary funds could be
used for projects in Riverside County. He will report
progress on this matter at the Commission's next meeting.
B. Federal -Aid Urban (FAU) and Federal -Aid Secondary (FAS)
Programs.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that no major projects
have been added to the FAU Program adopted last year. The
program was developed by the FAU Subcommittees of the
Commission's Technical Advisory Committee. Both the
Technical Advisory Committee and staff recommend Commis-
sion approval of the program.
(MANSFIELD/CENICEROS) to approve the FAU and FAS
projects as shown in the attachments for the
inclusion in the County's Transportation Improvement
Program.
C. Aviation Element.
Barry Beck stated that there is a relatively small amount
of federal funds available each year for airports through
the California Aid to Airports Program. This is a discre-
tionary program administered by the CTC. As in past
5
RCTC Minutes
March 15, 1984
years, staff recommends that the Commission approve the
projects submitted by airport operators in Riverside
County.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to approve the aviation
projects submitted by county airport operators and
forward them to SCAG and the California
Transportation Commission for consideration for
inclusion in the 1984 STIP.
Commissioner Younglove commented that there are two avia-
tion matters that the Commission should give some serious
consideration to: 1) A decision by the City of Ontario
to apply a parking lot tax at Ontario Airport; and, 2) A
decision on the part of Orange County to not meet its
airport needs. He said that the decision by the City of
Ontario raises a lot of questions including major impacts
on the aviation service capability to the area. The Orange
County decision is what he considers reneging on their
own responsibilities. Recognizing that the Los Angeles
Airport cannot serve Orange County's expansion of needs
and, therefore, Orange County residents must use Riverside
County's surface transit capability to travel to Ontario
Airport. This is of very considerable interest and impor-
tance to us. He suggested that staff prepare a report on
these two subjects for the Commission's agenda at a future
meeting.
7. Status of Regional Transportation Plan.
Barry Beck noted that last September when the Commission first
reviewed the draft RTP, comments were made on several areas:
1) format of the plan; 2) centers policy; 3) weakness of some
of the analysis; 4) mode split and telecommunication; and, 5)
that the plan was all policies and not enough specifics as to
what the transportation system should look like. Over the
subsequent months, most of the items have been taken care of.
There is still some concern about the centers policy as there
is inconsistency with the definition and lack of any analysis
and research showing the relationship between transportation
strategies and centers development. This needs to be dealt
with in the future Regional Development Guide update and RTP
update. Regarding the assumptions on telecommunication and
mode split, SCAG has decided to do additional research and
study. The mode split assumptions are being revised in
conjunction with comments made by the Commission earlier and at
the AB 1246 meeting early this month. The analysis of future
traffic is still very superficial. More in-depth study is
needed such as the studies done over the past three years in
Orange County and the study currently under way in the San
Bernardino Valley area and Western Riverside County. This type
of study is also intended to be done in the next couple of
6
RCTC Minutes
March 15, 1984
years in the Coachella Valley. The most critical item which
relates to the lack of future traffic analysis, is the lack of
a systems plan which should be a fairly detailed plan which
indicates what the regional highway network should look like in
order to accommodate the future traffic growth resulting from
the population and employment projections of the SCAG Develop-
ment Guide. Such a plan for highways would describe what new
freeways are needed and what existing freeways and expressways
need improvements in terms of widening and lanes to be added.
Also, there should be a more specific plan on what facilities
are needed in terms of heavy rail, light rail, busways, etc.,
Not only the capacities of the facilities but also the general
location of the facilities need to be detailed. If we don't
have this type of detail in the RTP then each County is going
to go off doing their own thing. The prime example of this is
what is happening right now in Orange County which has on the
ballot a $12 billion transportation plan which is half funded
by a one -cent local sales tax and half funded by state/federal
funds that would have to be approved by SCAG. Because of the
lack of detail in the RTP, there is no way to tell if the
projects are consistent with the RTP. Based on these comments,
staff recommends that the Commission request SCAG: (1) To
acknowledge the need to develop a systems plan that would be
the centerpiece of the next RTP; and, (2) That the SCAG OWP
emphasize the funding of the necessary area and corridor trans-
portation studies over the next two years so that the necessary
data for the systems plan would be available.
Commissioner Ceniceros commented that even though the RTP lacks
a systems plan, there is general concurrence that progress has
been made for an integrated plan that integrates transportation
with other elements in the Development Guide which is a rather
large step forward. She agreed with Barry Beck's comments that
we should go further.
Commissioner Younglove noted that the Intergovernmental Affairs
Committee of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
met this morning and adopted as part of their goals two diffe-
rent items which relate to this subject. One of which dealt
with interagency coordination and serving as a positive
catalyst and the other is related to a full broad range of
environmental impacts not just relating to air quality but
obviously transportation, water quality, etc., and this ties to
Commissioner Ceniceros' comments on integrated planning.
7
RCTC Minutes
March 15, 1984
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/CENICEROS) that the Commission request
SCAG:
1. To acknowledge a need to develop a systems plan that
would be the centerpiece of the next RTP;
2. That the SCAG OWP emphasize the funding of necessary
area and corridor transportation studies over the
next one or• two years so that necessary data for a
systems plan is developed.
It was requested by the Commission that in the future, staff
present proposed recommendations to Commissioners in writing.
8. Final EIS on I-215.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that Caltrans has chosen
Variation 6B as the preferred alternative on I-215.. This is
the alternative supported by the Commission, City and County of
Riverside and the local community. He noted that there is such
a contrast with the action that Caltrans had taken on 1-215
with the process we had gone through a few years ago on I-15
when despite what everybody wanted the former administration
was going in exactly the opposite direction.
9. Executive Director's Report.
A. Route 86.
Congress has passed a six-month interstate bill, thus,
they will have to immediately go back to work on another
bill. This will be our opportunity to pursue funds for
Route 86. He expects that the mark-up on the bill will
be scheduled in 2-4 weeks. The Commission's advocate in
Washington, Iry Smith, has met with the House Surface
Transporation Subcommittee Chairman's staff as well as
staff of Congressman Al McCandless. A meeting with
Congressman McCandless is scheduled this week and a
meeting between Congressmen McCandless and Anderson is
being arranged.
Commissioner Younglove suggested that perhaps the Commis-
sion should request the County and City of Riverside to
authorize their legislative advocate in Washington, Mark
Israel, to assist in the Commission's efforts to seek
federal funding for Route 86.
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/DUNLAP) to request the County and
City of Riverside to permit its legislative advocate
in Washington, D.C. to actively involve himself to
assist the Commission in seeking federal funds for
Route 86.
8
RCTC Minutes
March 15, 1984
B. Legislation.
AB 2359, by Assemblyman Steve Clute, allowing the trade of
funds between Riverside and Los Angeles Counties will
again be before the the Assembly Transportation Committee
next week. At the last hearing, the bill had some
problems with the Committee's Chairman who is against the
Los Angeles Metrorail project as he felt that the funds
will help the Metrorail project.
C. AB 1246 Meeting.
Another joint meeting is scheduled for April 4 to discuss
the final recommendations on the STIP. The Commission
needs to appoint a representative to the meeting.
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/MANSFIELD) to appoint the Chairman
to represent RCTC at the AB 1246 meeting and
vigorously support the positions taken by the Commis-
sion as well as use her own judgment on other matters
which might come before them.
M/S/C(YOUNGLOVE/MANSFIELD) that the Chair be
authorized to appoint a member of the RCTC either as
an additional member or in case of the Chairman's
inability to be in attendance, as an alternate who
will support the positions taken by the Commission as
well as use his/her own judgment on other matters
which might come before them.
Chairman Cornelison informed Commission members that she
had received a note from Ivan Hinderaker thanking the
Commission for the luncheon given in his honor.
Staff was requested that a copy of the letter be mailed to
Commission members.
10. Adjournment.
The next RCTC meeting will be held on April 19, 1984 at 1:30,
Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference
Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/MANSFIELD) to adjourn the meeting at 3:11
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Beck
Executive Director
nk
9