HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 10, 1985 Citizens Advisory040236
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
June 10, 1985, 1:30 P.M.
Riverside City Hall
Fifth Floor Conference Room
3900 Main Street, Riverside 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Quarterly Transit Operations Report. (INFO)
4. Citizens Advisory Committee Activities In (INFO)
Other County Transportation Commissions.
5. Route 79 Report. (INFO)
6. State Transportation Financing Legislation. (INFO)
7. Short Range Transit Plans - Approved. (INFO)
8. Banning & Rancho Mirage Short Range Transit Plans. (ACTION)
9. Remarks and Announcements.
10. Adjournment.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMiS&o
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 3-85
April 8, 1985
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by Chairman Richard Jandt on Monday, April 8, 1985 at 1:34
p.m., at the Riverside City Hall, 5th Floor Conference Room, 3900
Main Street, Riverside 92522.
Members present:
Terry Allen
Jordis Cameron
Marian Carpelan
Richard L. Jandt
Herb Krauch
Members absent:
Joanne Moore
Rena Parker
Sheila Velez
Laurence M. Weinberg
Harry Brinton Bertram Vinson
Ben Minnich Ran Wyder
Others present:
Kay Van Sickel, Riverside Transit Agency
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (WEINBERG/CAMERON) to approve the minutes of the Citi-
zens Advisory Committee meeting on March 11, 1985 as sub-
mitted.
3. FY 1986-1990 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan.
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that the Commission is
scheduled to adopt Riverside County's FY 1986-1990 Short Range
Transit Plan at their meeting on May 16, 1985. There are no major
service level changes being proposed by the transit operators.
Proposed changes are minor in nature and are designed to meet
localized needs and improve existing services.
The Commission received testimony at an unmet needs hearing for a
fixed route service in Corona. Corona is proposing to continue
the dial -a -ride service. The level of ridership in Corona's Bial-
a -ride service is low relative to its population. Staff is recom-
mending that a study be undertaken in the next fiscal year to see
if a fixed -route service would improve the level of ridership and
productivity.
The City of Banning is proposing to improve its fixed -route system
by changing the single loop route to a two -route service in July.
1
New buses needed to implement the service were received in March.
Testimony was received at the public hearing on the need for a
dial -a -ride service in Banning for the elderly and handicapped.
The City of Banning has indicated an interest in providing dial -a -
ride that will not compete with the fixed route service. A meet-
ing has been arranged with Banning's elected officials and staff
to discuss a proposal to provide an elderly and handicapped Bial-
a -ride service in conjunction with the Seniors' Nutrition Program.
Paul Blackwelder summarized the service changes proposed by RTA
for FY's 1986, 1987, and 1988. RTA proposed starting a Moreno
Valley to Perris service by rerouting Line 27 (Hemet -Perris -
Riverside) to travel through Moreno Valley. Commission staff feels
that the Perris to Moreno Valley service, if it is needed, should
be provided by a second route that provides intra-city service in
Moreno Valley. Routing Line 27 through Moreno Valley would elimi-
nate the express nature of the route. The new route would allow
RTA to experiment with limited service to Lake Perris from Perris
and Moreno Valley. A second route for Moreno Valley was proposed
in FY 1987.
Terry Allen asked how much additional time it would take for Line
27 to travel through Moreno Valley.
Kay Van Sickel said that the RTA staff estimates it would take
from 7 to 10 minutes.
Barry Beck commented that Line 27 is advertised as an express line
from Hemet to Riverside and should not have too many stops.
Rena Parker stated that Line 24 is not a bad way for people in
Lake Elsinore to get to Riverside but it doesn't answer the ques-
tion for those that want to go to Corona or on to Orange County.
She reiterated that fixed route service is needed in Norco and
Corona and that there is a need to do the study mentioned earlier.
Sheila Velez said that her clients have expressed difficulties in
making the dial -a -ride connection from Norco to Corona.
Continuing with the plan summary, Paul Blackwelder said that RTA's
plan has acknowledged the need fora service from the Pass area to
Hemet. RTA plans to conduct a survey by having Pass area resi-
dents send in a coupon clipped from newspapers to determine if
there is sufficient demand for the service. A survey will also be
conducted at the Pass hospital and the shopping centers. The
survey is estimated to be completed by the end of June, 1985.
Barry Beck asked what RTA plans to do if the survey indicates that
sufficient people would use the service and when RTA would imple-
ment the service.
Kay Van Sickel responded that if the survey reveals a clear need
for the service, the earliest time that the service could be
implemented would be the latter part of Fall.
Terry Allen asked if there is anything that Hemet residents can do
to convince RTA to implement the service.
Kay Van Sickel said they could and should express the need for the
service to RTA's Board of Directors.
Barry Beck said that the study is going to be completed after the
adoption of the Short Range Transit Plan and after RTA's budget is
adopted. He asked if in fact the study showed a need for such a
service, has RTA reserved funds in its budget to implement the
service.
Kay Van Sickel said that, at this point, RTA has not included the
service as part of the Short Range Transit Plan or budget as they
do not know if there is demand for the service. The study was
scheduled to have been done last fall but was pushed back. RTA's
draft budget does not include funds for implementing the service.
She said that perhaps the Commission communicate to RTA the need
to and include funding in its budget. Since the budget is still
in draft form, now would be the time to relate this to RTA.
Paul Blackwelder recommended that the Committee make a recommen-
dation to the Commission that RTA reserve funds to implement the
Pass area to Hemet service and the implementation of a second
route in Moreno Valley to provide a service to Perris in FY
1985/86 rather than in FY 1986/87. He reviewed three additional
service requests received at the unmet transit needs hearings and
by written/telephone comments: 1) Transit service fron Canyon
Lake to Riverside; 2) Service from Norco to Chaffey College;
and, 3) Reinstatement of the dial -a -ride service in Moreno Valley.
Staff does not feel that there is enough demand to justify service
from Canyon Lake to Riverside or from Norco to Chaffey College.
There is no existing service that should be modified to provide
service to the Canyon Lake area. With regards to the request for
a dial -a -ride service in Moreno Valley, staff feels that the need
for a dial -a -ride service for the handicapped is very limited and
would not justify a fully dedicated vehicle. Meditrans provides
service in Moreno Valley for the elderly and handicapped two days
a week. The Office of Aging has stated that the Moreno Valley
Senior Nutrition Program will be provided with a van later this
year. The Office on Aging is very interested in developing a
program to expand the use of vans assigned to seniors nutrition
sites throughout the County. In Moreno Valley, the van could be
used to transport handicapped persons.
Sheila Velez said that the distance between Canyon Lake and Lake
Elsinore is not very far and asked if consideration has been made
for a combined service between the two communities to Riverside.
Barry Beck said the bus could be routed from Lake Elsinore down to
Railroad Canyon. Staff would look at transit service for Canyon
Lake more closely if there would be sufficient ridership from the
area.
Paul Blackwelder noted that an alignment through Canyon Lake and
Sun City to Perris was considered when Line 24 was being imple-
mented but was not approved because of problems with the roadway.
Sheila Velez commented that she has five clients that need trans-
portation from Norco and Corona to Chaffey College. Since there
is no public transportation available to Chaffey College, she is
trying to get her clients to carpool.
Barry Beck said that it would probably be easier for Sheila's
clients if they were to attend Riverside City College than Chaffey
College as they could take the dial -a -ride in Corona and connect
with Lines 1 or 15 to RCC.
Sheila Velez noted that RCC does not offer the same vocational
classes as Chaffey College.
M/S/C (PARKER/ALLEN) that RTA commits to implementing a se-
cond route in Moreno Valley that will provide a connection to
Perris in fiscal year 1985/86 instead of 1986/87.
M/S/C (ALLEN/CARPELAN) that RTA include in the Short Range
Transit Plan and budget funds to provide service between the
San Gorgonio Pass area and Hemet/San Jacinto pending the
outcome of RTA's study of the service.
M/S/C (PARKER/VELEZ) that a feasibility study on a fixed
route service to improve ridership and productivity in the
Corona/Norco area be undertaken.
M/S/C (CARPELAN/PARKER) to endorse the service changes for
FY's 86, 87 and 88 as proposed by RTA with the exception of
rerouting Line 27.
Rena Parker asked about a concern expressed by Bertram Vinson at
the last meeting regarding a safety problem experienced by Country
Village residents, whether or not Line 21 couild make a turnaround
in Country Village.
Paul Blackwelder replied the RTA bus makes its turnaround three
blocks north of Country Village and passengers are allowed to stay
on the bus and then get off at the main entrance to Country
Village. He noted that there is a 5 -minute layover time that
these passengers must wait through. Staff is discussing with RTA
the possibility of eliminating the 5 -minute layover in Mira Loma
and adding it to the 5 -minute layover at Tyler Mall. This
resolves the problem for RTA riders having to wait 5 minutes
before the bus makes its turnaround but does not resolve the
problem for SCRTD riders.
Barry Beck added that another option for RTA would be to double
loop the line. He said that the County did a survey of the
Country Village area and found that there is not enough activity
to warrant a signal.
Paul Blackwelder briefed the Committee on proposed service changes
in the SunLine Transit Agency area. For FY 1986, SunLine is
proposing the following: 1) to add an earlier run on Line 19 to
arrive in Palm Springs before 8 a.m.; and, 2) to make schedule
adjustments for limited services to North Palm Springs, Western
Village Mobile Estates and Mt. View Seniors Complex. For FY 1987,
SunLine's proposed service changes are: 1) to increase the fre-
quency of the Line 20 service from 60 minutes to 30 minutes on
weekdays; and, 2) to discontinue the Palm Springs Sun Special
service when the frequency on Line 20 is improved. Two additional
service changes are being considered by SunLine staff for inclu-
sion in the plan: 1) to add a Saturday service on Line 4; and, 2)
to start a 30 -minute weekday service frequency on Line 19 from
November to May rather than from December to May. RCTC staff is
recommending against the addition of the Saturday service on Line
4 unless it can be shown that there is sufficient ridership to
warrant the service.
Larry Weinberg asked if SunLine plans to do a survey prior to
implementing the Saturday service on Line 4.
Paul Blackwelder said that he was not aware of a survey being
done. The SunLine staff did not present their Board with a recom-
mendation. The Board was just apprised that staff is considering
the service change.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding the addition of Saturday
service on Line 4.
M/S/C (WEINBERG/KRAUCH) the Citizens Advisory Committee feels
that the implementation of the Saturday service on Line 4
requires further justification and until such justification
is developed that the Committee would reserve a final determina-
tion of its view on the implementation of the service.
M/S/C (WEINBERG/MOORE) to accept SunLine's recommendation to
implement a 30 -minute weekday service frequency on Line 19
commencing December rather than January.
Paul Blackwelder explained that the Commission received testimony
at the Indio hearing regarding the need for transit service for
elderly members of the Torres -Martinez Indian Reservation. The
City of Coachella has a van which is provided by the Office on
Aging to deliver meals and transport the elderly to the Nutrition
Program site. The City of Coachella has indicated that they
should be able to provide the service. Also received was
testimony for a dial -a -ride service in Cathedral City. The ap-
proach being considered to meet this need is to expand the SunLine
tel-a-ride service in Palm Springs to include Cathedral City.
SunLine representatives will be meeting with the Palm Springs
Senior Center representatives to discuss combining the two ser-
vices.
M/S/C (WEINBERG/MOORE) to approve the services programmed by
the SunLine Transit Agency in their proposed Short Range
Transit Plan.
M/S/C (WEINBERG/ALLEN) to endorse the concept to meet transit
needs in Coachella and Cathedral City as described in the
staff report, in principle.
Herbert Krauch informed the Committee that the Hemet/San Jacinto
Seniors Committee Coordinating Council claims that transportation
for seniors is inadequate and that they would like some changes
made such as the possibility of fixed times for bus route and bus
stops along Florida and San Jacinto Avenues, and possible subsidy
for taxicab to transport the aged.
Terry Allen suggested that the seniors discuss the matters with
Hemet's Chief of Police, Mr. Miller, and the City Council and that
he will be glad to work with Herb Krauch.
Kay Van Sickle said that RTA was approached by the hospital in
Hemet because they are concerned about people using Line 27 coming
in from Sun City to the hospital and having, to walk quite a
distance from the closest stop on Florida Avenue. RTA petitioned
the City of Hemet for an additional stop closer to the hospital
but the petition was denied. RTA tried to resolve the problem by
rerouting Line 27 by taking it off of Florida and San Jacinto
Avenues. RTA is trying to market the Line 27 service in coor-
dination with the Farmers Fair. They are encouraging people from
Sun City, Perris, and Lake Elsinore to use the line during the
off-peak times to travel to the Farmers Fair during the day. RTA
asked the City of Hemet for permission to designate a stop ad-
jacent to the Farmers Fair along Florida Avenue. The request was
denied. Chief Miller's reasons for denying the request was that
Caltrans would not approve the stop and that if RTA was provided
additional stops on Florida Avenue, it would create a possible
traffic hazard for people running into the back of the bus.
4. Other Business.
In response to Marian Carpelan's question as to the status of
federal transit funding, Barry Beck said that if funding for
operating subsidy ($1.7 million for Riverside) is cut out of the
budget, it will not affect transit as much as it affects funding
for local streets and roads. The 5 cents proposed in SB 290 would
bring more funding for streets and roads. He said that the Com-
mittee, at its last meeting, opposed SB 290 in that it had an
unfair aspect regarding the source of funds. He said that there
is no other alternative as far as other sources of funds is con-
cerned.
Chairman Jandt said that the Automobile Club opposed SB 290 since
funds collected do not go directly to roads.
Barry Beck said that as far as SB 290 is concerned, 3 cents is
strictly for streets and roads, and 2 cents will go to the State
Highway Account.
6
Chairman Jandt stated that he will send Barry Beck a copy of
reasons why AAA opposed SB 290.
Adjournment.
There being no other business to discussed, the meeting was ad-
journed at 3:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Blackwelder
Assistant Director
nk
ITEM NO. 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Quarterly Transit Operations Report
Attached is a table showing transit operations information for each
of the public transit operators in Riverside County for the period
January 1, 1985 to March 31, 1985. Also attached are graphs show-
ing ridership, by quarter, for each of the public transit operators
and the total county over the past four years. Staff comments on
individual operators and general trends are provided below.
Ridership
Total county ridership reported for the third quarter of the year
was 1,170 million passengers. This level of ridership is 5.6%
(61,851 passengers) higher than last year and the highest third
quarter reported to date. The general trend, however, is leveling
off as shown in the ridership level. The only operator reporting a
significant increase was the SunLine Transit Agency. The SunLine
ridership for the quarter was 26.9% (67,622 passengers) higher than
last year. Ridership reported by the remaining operators was about
the same level as reported last year.
Operating Costs and Subsidies
Total operating costs for the third quarter were $2.394 million,
an increase of 3.7% ($86,000) over the third quarter last year.
The most significant cost increase was 26.6% by the SunLine Transit
Agency. The SunLine increase is attributable to increased service
levels operated this year on Line 19 (Desert Hot Springs -Coachella)
and the Desert Hot Springs tel-a-ride Sunday service. Vehicle
hours operated by SunLine in the third quarter were reported at 34%
higher than last year. The Riverside Transit Agency third quarter
costs were reported at 5% below last year's third quarter costs.
Most of the cost reduction was shown in the costs for operating
dial -a -ride service.
The total subsidy for transit services reported was $1.87 million,
an increase of less than 1% ($21,000) over the subsidy required in
the third quarter of last year. The average subsidy per passenger
for the county decreased from $1.67 last year to $1.59 this year.
Two factors contributing to this decrease in subsidy per passenger
were: the ridership increase experienced by SunLine, and the
conversion of high subsidy per passenger dial -a -ride services to
lower subsidy per passenger fixed -route services in the RTA area.
Required fare revenue to operating expense levels were exceeded by
all of the operators reporting in the third quarter.
PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No. 3
CTC Mtg 6/10/85
QUARTERLY TRANSIT OPERATIONS REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERATORS
1/1/85 TO 3/31/85
F. R. Pas sengers
DAR Passenger s
To tal Passen gers
F. R. Expenses
DAR Expense s
Total Expense s
Banning Beaumont C oro na
14,236
14,236
$27,414
$27,414
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE 16.12
DIAL -A -RIDE NA
COST PER VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
FARE REVENUE RATIO
SUBSIDY/PASSENGER
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
River sid e
LETS PVVTA S pec .Sv cs. RTA
25,090 714,634
12,965 17,121 1,830 30,915 34,879
12,965 17,121 25,090 1,830 30,915 749,513
$38,984 $1,133,040
$33,979 $63,140 $3,026 $142,814 $197,167
$33,979 $63,140 $38,984 $3,026 $142,814 $1,330,207
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Sunline
308,368
10,629
318,997
$692,582
$62,012
$754,594
$31.05
NA
16. 2%
$1.61
NA
NA NA 13.23 NA NA
9.16 6.83 NA 5 .55 5.42
NA NA
$24. 00 $25. 18
23.5% 20. 0%
$20.55 NA NA
NA $9.17 $25 .06
18. 5% 30. 2% 10.9%
NA NA $]. 27 NA NA
$2.00 $2.95 NA $1.15 $4. 11
24 .54 14 .46
5 .53 5 .30
$38 .91 $32.47
$31.26 $30.93
22.7% 22.7%
$1.20 $1.72
$4.90 $5.12
TOTAL
1,062,328
108,339
1,170,667
$1,892,020
$502,138
$2,394,158
TOTAL RIVE
SIDE COU\
RIDERSHIP
TY
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.4 —
0.3
0.2
0.1 -
0
1 .1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
ti s
1981/82
1 982/83
Fiscal Years
RIDERSHIP
1983/84
1984/85
,}
//f{r/
r fir' - r
} /
1 P87/83
Fiscal
1983/84
Years
E
I .1 'JI_ ,SILJ i I \I-. SI I EI'J`1 I
RIDERSHIP
9 00
800
7OIJ
500
400
300
900
I
\ f
1981/82
1 1 1 1 i
1982/83 1983/84- 1984/85
Fiscal Years
I [��' I •--' i i j C
I I � i` 1 �C? LLA . T E R
RIDERSHIP
L ICI C.'
L_L_• y L_ �•✓
500 j
700
Sao
(/ / J -
500 — i . /,
n;
^nn
10
1. 981 /8_
1q87/63 1 383/84
Fiscal Years
1964/8
r
cuk�si�'�f Per Passenger
RTA 3rd Qtr 1985
20
19
18 -
17 -
16 -
15 -
14 -1
1%
rn 13
L a) • 12 d
• 11
1 1CJ-
a
0
0
0
9-
8-
-
6 -
5 -
4-
G
1777 F/72jkl/1
• 1 15 16 14
FIXED -ROUTES
i j I 1
S
12 13 25 29 22
21
SERVICE
/ "7,/, / f'
17 24 18 27 .30
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY SERVICES
D -A- R
f/J
/ f
P SC H rJ
FIXED -ROUTES DIAL -A -RIDES
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
2 Corona - Riv P Perris D -A -R
1 Magnolia Av SC Sun City D -A -R
15 Arlington Av H Hemet/ San Jacinto D -A -R
16 Moreno Valley - Riv N Norco D -A -R
14 Indiana Av
12 California Av
13 Arlanza
25 Riv - Loma Linda
29 Rubidoux
22 Perris - Riv
21 Country Village - Tyler Mall
17 U C R - Mag Center
24 Lake Els. - Perris - Riv
18 Moreno Valley
27 Hemet - Perris - Riv
30 Hemet - San Jacinto
UNL INE TRANSIT PrE1\1C "
RIDERSHIP
1 I'
1981/82
1 1 1 1 If
1
,
1 984/85
500
400
1982/83 1983/84
Fiscal Years
THIRD QUARTRR L EVEL`L
RIDERSHIP
100 / r.
Y { A
,.
.
0
1 981 /82
//
�f /
• s rr r
1 982/83
Fiscal Years
1 984/85
H • I
Suniin .3rd Qtr 93.5
1 0
17 —
1
J
PS
1-.7771
r
FIXED ROUTES
/71
2 20
{
19
MV
PD 4
SERVICE
D -A -R
DNS WV PD NPS
P;.
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY SERVICES FY 1986
FIXED -ROUTES D -A -R & LIMITED SERVICES
DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION
PS Palm Springs Sun Special
2 Palm Springs Local
20 Palm Springs - Coachella
19 DHS - Coachella
MV Mt. View- 1000 Palms
1 Palm Springs Local
PD Palm Desert Trolley
4 La Quinta - Palm Desert
IV
DHS
WV
PD
NPS
PS
Intervalley Hdcp D -A -R
Desert Hot Springs D -A -R
Western Village
Palm Desert Dial -A -Ride
North Palm Springs
Palm Springs D -A -R
HANNING I HANSI I
RIDERSHIP
(••
40
30 —
70-
10 —
0
50
I I
1 1
I I I
1981/82
1982/83
Fiscal Years
1983/84
BEAUMONT DIAL -A -RIDE
RIDERSHIP
1984/85
40 —
30
20 —
10 —
0
I l 1 1 I f i I 1
I i f
1981/82
1982/83
Fiscal Years
1983/84
1984/85
CORONA DIAL -A -RIDE
RIDERSHIP
50
40 -
r.
cnc
co
O 22
o z
rrz 0
r
-b 2O
10
0
I I
50
40
1981/82
I 1 1 ! 1
1982/83
Fiscal Years
1983/84 1984/85
LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT
RIDERSHIP
30 -
20 -
10 ---
0
1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1
1981/82 1982/83 1983/84
Fiscal Years
1 1
1984/85
PALO VERDE VALLEY TRAN1 IT
RIDERSHIP
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
22-m-
;--- 1
0-o -11�"
r} 10 o op
os
C` 1
7
9
6
5 —
4-
0
50
40
10
! I I f I 3 ! I
1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/8~
Fiscal Years
RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES
RIDERSHIP
0 1
1981/82
1 1 I f I I I
1982/83 1983/84 1984/85
Fiscal Years
Agenda Item No. 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CoM 1S 'O
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Citizens Advisory Committee Activities in Other
County Transportation Commissions
As requested by the Committee, staff has contacted the other county
transportation commissions in Orange, Los Angeles and San
Bernardino Counties to determine the composition and activities of
their Citizens Advisory Committees (CAC). A summary of our find-
ings is provided below.
Orange County
The Orange County Transportation Commission CAC is comprised of 17
members and meets twice each month five days prior to the Commis-
sion meetings. The members are appointed as follows: two by each
of the seven Commission members; one from the League of Women
Voters; one from the Orange County Chamber of Commerce; and, one
from the Orange County Transit District CAC. The current
appointees represent a wide range of interests including con-
sultants, land developers, attorneys, a realtor, the automobile
club (AAA), a handicapped person, a retire person, professors, and
local activists.
The Committee is very active in making recommendations to the
Commission on highway and transit plans, and improvements, special
studies, and community relations activities. Approximately 60% of
the Committee time is spent on highway -related matters. Committee
members have not been formally used to advocate on behalf of the
Commission. Committee members, however, have acted as advocates on
issues such as the Proposition A and the Local Sales Tax Initiative
for transportation funding in Orange County. Committee members
spoke as individuals in favor of the proposition at meetings of
professional and civic organizations to which they belong. After
the proposition failed to pass in the election, the CAC conducted a
review of the promotional activities undertaken and developed re-
commended improvements, should a similar effort be attempted in the
near future. The Committee did not, however, recommend against or
for placing the issue before the public again in the near future.
More recently, the Committee is working to develop a program to
recognize private and public agencies who implement Transportation
System Management (TSM) programs such as carpool, buspool, vanpool
and reduce cost bus pass programs for their employees.
The Commission staff provided copies of the agendas and minutes of
three Committee meetings held in February and march of this year.
Copies of these materials are attached to the report.
Agenda Item No. 4
CTC Mtg 6/10/85
Los Angels County
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission CAC is comprised
44 members and meets monthly, except in August. The members are
appointed by the Commissioners. Each of the 11 Commissioners
appoints four members to the Commtitee. The current appointees
represents students, retirees, a land developer, professors,
businessmen, an SCRTD Board member, an SCRTD bus driver, and a
railroad employee.
According to the LACTC staff, the Committee does not generally view
itself as a group representing community interests. The members
function more as individuals using the Committee meetings for
personal information gathering on transportation issues and plans.
The Committee reviews reports and recommendations produced by the
Technical Advisory Committee, the Elderly and Handicapped Com-
mittee, and consultants in the areas of highway, bus and rail plans
and projects. However, unlike the Orange County CAC, this Com-
mittee rarely develops and forwards a Committee recommendation to
the Commission. Input to the Commission is mostly in the form of
comments by individual Committee members on recommendations deve-
loped by the other committees cited above and consultants for
special projects. The Committee has not been used as an advocacy
group by the Commission and the individuals for the most part do
not take on the advocacy of proposals as individuals as the Orange
County CAC members do.
Of the 11 meetings scheduled for the year, 3-4 are combined with
field trips. The November meeting is the annual outing for the
Committee. Examples of trips for the annual outing have been the
San Diego Trolley, the Perris Trolley Museum, and the Port of Los
Angeles. Additionally, 2-3 meetings are facility tours and dis-
cussions. Examples of the facility tours include a tour of the
Caltrans District 7 offices and the SCRTD Maintenance Facility.
The tours are followed up by a discussion of the plans under con-
sideration by the agency. The Caltrans tour discussion was the 20 -
Year Highway Plan for District 7. The SCRTD tour discussion was
the RTD Reduced Fare Program.
aan Bernardino County
The San Bernardino County Transportation Commission does not have a
Citizens Advisory Committee. Citizen input to the Commission is
obtained through the "unmet transit needs" public hearings, ad hoc
committees established as required by Omnitrans, the public transit
operator in San Bernardino County, and staff participation in
elderly and handicapped services committees. The Commission has a
Local Streets and Roads Financing Committee comprised of city and
business representatives that meets on an as needed basis.
PB:nk
Attachments
����A ��G E C O 0 4 ,
��, T C
��o
' ' a r r o r a c o
O R A N G E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
A G E N D A
C I T I Z E N S A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E
W e d n e s d a y , M a r c h 6 , 1 9 8 5
7 : 3 0 a . m .
O R A N G E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N
1 0 5 5 N . M a i n S t r e e t , S u i t e 5 1 6
S a n t a A n a
1 . O R A N G E C O U N T Y U N I F I E D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N T R U S T A C T I O N
( O C U T T ) G E N E R A L G U I D E L I N E S - R o n C o l e 3 5 M i n .
A t i t s l a s t m e e t i n g , t h e c o m m i t t e e r e v i e w e d
t h e p r o p o s e d O C U T T g u i d e l i n e s f o r s t r e e t
a n d r o a d p r o j e c t s . S t a f f w i l l d i s c u s s t h e
g u i d e l i n e s f o r s t a t e h i g h w a y p r o j e c t s , a n d
t h e c o m m i t t e e i s r e q u e s t e d t o o f f e r c o m m e n t s
a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o n b o t h e l e m e n t s .
2 . T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P A R T N E R S H I P A W A R D S P R O G R A M - R E V I E W
N a n c y C o s s - F i t z w a t e r A N D
C O M M E N T
S t a f f a n d p a r t i c i p a t i n g c o m m i t t e e m e m b e r s 3 5 M i n .
w i l l p r e s e n t a r e p o r t o n t h e s t a t u s o f t h e
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P a r t n e r s h i p A w a r d s P r o g r a m .
- i c l u d e d w i t h t h e a g e n d a f o r i n f o r m a t i o n
) r o v i d e b a c k u p m a t e r i a l o r a d d i t i o n a l i n -
t s t .
P O S E D S T A T E T R A N S P O R T A T I O N I M P R O V E M E N T
: o 1 e
- o p o s e d d e l a y s i n t h r e e h i g h - p r i o r i t y
s i n O r a n g e C o u n t y .
1 6 S a n t a A n a , C A 9 2 7 0 1 - ( 7 1 4 ) 8 3 4 - 7 5 8 1
Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda - March 6, 1985
Page 2
4. RESERVE OF ARTICLE 4.5 MONIES FOR THE CTSA -
Adrienne Brooks
The Commission has approved a staff recommendation to
set aside $833,144 in funds to provide for vehicle
purchases.
5. FY 1986 FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION BUDGET -
Nancy Coss -Fitzwater
A report on the effects of the proposed 1986 federal
budget on Orange County transportation programs is
presented.
6. UPDATE ON AMTRAK SERVICE IN THE LOS ANGELES TO SAN DIEGO
CORRIDOR - Sharon Greene
Several recent developments have occurred which affect
passenger rail services along the Los -San Corridor.
This report outlines effects of the 1986 federal budget
proposal, recent changes to Metroliner service, an Amtrak
proposal for new services, and the convening of a task
force to examine possible improvements to rail service
along the corridor.
MEETING MINUTES
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1985
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 a.m.
Members Present
Hans Clemens
Skip Davenport
Jack Gill
Tricia Harrigan
Judy Johnson
Gordon Jones
Gloria Schlaepfer
Barbara Taylor
Guests
Charles Wittmer
Minutes
The minutes for
Members Not Present
Les Jones
Bruce McLean
Malcolm Ross
Roger Slates
Frank Spevacek
Elsie Thompson
Staff
Lisa Mills
Tami Spirito
Monte Ward
the February 6, 1985 meeting were approved.
CAC Proposal for an Ongoing Community Relations Program
Chairman Davenport reported on the comments offered by the Commis-
sion on the CAC proposal at the February 11, 1985 Commission
meeting.
Chairman Davenport informed the committee of the Commissioners'
support and interest for the CAC proposal. Commissioner Roose-
velt, in particular, commended the committee for their work. Four
suggestions were made by the Commissioners.
1. The committee should work closely with Commission staff
throughout the development of the study, particularly through
the budget process.
2. It is important to develop a fair selection process for
the test community.
3. A survey should be taken of what is being done in the
communities currently so that we are not replicating programs
already underway.
Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes - February 20, 1985 Page 2
4. The public must be kept involved, but the committee
should avoid developing specific lists of projects based
on perceived problems and solutions.
Jack Gill commented on the suggestion of a fair selection pro-
cess. Mr. Gill felt that it should be geared toward selecting
a community with representative transportation problems.
Chairman Davenport explained that this proposal was an interim
report and that the Commission had approved the concept. The
committee is requested to refine the project and submit it for
consideration in the OCTC budget process.
Orange County Unified Transportation Trust (OCUTT) Guidelines
Chairman Davenport informed the committee that SB 429 has been
introduced by State Senator John Seymour to establish the OCUTT
Program.
At the request of the committee, Lisa Mills discussed the OCUTT
guidelines beginning with a description of the Arterial Highway
Financing Program (AHFP). Ms. Mills explained that AHFP was
established 27 years ago, primarily t❑ complete gaps in the
Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Under the program, a
portion of county gas tax funds is allocated on a project merit
basis to the cities. In the last 5 years, this program has
shifted from closing gaps in the MPAH, to an emphasis on reha-
bilitation of existing roads. The county is not eligible to
compete for these funds. In order for a city to receive funds,
they must provide a 50% match for all projects.
Ms. Mills described the AHFP process. Once applications are
received, they are reviewed by a committee made up of staff.
When projects are selected, they go to an AHFP Committee, made
up of two county supervisors and three city members for approval.
The County Board of Supervisors has final approval.
Ms. Mills discussed the issue surrounding AHFP and OCUTT. Cities
are concerned with OCUTT becoming a replacement for AHFP. ❑ver
the next several years, the county faces an $8 to $10 million
annual shortfall in road funds. The board has asked the county
staff to look at priorities and alternatives for the road budget.
The possible phasing out of AHFP has been proposed and has become
a concern for the cities.
Ms. Mills noted that the cities feel the introduction of OCUTT
could influence the fate of AHFP. Presently, it appears that
Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes - February 20, 1985 Page 3
AHFP will be funded for the coming year, but the program must be
reauthorized annually. According to Ms. Mills, the cities are
beginning to view OCUTT and AHFP as separate issues for the pur-
poses of developing the OCUTT guidelines.
The OCUTT general guidelines were discussed. The program has
been divided into two parts: streets and roads and state high-
ways. After extensive discussion, the Technical Advisory Commit-
tee and the Policy Advisory Ca:ulittee are prepared to recommend
that OCTC administer the OCUTT program.
Under the guidelines for the streets and roads portion, the county
and the cities will be eligible to compete for funds. A three-
year program is proposed, which allows cities to know in advance
of a commitment to fund projects.
In order for a city to participate, the city must:
(1) have a circulation plan consistent with the county MPAH.
(2) have an adopted pavement management plan (to show that
the city is maintaining their existing streets and roads).
(3) provide a 50% match of funds.
The OCUTT program will only provide funds for construction. However,
a city can use their 50% match for preliminary engineering and right-
of-way acquisition.
Eligible street and road expenditures will include:
(1) gap closures
(2) rehabilitation projects
(3) super streets
(4) new facilities
(5) TSM
Because of a lack of time, the committee agreed to discuss the guide-
lines for state highway projects and develop formal comments on the
general guidelines at the next meeting.
Information Items
Monte Ward distributed an information item describing SB 290 (Foran),
a bill to increase state transportation revenues. According to Mr.
Ward, the bill would increase the state fuel tax by 50 (20 for state
Citizens Advisory Committee
Minutes - February 20, 1985 Page 4
highways and 3c for local streets and roads), increase truck weight
fees, and commit more funds for public transit. He noted that a
complete analysis and presentation on SB 290 would be given at a
future CAC meeting.
Chairman Davenport announced that Supervisor Wieder had appointed
Donald Troy from Huntington Beach to be a member of the CAC. Mr.
Troy will be joining the committee in March.
Monte Ward asked the committee when it would be most convenient to
take a tour of the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency and
Orange County Transit District. The CTSA tour would include a van
pick up at OCTC and would focus on how the agency works and who it
serves. The committee agreed that a regular committee meeting date
would be best. Mr. Ward. said he would arrange the visits.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 a.m.
04¢ 0 E U CO,\
33 o
n
).,rioN co
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 20, 1985
7:30 a.m.
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1055 N. Main, Suite 516
Santa Ana, CA
1. CAC PROPOSAL FOR AN ONGOING COMMUNITY DISCUSSION
RELATIONS PROGRAM - 30 Min;
Chairman Davenport
Chairman Davenport will report on the
comments offered by the Commission on the
CAC proposal on February 11. The Committee
has been requested to refine the concept
and develop a project for consideration in
the OCTC budget process.
2. ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION TRUST REVIEW
GUIDELINES - AND
Lisa Mills COMMENT
45 Min.
The Commission has -directed staff to cir-
culate the proposed OCUTT guidelines to the
OCTC standing committees for review and
comment.
INFORMATION ITEMS
These items are included with the agenda for information only.
Staff can provide back-up material or additional information
upon request.
1055 North Main Suite 516 Santa Ana, CA 92701 • (714) 834-7581
Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda - February 20, 1985
Page 2
3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE 1985 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM (STIP) -
Lisa Mills
The Commission has approved a staff recommendation not to
solicit new candidate projects for the 1985 STIP, based on
the 1985 STIP fund estimate and policies.
4. TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP AWARDS NOMINATIONS -
Nancy Coss -Fitzwater
Nomination forms for the Transportation Partnership Awards
Program have been printed and are being distributed.
MEETING MINUTES
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 6, 1985
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 a.m.
Members Present Members Not Present
Skip Davenport Hans Clemens
Jack Gill Judy Johnson
Tricia Harrigan Bruce McLean
Gordon Jones Roger Slates
Les Jones Frank Spevacek
Malcolm Ross
Gloria Schlaepfer Staff
Barbara Taylor Andrienne Brooks
Elsie Thompson Ron Cole
Loretta Sanchez
Guests Tami Spirito
Charles Wittmer Monte Ward
Minutes
The minutes for the January 23, 1985 meeting were approved.
FY 1985-86 Regional Overall Work Program - Proposed Orange County Projects
Loretta Sanchez led the Committee in a review and discussion of the SCAG Overall Work
Program and the projects being put forth by OCTC and the Orange County Transit District.
The OWP is SCAG's budgeting process. Through development of the program, federal
planning funds are made available for projects undertaken by the Commission, the County
and cities within Orange County.
Ms. Sanchez described the factors used to prioritize projects put forward by OCTC. These
include whether a project is ongoing, consistency with SCAG's priorities, and conformance
with the priorities of the federal agencies that administer the funds.
The Committee had questions about a health promotion and wellness program proposed by
OCTD. Members wondered why the program was targeted to upper and middle management
rather than bus drivers. Several members also had questions about the details of the Santa
Ana Northwest Expressway Feasibility Study.
A motion was passed directing staff to prepare a letter communicating the Committee's
comments on the OCTD health and wellness project to the Commission.
FY 1984-85 Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Section 16(b)(2) Funding
Application
Ron Cole of the Commission staff explained that each year Caltrans solicits applications for
the UMTA Section 16(b)(2) Capital Grant Application Program. Capital Grants are made
available through this program to assist private nonprofit corporations in providing
transportation services to the elderly and handicapped.
Citizens Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1985
Page 2
Only one application was submitted this year, and that was from Consolidated
Transportation Service Agency (CTSA). CTSA provides transportation services throughout
Orange County to transit -dependent elderly and handicapped people and clients of
participating social service agencies.
Adrienne Brooks of the Commission staff informed the Committee that CTSA is requesting
twenty lift -equipped vehicles. Fifteen are to replace existing vehicles and five are for a
fleet expansion for a total cost of $782,750. The CTSA presently operates a fleet of 55
vehicles. Mr. Cole indicated that the Commission staff had reviewed this application
thoroughly and is recommending endorsement.
Gloria Schlaepfer commented that it was difficult to assess the need for the expansion
vehicles without additional information. Staff indicated that the CTSA's Short Range
Transit Plan provided the basis for the expansion plans. Several members of the Committee
had questions regarding the nature of the CTSA service and clients. Monte Ward suggested
that a tour of the CTSA operations be arranged.
Ms. Brooks informed the Committee that CTSA, in accordance with 16(b)(2) application
procedures, gave public notice and letter notification to public and private transportation
providers of their intent to replace and acquire equipment.' CTSA received over 40
responses. One of the letters was from a private provider protesting the CTSA's acquisition
of vehicles with public funds. The provider offered to provide all or part of the services for
CTSA contractually. Another private provider did not object to CTSA's grant application
but also offered to provide transportation services on a contract basis. Ms. Brooks noted
that neither operator had the necessary equipment to provide service. All of the remaining
responses supported CTSA's application.
CTSA is in the process of resolving the protest letter and will send out a request for
qualifications to the providers who responded by letter to determine their ability to provide
the services.
The Committee approved the recommendation to endorse CTSA's request of UMTA (16)(b)(2)
funding for 20 additional vehicles.
Orange County Unified Transportation Trust (OCUTT) Fund
Monte Ward informed the Committee that the Commission requested the standing
committees to review and comment on the administrative guidelines for the Orange County
Unified Transportation Trust proposal.
Chairman Davenport reminded the Committee that the OCUTT proposal was put forward by
Chairman Griset and Commissioner Clark. It calls for interest earned from money which
has been set aside to construct a rapid transit project in Orange County to be made
available for streets, roads, and highway improvements.
Mr. Ward indicated that the legislative language provided in the agenda is the wording that
was presented to the Legislative Counsel. Some minor revisions in the Counsel's digest are
expected before the bill is introduced.
Citizens Advisory Committee
Meeting Minutes - February 6, 1985
Page 3
Jack Gill questioned why Orange County Transit District (OCTD) is in support of OCUTT.
Mr. Ward explained that OCTD is in support because they recognize the need for road
improvements and would prefer relinquishing the interest for these improvements rather
than risking an attempt to capture the entire amount of the reserves.
Les Jones asked why the reserves had been set aside. Ron Cole indicated that, since its
inception, OCTD had been prudent in its approach to expansion of bus operations and had set
aside funds for future rapid transit (either rail or bus/HOV) development. Mr. Ward noted
that OCTD's authorizing legislation establishes their responsibility to both operate Orange
County's bus system and develop rapid transit.
Chairman Davenport listed the concerns that have been raised regarding OCUTT.
1. The proposal would set a precedent of concern to areas outside of Orange
County.
2. The proposal threatens the future of rapid transit funding.
3. The whole reserve should be made available for road projects.
The Committee decided to separate the issues of the legislation and the administrative
guidelines. The Committee opted to set aside the review of the guidelines until the
February 20 Committee meeting. Malcolm Ross requested information on the County's
AHFP Program at that time. The Committee moved to approve the OCUTT proposal and
legislation and requested staff to draft a letter to the Commission signed by Chairman
Davenport endorsing the plan.
Other Business
Malcolm Ross and Tricia Harrigan informed the Committee that on Tuesday, February 12,
there will be a panel discussion on the OCUTT issue before the Orange County Chamber of
Commerce Transportation Council. The meeting will be held at 8:00 a.m. on the 4th floor of
the Bank of America Tower at The City shopping center in Orange.
Chairman Davenport requested any last minute comments on the Proposition A Action Plan.
He will be presenting the initial report to the Commissioners on Monday, February 11, 1985.
He informed the Committee that comments were welcomed by phone.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m.
f:O
GE Co,
Z
a r o
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 6, 1985
7:30 a.m.
APR 2 9 1985
Riverside County
Transportation Cc,TnMiscion
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
1055 North Main Street, Suite 516
*Santa Ana, CA
1. FY 1985-86 REGIONAL OVERALL WORK PROGRAM - REVIEW
PROPOSED ORANGE COUNTY PROJECTS - AND
Loretta Sanchez COMMENT
20 Min.
Planning projects proposed by OCTC for
federal funding through the Southern
California Association of Governments
Regional Overall Work Program will be
discussed. On February 11, 1985, the
Commission will be asked to prioritize
these projects.
2. FY 1984-85 URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINIS- ACTION
TRATION (UMTA) SECTION 16(b)(2) FUNDING 20 Min.
APPLICATION -
Adrienne Brooks
The Consolidated Transportation Service
Agency (CTSA) has requested UMTA 16(b)(2'
funding for 20 vehicles. Staff is recom- u!r? ctcr
mending approval of the CTSA application
and requests the endorsement of the
Committee.
1055 North Main Suite 516
File
To
- — Santa Ana, CA 92701— - (714)134-7581
Citizens Advisory Committee
Agenda - February 6, 1985
Page 2
3. ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION TRUST
(OCUTT) - Stan Oftelie
On January 28, 1985, staff presented proposed
legislation and guidelines to create a local
transportation trust fund from interest earned
on funds reserved for rapid transit. Comments
and suggestions on the guidelines are being
solicited from the Commission's standing
committees.
REVIEW
AND
COMMENT
30 Min.
INFORMATION ITEMS
These items are included with the agenda for information only.
Staff can provide additional backup material or information
on request.
4. TRAVEL AND EXPENSE -CLAIMS - Judy Schild
Travel and expense claim forms for the first quarter of
calendar year 1985 are provided along with instructions
on how to complete and file the form.
5. PROPOSAL FOR AN ONGOING COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAM -
Skip Davenport
The final version of the CAC's post -Prop. A follow-up
report to the Commission is presented. This item will
be presented to OCTC on February 11, 1985.
MEETING MINUTES
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1985
The meeting was called
Members Present
Skip Davenport
Jack Gill
Tricia Harrigan
Judy Johnson
Malcolm Ross
Gloria Schlaepfer
Frank Spevacek
Elsie Thompson
Guests
Charles Wittmer
Minutes
The minutes for the December 5, 1984 and the January 9, 1985 meet-
ings were approved.
Orange County Unified Transportation Trust Fund
Monte Ward informed the Committee of an OCTC agenda item concerning
the proposed creation of an Orange County Unified Transportation
Trust (OCUTT) Fund being presented to the Commission on January 28,
1985.
to order at 7:40 a.m.
Members Not Present
Hans Clemens
Gordon Jones
Les Jones
Bruce McLean
Roger Slates
Barbara Taylor
Staff
Tami Spirito
Monte Ward
Judy Schild
Last December, Chairman Griset and Commissioner Clark proposed that
interest earned from money which has been set aside to construct a
rapid transit project in Orange County be made available for streets,
roads, and highway projects. The principal would remain earmarked
for a Central Orange County rapid transit project. This rapid
transit savings account is included in the Local Transportation Fund
and is presently restricted for transit use only.
Mr. Ward indicated that there would be two items brought before OCTC
on January 28. 1. Draft legislation allowing the use of the interest
earned from the transit funds for streets, roads, and highway projects.
Citizens Advisory Committee Page 2
Minutes - January 23, 1985
2. Proposed guidelines for allocating these funds with 50% going
to local streets and roads and 50% for state highway projects.
Senator John Seymour (R -Anaheim) has agreed to carry the legisla-
tion. A preliminary schedule would have the bill introduced around
February 1, 1985 with a first hearing before the Senate Transporta-
tion Committee in March.
This bill would have statewide implications, particularly among
other urban counties that may be interested in using this approach
to shift transit funds to highway programs. Statewide transit
interests will be carefully watching the bill, and the support of
❑CTD is crucial.
The proposed guidelines are a major interest for the Orange County
cities. The new local street and road program is proposed to be
modeled after the county's successful Arterial Highway Financing -
Program (AHFP). The cities are concerned with how this new program
will affect the AHFP. The county road fund is presently faced with
a $42 million shortfall over the next 5 years, and there is doubt
as to the long term viability of the AHFP. The cities are concerned
that the Commission's guidelines could encourage a substitution of
new funds for the AHFP rather than augmentation of the program.
Expense Claim Procedure
Judy Schild of the Commission staff informed CAC members that they
may claim expenses for travel and educational expenses related to
the committee's work. Ms. Schild provided an expense claim form
and discussed the information to be filled out when completing the
form, including:
- name, address, city
- social security number
- claim period
- date, destination (city), purpose of trip
- mileage
- parking or other expenses
- signatures (claimant and the CAC chairman)
For all reimbursements, original receipts must.be provided. Prior
approval of the CAC chairman and course descriptions are required
to claim educational expenses.
The committee suggested distributing and processing the claims on
a quarterly basis. New claim forms and a reminder to turn in prior
Citizens Advisory Committee Page 3
Minutes - January 23, 1985
claims will be included on the agenda as an information item at
the beginning of each quarter.
Election of Officers
Malcolm Ross suggested that since the past year was chaired success-
fully, the same officers should be retained. The committee agreed
unanimously to re-elect Skip Davenport as Chairman and Tricia
Harrigan as Vice Chairman.
Action Plan Progress Report
Judy Johnson discussed briefly the elements of the Action Plan pro-
posal and the importance of the committee working together to garner
support from the Commission for a community relations program. She
indicated that the committee would be requesting guidance from the
Commission on February 11 to proceed with the development of a formal
proposal.
Chairman Davenport discussed his concerns with some of the wording
in the Action Plan report. The committee agreed that the wording
may need to be revised. The committee unanimously endorsed the
concept proposed in the Action Plan report and authorized Judy John-
son to revise the document, consistent with comments provided by
the committee, for presentation to OCTC.
Other Matters
Chairman Davenport encouraged members who are unable to attend
regular meetings of the CAC to notify staff prior to the meeting.
At the request of Elsie Thompson, Monte Ward called the committee's
attention to a handbook titled Access Amtrak, which provides infor-
mation for elderly and handicapped Amtrak customers. At the request
of the members, he agreed to provide copies of the booklet.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM v HSS ON
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Route 79
The Committee has requested that staff provide information
on Route 79, particularly the segment through Lambs Canyon.
Enclosed is a draft report recently prepared by Caltrans on
the entire length of Route 79 in Riverside County. I know
that this report may use terminology that makes it difficult
for you to fully understand but rather than trying to sum-
marize or interpret it here, I thought it might be better to
simply discuss it at the meeting and answer any questions
that members might have.
Of specific interest to the Committee is the safety problem
in Lambs Canyon. According to Caltrans, for Route 79
between I-10 and Gilman Hot Springs Road, in the last 3
years, there has been a total of 112 accidents. Of these
112 accidents, 6 had fatalities and 50 involved injuries.
To determine the relative safety of routes, Caltrans
computes fatality and fatality + injury rates per million
vehicle miles (MVM) of travel.
The rates on Route 79 between I-10 and Gilman Hot Springs
Road ranged from 0.73 to .160 fatalities per MVP? and .48 to
1.44 fatalities + injuries per MVM. These rates are about
what the average is on similar State highway routes.
Therefore, Caltrans has not considered improvements to Route
79 to be a high priority. At one time, the accident rates
,were considerably higher. However, a few years ago Caltrans
did some restriping and resigning which has seemed to reduce
the rates significantly.
BB:nk
Enclosure
Agenda Item No. 5
CTC Mtg 6/10/85
1
TSP137
ROUTE CONCEPT REPORT
State Route 79
8-Riv-79 PM 2.3/40.5
ROUTE DESCRIPTION
Route 79 begins at Interstate Route 8 in San Diego County near
Descanso and terminates in Riverside County at Interstate Route 10
in Beaumont. The total route length is 107 miles.
The District 8 portion analyzed in this Route Concept Report (RCR)
begins at the junction of Routes 79 and 371 near Aguanga and
terminates at Interstate Route 10, a distance of 49.2 miles.1
Route 79 is a two-lane conventional highway except for some short
four -lane sections in the urban areas. There are two route breaks
within District 8; first at the southern junction of Route 15 and
second, at the western junction of Route 74.
1 The Post Mile indicators do not total the District 8 route
length due to realigned portions of the route.
LAS j
kNGELE/
CO.
4
1 CORONA
(RANGE CO.� 10
., \
io\ •
SAN BER VINO
REMAND
ONTANA
IVERSIDE
NORCO
ROUTE IMPROVEMENTS
None
Add 2 Lanes
Add 4 lanes
Edgemon
■_ Alberhlll
ELSI
i ArrowIieai IJUL;em
unrung Lake
Springs j
Mentone
Camp Angelus
Mountain 1 1 i Moi ongo
Home S Di , Valley
imam
Vi11a K- MA.SIIId� �iO.
,RIvER81oE Co. C
.r
little
• ci r`fr -
Sunnymead BEAUMONT
s Penis
Railroad
Canyo
Res
,� 0
�, O
`\ ~� ■ Temecula•
~ �'� SAN D I EGO COUN T se .04,
Romoland
n City
t
Scale in Mll.a
Winchester
BANNING Cabana
In co
SA
JACINTO
1■.waa ■e mg
l
e waler
PALM SPRINGS
nza
guanga DIST 8
wry ------
ROUTE 7.9
DIST 1I
Yucca
Valley
...i. _ _ T
ao 1:- .
1_1
VI
ES a
Tho usand'
Pnlmsli
Palm
Daslr
■
ROUTE PURPOSE
Segment Primary Purpose
1 Interregional
Secondary Purpose
Local/Intraregional
2 Interregional Local/Intraregional
3 Interregional Local/Intraregional
4 Local Intraregional
5 Local Intraregional
6 Intraregional Local
7 Interregional Intraregional
8 Interregional Intraregional
Route 79 provides access to the San Diego area from the cities of
Hemet, San Jacinto and Beaumont. The average through traffic
ranges from 6,500 down to 3,800 vehicles per day.
Heavy concentrations of local trips occur within the Cities of
Hemet and San Jacinto (Segments 4 and 5). Average Daily Traffic
(ADT) varies from 16,000 to 7,000 vehicles.
Route 79 is not included on the Federal Highway Administration's
(FHWA) Final Designation of Routes for Larger Trucks nor is it a
SHELL (Subsystem of Highways for the Movement of Extra -Legal Permit
Loads) Route.
Segment 3 (PM R2.3/R19.2, northern junction Route 15 to the
western junction with Route 74) is eligible for Federal -Aid
Secondary funds. The rest of the route is eligible for Federal -
Aid Primary funding.
Route 79 was incorporated into the State Highway System in 1933
and added to the Freeway and Expressway System in 1959. It is not
included in the State Scenic Highway system.
PARALLEL ROUTES
There are no parallel facilities for Segments 1, 2, 7 and 8.
Segment 3 is paralleled 5 miles westerly by Interstate 215.
Segments 4 and 5 traverse the business districts of Hemet and
San Jacinto where State Street, Sanderson Avenue and other local
city streets function as alternate parallel facilities. Rural
Segment 6 is also paralled by Sanderson Avenue.
EXISTING FACILITY
The existing facility consists of a two to four -lane undivided
conventional highway. The lane and shoulder widths of the
roadbed, with the exception of Segments 7 and 8, are adequate and
do not greatly limit capacity. The capacity of Segments 7 and 8
is diminished by the lack of shoulders.
1984 STIP AND CURRENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
There are five traffic signals programmed for installation or
improvement at the following locations:
Segment 3 Route 74
Segment 4
Devonshire Avenue
Oakland Avenue
Esplanade Avenue
Segment 5 Ramona Expressway
Projects which would significantly increase capacity are not
programmed in the STIP or currently under construction.
CURRENT OPERATING CONDITIONS
Accidents
The following segment has accident levels (triennial basis)
exceeding the threshold levels established by the RCR Guidelines:
Actual
Segment Type Rate Threshold
7 F+I/M/Y2 2.1 2.0
7 A/M/Y3 3.5 3.2
This segment will require further analysis and evaluation to
determine appropriate courses of action.
2 Fatalities Plus Injuries Per Mile Per Year.
3 Accidents Per Mile Per Year.
-14-
Volume to Capacity (V/C) Ratio
A11 of Route 79 is currently operating below the threshold level
for V/C ratios established by the RCR Guidelines.
Level of Service (LOS - 1983)
Route 79 is currently operating at the following levels of
service.4
Segment
1
2
Urban/Rura15
Area
Rural
Rural
Post Miles
(Limits)
Riv-2.3/10.9
Route 371 to Vail Lake Rd
Riv-10.9/19.8
Vail Lake Rd to S Jet Rte 15
Break in Route
3 Rural Riv-R2.3/R19.2
N Jet Rte 15 to W Jet Rte 74
Break in Route
4 Urban Riv-25.7/27.4
E Jet Rte 74 to Esplanade Ave
5 Urban Riv-27.4/29.9
Esplanade Ave to Ramona Exp
6 Rural Riv 29.9/33.9
Ramona Exp to Gilman Sprgs Rd
7 Rural Riv-33.9/ 39.9
Gilman Sprgs Rd to Westward Rd
8 Urban Riv-39.9/40.5
Westward Rd to Route 10
Operating
LO S
C-147
C-49
C-44
A-30
A-30
C-48
D-37
C-41
4 LOS and Operating Speed are calculated values based upon
empirical data and may vary from actual conditions. See attached
maps for supplemental facility characteristics and operating
conditions.
5 •Based on 1983 conditions.
LOS 2005 NULL (Based on 2005 ADT and Existing Facility)
The 2005 projected operating conditions are shown in the following
table:
Operating
Segment Urban/ Rural 6 D/C7 LOS
1 Rural 0.56 D-38
2 Urban 1.51 F<27
3 - Urban 2.25 F<27
4 Urban 1.22 F<15
5 Urban 1.13 F<15
6 Urban 0.95 E-28
7 Rural 1.59 F<27
8 Urban 1.45 F<27
6 Based on anticipated 2005 conditions.
7 D/C (Demand/Capacity Ratio) .
ROUTE CONCEPT
Concept LOS
Restricting
Segment Post Mile LOS Characteristics
1 2.3/10.9 D-35 None
2 10/9/19.8 E-27 Urban
3 R2.3/R19.2 D-35 None
4 25.7/27.4 E-15 Urban, Downtown
Signalized
5 27.4/29.9 E-15 Urban, Downtown
Signalized
6 29.9/33.9 E-27 Urban
7 33.9/39.9 D-35 None
8 39.9/40.5 D-35 None
A base Concept of LOS D has been established for all routes in
District 8 with the exception of those routes in the Principal
Arterial System. The Principal Arterial System is comprised of
routes classified as rural Principal Arterials (PA) and their
urban extensions (P1P). Where significant urbanization was
expected by the year 2005 and/or where substantial restrictions to
improvement (mountainous terrain, environmental constraints,
etc.) exist, the appropriate LOS would be E. The routes were
examined and segments classified as to degree of expected
urbanization and improvement restrictions. Segments with similar
characteristics were grouped together and assigned an LOS based on
the preceding determinations.
The District has discussed the preceding process with the San
Bernardino Associated Governments and the Riverside County
Transportation Commission as well as with as with Caltrans DOTP
and has received general approval.
Concept Facility (2005)
Two additional lanes of capacity would be required to achieve the
Concept LOS on Segments 2,3,5,7 and 8. Increased capacity could
be provided on Segment 4 through signal sychronization.
Increasing the percent of green time from 50 to 65 generates
enough capacity to meet the projected demand.
Segment Existing Lanes Concept Facility
1983 Lanes
1 2 2
2 2 4
3 2 4
4 4 4
5 2 4
6 2 2
7 2 4
8 2 14
LOS 2005 Based on 2005 ADT and Concept Facility (See preceding
table) :
Segment
Urban/Rura18
Operating
Area D/C LOS
1+6 Same as 2005 Null
2 Urban
3 Urban
4 Urban
5 Urban
7 Rural
8 Urban
0.56
0.57
0.94
0.41
0.41
0.40
D-40
C-46
E-20
A-30
C-47
C-48
Caltrans may not be able to provide the necessary improvements due
to projected financial constraints and the possibility of higher
priority needs. As a
jurisdictions (cities
adequate right of way
stipulation of land development, local
and counties) should mandate dedication of
to meet their general plans (See Exhibit 1) .
Where appropriate (developments with extensive State Highway
frontage) the developer should be required to improve the route to
meet the local jurisdiction's general plan.
8 Based on anticipated 2005 conditions.
-9-
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Realignment of Segments 4, 5 and 6 onto Sanderson Avenue is being
considered by the State and local jurisdictions. The following
table shows existing and projected (2005 Null) operating
conditions on Segments 4, 5 and 6 and the portion of Sanderson
Avenue between Route 74 and Gilman Springs Road.
Operating Operating
V/C LOS D/C LOS
Segment 1983 1983 2005 2005
4 0.55 A-30 1.22 F<15
5 0.51 A-30 1.13 F<15
6 0.28 C-48 0.95 E-28
Sanderson Ave 0.59 C-40 1.90 F<27
The low operating speeds (less than 15 mph) on Segments 4 and 5
are a function of traffic signals and speed limits as well as high
traffic volumes.
Modifying Segments 4, 5 and 6 to reflect the realignment onto
Sanderson Avenue would improve the route by eliminating the
problems of jogs and associated stops with the existing
alignment. Additionally, the realigned route would not contain
the numerous traffic signals and turning movements to access
adjacent businesses. The existing route traverses the business
districts of Hemet and San Jacinto, where right of way would be
difficult and expensive to acquire. The Sanderson Avenue
alignment traverses easily improved lands which are primarily
undeveloped or agricultural. However, continuing urbanization in
Hemet and San Jacinto is expected to generate enough population
growth to push traffic volumes on the existing Sanderson Avenue
facility beyond capacity.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The 2005 ADT was calculated utilizing the Growth Rate found in the
1984 State Highway Inventory. The percent of the ADT in the
Design Hour and Peak Direction were also taken from the 1984 State
Highway Inventory. The existing (1983) ADT was taken from the
1983 Traffic Volumes Book. The 2005 Demand/Capacity (D/C) Ratios
were calculated using the Geometric Factor and the Truck Grade
Factor found in the inventory. A Peak Hour Factor of 1.0 was used
in calculating both current and 2005 operating levels of service.
COORDINATION
The Route Concept Report has been discussed with and will be
reviewed by District 11. At such time as the Route Concept Report
for the portion of Route 79 within District 11 is available, any
significant differences in concept will be reconciled.
EXHIBIT 1
The following table describes Route 79 according to the local
jurisdictions' (City or County) general plan. All descriptions
originate in the Riverside County general plan unless otherwise
noted.*
General Plan
Pavement
Limits Facility Half Width
Rte 371 to
Pauba Rd
P.M. Riv 2.3/12.5
Pauba Rd to
S. Jct I-15
P.M. Riv 12.5/19.8
N. Jct I-15 to
W. Jct Rte 74
P.M. R2.3/R19.2
Mountain
Arterial
Interim
Expressway
Interim
32'
20'
143,
22'
Right of Way
Half Width
55 '
55'
71'
71'
Arterial 43' 55'
Highway
E. Jet Rte 74 to Specific Plan --
Oakland Ave
P.M. 25.7/26.2
Hemet*
Oakland Ave to
Commonwealth Ave
P.M. 26.2/27.2
Commonwealth Ave to
Ramona B1.
P.M. 27.2/29.2
San Jacinto*
Ramona B1 to
Gilman Springs Rd.
P.M. 29.2/33.9
Gilman Springs Rd
to Beaumont City
Limit
P.M. 33.9/39.9
Beaumont City Limit
to Jct I-10
P.M. 39.9/40.5
Beaumont*
Major Highway
Secondary
Highway
Major Highway
Arterial Highway
Interim
Arterial Highway
38' 50 ►
32' 44'
38' 50'
48' 55'
22' 55'
143' 50'
RIILAK 111 RO UTE
Agenda Item No. 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISS oN
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: State Transportation Financing Legislation
SB 290 (Foran), the 5 cents gas tax increase bill, is dead.
However, there are other bills moving through the
Legislature to increase funding for transportation purposes.
SB 300 (Foran) and AB 2341 (Katz) would increase funding for
State highways, local streets and roads, and transit by
utilizing existing State funds and not increasing the gas
tax. Both would capture, for transportation purposes, the
sales tax on diesel fuel ($70 million/year) currently going
into the State general fund. In addition to the sales tax on
diesel fuel, both bills would appropriate additional sums
for local streets and roads, and .State highways. However,
the funding for State highways would only make up the
current shortfall in the State Transportation Improvement
Program; there would not be additional funds for adding new
projects to the STIP. Both bills have undergone substantial
amendments and details are still unclear. I hope to have
all the details and be able to explain them to you at the
meeting.
There is another bill of some interest being promoted in the
Legislature. AB 2329 (Stirling) would allow a local option
sales tax for transportation purposes. The maximum tax
would be 1 cent in 1/4 cent increments. Enaction of the tax
would require majority voter approval in a county. I under-
stand that the Deukmejian Administration may be favoring
this method as a means of taking care of local street and
road needs. I will discuss this bill and its status in more
detail at your meeting.
BB:nk
Agenda Item No, 6
CTC Mtg 6/10/85
COMPARISON2OF SB 300 AND AB 2341
SB 300 AB 2341
85/86 86/87 85/86 86/87
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS $271 million $271 million $195 million $250 million
TP&D (TRANSIT) $ 35 million -0- $ 72 millionl $ 74 millionT
STATE HIGHWAYS $800 million over 5 years -0- -0-
1From sales tax on diesel fuel.
(Note: A 1t increase in the gasoline tax generates about $115 million per year.)
Agenda Item No. 7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Short Range Transit Plans - Approved
At its meeting on May 16th, the Commission approved the FY
1986-1990 Short Range Transit Plans for all public transit oper-
ators in Riverside County except the cities of Banning and Rancho
Mirage. Plans for these operators had not been finalized. Ap-
proval of the Banning and Rancho Mirage plans are scheduled for
the Commission meeting on June 20th. Commission actions for the
operators plans are discussed below.
Municipal Operators
The Commission approved a continuation of the existing levels of
service over the five-year plan period for Beaumont, Corona, Lake
Elsinore (LETS), Palo Verde Valley, and the Riverside Special
Services. The Commission, while accepting the Corona plan, has
directed that a study of the Corona and Norco dial -a -ride service
areas be conducted to determine if fixed -route service would
provide better service and increase ridership. Commission staff
will conduct the study during the Fall in cooperation with the
City of Corona and the Riverside Transit Agency.
Riverside Transit Agency
The Commission approved the plan submitted by the Riverside
Transit Agency proposing a continuation of existing services and
modest expansion over the next three years. The service improve-
ments approved are listed below:
EX 1986
o Implement a fixed -route service between Moreno Valley and
Perris:
o Implement a fixed -route service between Banning/Beaumont and
Hemet (pending completion of a study currently in progress).
o Expand the Norco dial -a -ride service to connect with Line 15
in Riverside.
o Add a bus to Line 1 (Magnolia Avenue) service on Sunday to
accommodate increased demand.
EX 1987
o Implement Sunday service on Line 15 (Arlington Ave.).
o Implement Saturday service on Line 29 (Rubidoux).
Agenda Item No. 7
CTC Mtg 6/10/85
o Extend weekday service hours and add Saturday service on
Line 21 (Country Village -Tyler Mall).
1988
o Implement Sunday service on Line 27E (Hemet -Perris -
Riverside).
The Committee recommendation to the RTA staff regarding imple-
menting the Moreno Valley -Perris service as a separate line in FY
1986 rather than rerouting Line 27 in FY 1986 and then implement-
ing a separate line in FY 1987 was incorporated into the plan
prior to it being submitted to the Commission for approval.
Funding for the Pass area to Hemet service has been included in
the RTA budget.
SunLine Transit Agency
The Commission approved the following service improvements for
the SunLine Transit Agency.
Ex 1986
o Expansion of the Palm Springs E & H dial -a -ride service to
Cathedral City.
o Limiting the Palm Desert dial -a -ride to elderly and handi-
capped persons and expanding the service day to 9 hrs/day.
o Expanding service for the. Mountain View Seniors Complex to 2
round trips/day on Wednesday and Friday, and extending the
route to the Cathedral City Senior Center.
o Reducing service to the Western Village Mobile Home Park
from 3 days/week to 2 days/week and increasing the time on
Thursday to allow riders to use other SunLine service to
shop in Palm Desert and other areas.
o Start the Palm Springs Sun Special and Desert Hot Springs
winter services 1 month earlier.
EX 1987
o Increase the Line 20 (Palm Springs -Coachella) weekday ser-
vice to 30 minutes and implement Sunday service during the
winter months.
Funding for the Palm Desert Trolley service and the proposed
expansion of Line 4 (La Quinta-Palm Desert) to run on Saturday
during the winter months was not approved. The Line 4 subsidy
per passenger of $18.65 estimated by SunLine did not warrant
expansion of this service. If the subsidy level cannot be re-
duced next year, discontinuing the weekday service will need to
be considered. The Palm Desert Trolley subsidy of $9.08 esti-
mated by SunLine is too high for the trips made by visitors of
Palm Desert to specialty shops along El Paseo and to the Palm
Desert Town Center Mall. The Commission will reconsider funding
approval for these services if a report is submitted by SunLine
and approved by the Commission outlining efforts to be taken to
improve ridership and establishing goals for ridership and sub-
sidy per passenger levels prior to the implementation of service.
The Commission reserved approval of the level of service for the
residents of North Palm Springs. The 2 day/week single round
trip service implemented in July has not been successful. The
service is attracting only 4-5 passengers/day. SunLine had not
completed its proposal for improving this service prior to the
Commission meeting on the transit plans. A proposal for im-
proving service on Thursdays by operating a 24 -hour advance
reservation dial -a -ride service between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. will
be presented to the Commission on June 20th. This proposed
improvement was approved by the SunLine Board at their meeting on
May 29th. A copy of the fixed -route and dial -a -ride service
information proposed by SunLine is attached.
PB:nk
Attachment
i
t
NORTH PALM SPRINGS1 DESERT HOT SPRINGS
CONNECTIONS1O PALM SPRINGS
SERVICE DAYS: Tuesdays and Thursdays
FARE 5 Q One Way
TO DESERT HOT SPRINGS RETURN TO NORTH PALM SPRINGS
Tuesdays and Thursdays
Keith & Dillon 8:17 am
Post Office 8:21 am.
Indian & Dillon 8:22 am.
Indian & Pierson 8:26 am.
Stater Bros. 8:36 am.
Vons 8:39 am.
D.H.S. Medical Clinic 8:52 am.
(1) To meet Line 19 Westbound for retum to North Palen nos.
CONNECTIONS TO PALM SPRINGS: Y
courrige
aGu.!
1ILLNE
NORTH
1iI1LM srruNOS
Page 29
NEW NORTH' PALM SPRINGS
R OUTE & TIME SCHEDULE
11 AWRD61
PIER. ON eLvo
iIlon and Palm
0,H.S. Medical Clinic
ns
ter Bros
dian & Pierson
dian & Dillon
t Office
ith & Dillon
TUES. (only)
10:25 am.
10:38 am
10:41 am
10:51 am
10:52 am
10:56 am
11:00 am.
Thum (only)
3:15 p.m. (1)
3:21 p.m.
3:24 p.m.
3:34 p.m.
3:39 p.m.
3:40 p.m
3:44 p.m.
3:48 p.m.
can catch the Line 19 at the stop at Palm &
cienda The bus leaves every hour.
HACIENDA AVE
DNEP R MOT ywn]E
MEDICAL CENTDI
NOT SPRINGS
Sunbin
TRANSIT AGENCY
Seruing the Coachella Volley
NORTH PALM SPRINGS CITIZENS
In addition to the current scheduled SunBus service to North Palm Springs,
beginning May 20, 1985, SunLine Transit Agency will provide Tel -A -Ride
service on Thursdays, 11:00 o'clock A.M. until 2:00 o'clock P.M. between
North Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs. Twenty-four hours notice will
be necessary to schedule your trip.
Here is how it will work:
1. Call 24 hours ahead to arrange your ride.
2. Tel -A -Ride will pick you up at your door.
3. Tel -A -Ride will drop you off at your stop.
4. Tel -A -Ride will pick you up and take you home,
or you can ride SunBus back to the North Palm
Springs Post 0frice.
KGF: 5-13-85
P.O. Box 398 • 72500 Varner Road • Thousand Palms. California 92276-0398 • (619) 363-3456
Subsidy Per Passenger
RTA FY 1985
20
10.00 Per Passenger
19
18 -
17 -
16 -
15 -
14 -
13 -
12 -
11 -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5
4
3 -
2 -
0 ,A
Fixed -Routes
f
r f
D -A -R
17-777/-7 7
•
1 16 2 15OC141325 12 29 21 22 24 17 18 27 19 30 P SC H N
SERVICE
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY SERVICES FY 1986
FIXED -ROUTES
DESCRIPTION
1 Magnolia Av
16 Moreno Valley - Riv
2 Corona - Riv
15 Arlington Av
OC Riv - Orange County
14 Indiana Av
13 Arlanza
25 Riv - Loma Linda
12 California Av
29 Rubidoux
21 Country Village - Tyler Mall
22 Perris - Riv
24 Lake Els. - Perris - Riv
17 U C R - Mag Center
18 Moreno Valley
27 Hemet - Perris - Riv
19 Moreno - Perris (Prop)
30 Hemet - San Jacinto
DIAL -A -RIDES
DESCRIPTION
P
SC
H
N
Perris D -A -R
Sun City D -A -R
Hemet/ San Jacinto D -A -R
Norco D -A -R
Subsidy Per Passenger
SUNLINE Fr' 1986,
20
$U_40 Per Passenger
19 —
18 —
17 —
1F, —
15 —
14-
13
12 —
11 —
10
9
8 —
7 ---
6 —
5 —
4 —
3 --
2 —
1
0
Fixed Routes
2 PS 1 PD
f
4
D -A -R
//
:77
IV MV DHS PS WV PD NPS
SERVICE
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY SERVICES FY 1986
FIXED -ROUTES
DESCRIPTION
20 Palm Springs - Coachella
19 DHS - Coachella
2 Palm Springs Local
PS Palm Springs Sun Special
1 Palm Springs Local
PD Palm Desert Trolley
4 La Quinta - Palm Desert
D -A -R & LIMITED SERVICES
DESCRIPTION
IV
MV
DHS
PS
WV
PD
NPS
Intervalley Hdcp D -A -R
Mt. View- 1000 Palms
Derert Hot Springs D -A -R
Palm Springs D -A -R
Western Village
Palm Desert Dial -A -Ride
North Palm Springs
Agenda Item No. 8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COIMIVIISSiOsN
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Banning and Rancho Mirage Short Range Transit Plans
The Commission is scheduled to approve the FY 1986-1990 Short
Range Transit Plans for the cities of Banning and Rancho Mirage
at its meeting on June 20th. The Banning plan was not presented
to the Commission on May 16th because a decision on dial -a -ride
service for the elderly and handicapped had not been finalized.
The City of Rancho Mirage plan, which is being incorporated into
the Countywide plan for the first time this year, also had not
been completed. Committee recommendations are requested on the
service levels proposed in these plans.
City 2f Banning
The City of Banning is proposing a major revision of its transit
system in FY 1986. The existing service is provided by a single
loop fixed route operating on a one -hour headway. Service hours
are 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday -Friday, and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
Saturday. At the unmet transit needs hearing, testimony was
received regarding the long travel times required of some riders
due to the loop nature of the route and a need for dial -a -ride
service for elderly and handicapped persons unable to use the
fixed -route service.
The city is proposing restructuring the fixed -route service from
a single route to two routes. One route will serve residents on
the north side of I-10 and the other will serve residents on the
south side of I-10. Both routes will provide service in the
Downtown area and to the Pass Memorial Hospital where transfers
can be made to the Beaumont dial -a -ride service. Travel times
will be reduced from a maximum of 50 minutes to a maximum of 30
minutes and new areas south of I-10 will be served by the second
route. This two -route system has been planned for several years.
The delivery in March of two new buses funded by a federal
capital assistance grant will allow the two -route system to be
started in July, 1985.
A dial -a -ride service for the elderly and handicapped unable to
use the fixed -route service in Banning and for elderly and handi-
capped persons in Cabazon to travel to Banning for medical and
shopping needs will be started in August, 1985. This service was
developed by the Riverside County Office on Aging and the City of
Banning. The existing Cabazon service to Banning, operated by
the Cabazon Senior Center and funded by RTA and the Office on
Aging, is transporting only 4-5 passengers per day. The Cabazon
service operates on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The need in
1
Agenda Item No, 8
CTC Mtg 6/10/85
Banning is limited as most areas where the elderly or handicapped
live are served by the fixed route. The Banning and Cabazon
service areas will be combined under one operation to meet the
needs of both areas at a reasonably low cost. Driver and dis-
patch costs will be funded by the Office on Aging. TDA funds
will be used to fund fuel, oil, insurance and maintenance ex-
penses. The estimated cost for the service is $20,000/year.
Dial -a -ride service will be available Monday -Friday from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. Service between Cabazon and Banning will be provided
by three trips/day on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Service
requests will be taken on a 24 -hour advance reservation system.
The dial -a -ride fare will be $0.75, as is charged in Beaumont,
and the fixed route fare will remain at $0.45. Priority in
scheduling trips will be given to persons going for medical
appointments. Eligibility for service will be determined through
the Banning Senior Center.
City at Rancho Mirage
The City of Rancho Mirage has operated a subsidized taxi service
under contract with Desert Cab Company for serveral years. The
subsidized taxi service was started to replace dial -a -ride ser-
vice operated by the SunLine Transit Agency for which ridership
was low and subsidies per passenger were high. The service has
been funded by the city. By having a short range transit plan
approved, the city will become eligible to claim TDA funds to
support the service.
The dial -a -cab service is available Monday -Saturday from 7:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The service area includes the City of Rancho
Mirage and three specific destinations outside the city: the
College of the Desert; the Cathedral City Shopping Center; and,
the Mission Plaza Shopping Center. Fares are currently $1 with
the city subsidizing the balance of the taxi fare. The average
cost per passenger this year is $4.69. The service transports an
average of 8-10 passengers per day. Most of the passengers are
elderly or handicapped. The proposed plan calls for continuation
of the dial -a -cab service at the existing level of service. The
fare will be raised to $1.25 to assure a 20% minimum fare revenue
to operating cost ratio required by State law for a general
purpose system in an urbanized area.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend Commission approval of the Banning and Rancho Mirage FY
1986-1990 Short Range Transit Plans.
PB:nk
RCTC MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION Cod IMIS
Minutes of Meeting No. 3-85
March 21, 1985
1e Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison
at 1:41 P.M. on Thursday, March 21, 1985, at the Palm
Springs Council Chambers, 3200 Tahquitz McCallum Way, Palm
Springs. The Chairman noted that a quorum was present.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros Carmen Cox
Susan Cornelison Roy Wilson
Alternates present:
Pat Murphy
Ed Shepard
Wayne Stuart
Steve Webb
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/COX) to approve the minutes of the
February 21, 1985 meeting as submitted.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. Public Hearing on Unmet Transit Needs.
Chairman Cornelison gave a brief summary of the Transporta-
tion Development Act, how TDA funds are generated and
expended, and the purpose of holding the unmet transit
needs hearings.
(Transcripts of the hearing are included in the agenda
packet.)
After all the testimony was presented, Chairman Cornelison
informed those present that the Commission, at its April
18th meeting, will determine if the unmet transit needs
presented at the hearings can reasonably be met.
1
RCTC Minutes
March 21, 1985
5. 1985/86 Transportation Improvement Program.
A. State Highway Projects
Barry Beck, Executive Director, said that Caltrans'
final 1985/86 State Transportation Program recommenda-
tions are essentially the same as the preliminary
recommendations which staff presented to the Commis-
sion at its last meeting. He reiterated that the
Commission can't do much better than what Caltrans had
recommended given there are limited funds available
and they are earmarked for specific projects namely on
interstate highways. Fortunately, Caltrans' recommen-
dations coincide with the Commission's recommenda-
tions. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commis-
sion adopt a FY 1985/86 STIP proposal that is identi-
cal to the Caltrans proposal with the one exception
that the Commission only program $15.5 million for the
I-215 project between Van Buren Boulevard and Nuevo
Road in order to conform with the California Transpor-
tation Commission's guidelines. As explained in the
staff report, whether the full $20.8 million is pro-
grammed or whether the CTC approves $15.5 million for
the I-215 project, the CTC will be committed to fully
funding the project in the next STIP process. The
whole project is expected to cost approximately $30
million.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/CENICEROS) to:
1) Approve the attached listing of projects as
the Commission's 1985 STIP proposal.
2) Authorize the Chairman and Executive
Director to negotiate at the regional level
any necessary revisions in the Commission's
proposal, consistent with the Commission's
priorities.
B. Federal -Aid Urban (FAO) and Federal -Aid Secondary
(FAS) Projects.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/CENICEROS) to approve the FAU and
FAS projects as shown in the attachments for
inclusion in -the County's Transportation Improve-
ment Program.
2
RCTC Minutes
March 21, 1985
C. 1985 STIP - Aviation Element.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/CENICEROS) 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 1985 STIP.
6. Productivity Committee Recommendations.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, said that Productivity
Committees (Western County Area and Desert Area Productivity
Committees) appointed by the Commission in December met in
January and February to review transit operations of the
SunLine Transit Agency and the Riverside Transit Agency.
They were provided a set of productivity indicators which
included total passengers, passengers per vehicle hour,
operating costs, and subsidy per passenger for each of the
services offered by the operators. Also reviewed were
a number of efforts that SunLine and RTA have done to
improve their respective transit services.
Paul Blackwelder said that the Desert Area Productivity
Committee's main concern was the high subsidy and the low
level of ridership on the tel-a-ride services. A recommen-
dation was not made because SunLine is currently reviewing
alternatives to reduce costs of the tel-a-ride services.
The Western County Productivity Committee developed five
recommendations for RTA as follows: 1) To review services
operated on holidays to identify low ridership runs or days
and eliminate the non-productive holiday runs; 2) To make
printed route and schedule information available in
Spanish; 3) To improve information availability by placing
system and route maps in all bus shelters, inside the buses
and at major transfer points. All bus stops signs should
show the route(s) serving the stop. After these improve-
ments are accomplished, individual route schedules availa-
ble on buses should be limited to the route being served;
4) That consideration be given to implementing a transfer
charge to increase fare revenue and to reduce the need for
a general fare increase in the future; and, 5) To implement
a summer service to Lake Perris using one bus operating
between Moreno Valley, Lake Perris and Perris.
The Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee reviewed and
concurred with the RTA recommendations. Staff supports
Recommendations 1-4 and feels that Recommendation 5, ser-
vice to Lake Perris be considered in conjunction with
providing regularly scheduled service between Moreno Valley
and Perris. RTA staff will -evaluate this service in the
3
RCTC Minutes
March 21, 1985
Short Range Transit Plan update.
If the Commission accepts the recommendations, they will be
forwarded to the operator. After review by the operator,
they will submit a report containing a schedule for imple-
mentation or a reason for not implementing each of the
recommendations to the Commission.
In response to Commissioner Ceniceros' question as to the
date of implementation for the recommendations, Paul
Blackwelder responded that the implementation schedule will
be provided by RTA and if the Commission is not satisfied
with the schedule, the Commission could then request RTA to
hasten the schedule.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/COX) to accept the Western County Area
Productivity Committee's Recommendations 1-4 and direct
staff to forward the recommendations to the Riverside
Transit Agency for review and response.
7. Executive Director's Report.
A. Status of SB 290 (Gas Tax Increase Legislation)
Barry Beck informed the Commission that the SB 290
hearing held by the Senate Transportation Committee on
Tuesday, March 19th, received a substantial amount of
support testimony from local government entities. He
said that there is lack of support from the business
community and that this is important for passage by
the Legislature and for the Governor to sign it.
There was opposition from the California Truckers
Association because of the proposed increase in truck
weight fees by 50%. It was his understanding that
Senator John Foran is holding firm on the increase of
truck weight fees and had in fact hinted that the fees
could even go up higher as a result of a study to be
released by Caltrans. There was also opposition ex-
pressed by the California Manufacturers Association
which is in alignment with the Truckers Association.
No vote was taken and he understands that out of the
nine votes, there are 3 for, 3 against and 3 in-
betweens. Six votes are needed to get it out of the
Policy Committee. It is expected that the voting on
SB 290 will take place in April.
Regarding the State Transit Assistance formula, there
has been apparently an agreement on a compromise that
would weigh the formula on 50% population and 50%
farebox revenue. The current formula is 70% popula-
tion and 30% farebox revenue and Senator Foran's pro -
4
RCTC Minutes
March 21, 1985
posed formula is
revenue.
33% population and 67% farebox
Staff has not heard much on the County roads formula.
Riverside County remains neutral on the current formu-
la versus the proposed Foran formula, Orange and Los
Angeles Counties are extremely upset with the formula
because it heavily favors rural counties. The Commis-
sion sent a letter to Senator Foran suggesting the use
in the formula of unincorporated population as a com-
promise.
Also included in the proposed legislation is the pro-
vision of maintenance of effort of city and county
general funds that now go into streets and roads
maintenance and construction. The author felt that
the Legislature wouldn't want to pass a tax proposal
and then have cities and counties pull out funds that
they have been putting for this purpose and use those
funds for non -transportation purpose. There has been
some expression of opposition to the maintenance of
effort but he thinks that most people would go along
with it. Another provision included in the bill is
the overcrossing and grade separation policy which was
adopted last year by the California Transportation
Commission. Currently, this is a CTC policy and could
be changed from time to time. With Senator Foran
incorporating it in the bill, it will require a sta-
tute to amend it.
Barry Beck reiterated that unless there is more wide-
spread support from the business community, the bill
will not pass.
Chairman Cornelison asked if there is anything that
local entities could do and Barry Beck said that local
governments and transit agencies as well as
contractors are obviously in favor of the bill but in
order to convince both houses and the Governor, we
will need support from the business community.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that the County's Road
Advisory Committee acted very late and that she is
quite disappointed that Clayton Record could not
attend the hearing. She suggested members of the
Commission to urge members of the business community
to support the legislation and perhaps remind them of
the relationship of road maintenance to help the busi-
ness community and get them involved.
5
RCTC Minutes
March 21, 1985
Barry Beck said that the County's Committee will con-
tinue to working towards passage of the legislation
and they will be sending letters to members of the
business community.
At the request of Commissioner Cox, Barry Beck ex-
plained why Route 74 was not placed on the agenda as
requested at the previous Commission meeting. He said
that after the meeting, he spoke with the Traffic
Engineer from Caltrans about Commissioner Cox's re-
quest and was informed that Caltrans is presently
doing a traffic count of Route 74. Caltrans has
agreed to do a traffic signal warrants computation to
determine if a traffic signal is warranted at the
intersection. The report should be available to the
Commission in 30 days.
B. Other State Legislation.
Two alternatives to Senator Foran's bill have been
introduced which mostly concentrate on using the
State's general fund surplus. Most consider the
proposal as a band -aid which would not provide long-
term stable funding that is needed for streets and
roads, and public transit. Also, a Constitutional
Amendment is being proposed by Senator Foran to allow
County Boards of Supervisors to implement a local gas
tax increase up to 5 cents with a two-thirds vote of
the five board members. A similar proposal was intro-
duced last year which the Commission opposed as it
could be used in lieu of the State increasing the gas
tax, and that the Commission felt that there are needs
across the board and that it is most appropriate for
the State to increase the revenue. Also, it could
result in differing gas tax levels between adjacent
cities and counties which would cause disruption and
dislocation of business.
C. Federal Legislation/Budget/Route 86.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that Congress has
recently approved a "clean" Interstate Completion
Estimate (ICE) bill which did not include any de-
monstration projects. It was hoped that some funds
for Route 86 would be included in the bill.
Congressman Glenn Anderson has indicated that he will
reintroduce a new transportation bill later this sum-
mer or early fall and that funds for Route 86 will be
included in the bill. He also added that Route 86
still has a high priority with him and he recognized
that it is needed.
6
RCTC Minutes
March 21,1985
Another issue that is being addressed at the federal
level is transit funding. The feeling by most is that
there is going to be some cut in transit funds. The
Commission will soon be placed in a difficult position
as it has to provide funding to the transit operators
and it has to make certain assumptions as to how much
funding is going to be available. Because of the
uncertainty of the amount of funding available for
transit this year, there are a number of options that
the Commission might consider such as assuming a
smaller amount of federal funds, setting aside some
reserves of local funds before they are distributed
for streets and roads in the event that the cut is
more than the estimated amount, etc. The Commission
will be discussing this matter in the next two months.
d. Membership Change on the California Transportation
Commission.
Barry Beck stated that as everyone is aware, Bill
Leonard, Sr., from San Bernardino has replaced Walt
Ingalls on the California Transportation Commission.
He suggested that the Commission appropriately recog-
nize Walt Ingalls and also invite Bill Leonard, Sr. to
a Commission meeting to acquaint him with the Commis-
sion's priorities.
Supervisor Ceniceros said it would be appropriate
since Walt Ingalls has been a leader on transportation
issues for a long time.
Barry Beck agreed that Walt Ingalls has been extremely
helpful to this area in getting numerous bills passed
for our benefit over the years as well as the author
of the legislation that created the county transporta-
tion commissions.
The Commission directed staff to prepare something
appropriate for Walt Ingalls.
At this time, Barry Beck mentioned that three vacant
positions exist on the Commission's Citizens Advisory
Committee. The latest resignation is from Rand
Martin. A listing of current members will be mailed
to Commission members to give them some idea of the
areas represented.
7
RCTC Minutes
March 21, 1985
8. Adjournment.
There being no further business to discuss, Chairman
Cornelison adjourned the meeting at 3:02 p.m. The next
Commission meeting will be held on Thursday. April 18, 1985
at 1:30 p.m., Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080
Lemon Street, Riverside.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Bedk
Executive Director
nk
8
R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM:SS ON
Minutes of Meeting No. 4-85
April 18, 1985
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commis-
sion was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison at
1:39 p.m. on Thursday, April 18, 1985, at the Riverside
County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. The Chairman noted that a
quorum was present.
Members present:
Susan Cornelison Roy Wilson
Jean Mansfield
Alternates present:
Pat Murphy Steve Webb
Wayne Stuart
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (WILSON/STUART) to approve the minutes of the
March 21, 1985 meeting as presented.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
At this time, Chairman Cornelison, on behalf of the Commis-
sion, presented a plaque of appreciation to Walt Ingalls and
commended him on the efforts that he had made in trans-
portation.
4. Unmet Transit Needs.
Barry Beck said that the extra effort undertaken to get
input from the public on unmet transit needs is reflected in
the number of letters and the amount of testimony received
this year.
Barry Beck said that at the hearing held in Riverside, Ace
Atkinson of Developmental Disabilities Area Board 12 spoke
about the service now being provided by Meditrans to clients
of the Inland Regional Center to workshops. Currently, the
Riverside Transit Agency pays $75,000/year, the County
Office on -Aging pays $50,000/year and the Inland Regional
Center (IRC) pays $250,000/year for the service. In the
report, staff takes the position that since the service is
presently being provided, it is not viewed as an unmet
1
RCTC Minutes
April 18, 1985
transit need. Staff sees the argument as being who pays for
the service.
Ace Atkinson stated that the Inland Regional Center (IRC)
has provided the Commission with a list containing 160-209
people with their addresses and where they wish to be trans-
ported to and that these people have unmet transit needs.
He said that IRC is not a transportation ❑perator but a
specialized service of the State of California. He dis-
agrees with RCTC staff that it is not an unmet need. He
believes that the unmet needs found in Moreno Valley and the
response to the woman who testified that she wanted to find
an appropriate place to live in Pedley but she needs trans-
portation are further documentation that in the outlying
areas outside the City of Riverside, there is a definite
para-transit need for the elderly and handicapped that
should be served. Part of the disagreement with staff is
that he would categorize staff as conservative with the use
of taxpayers money looking to assure that what transporta-
tion money is spent is spent in providing the best for
everybody. Obviously the cost will be more than a fixed
route system but the Transportation Development Act states
that the Commission has a responsibility to meet unmet
transit needs. His office is willing to work with the
Commission to identify which of those unmet needs are
reasonable to be met. He said that IRC has had to provide
transit services for those living outside the transportation
corridor and that there is the ongoing responsibility to
review this annually if there are others who need that same
transit service. IRC should be able to talk to the Commis-
sion as the major planner for transit services and should
get the County and the cities to provide those needs.
Therefore, he asked that the Commission find that that there
are unmet needs in the outlying areas and direct staff to
work with IRC and other interested individuals to identify
the actual scope of the unmet needs .and to identify the
resources that would be needed to meet these needs.
M (MANSFIELD) to find that there are unmet needs in the
outlying areas and direct staff to work with IRC and
other interested individuals to identify the actual
scope of the unmet needs, the resources needed to meet
the needs, and the types of services to provide the
needs.
The motion was withdrawn.
Chairman Cornelison said that where the division of opinion
occurs is that the Commission has been seeking to identify
unmet needs and whether those needs could reasonably be met.
The clientele that Ace Atkinson represents has had their
2
RCTC Minutes
April 18, 1985
transportation needs met by the use of specified funds that
come from three sources and that IRC and Developmental
Disabilities Area Board 12 would like to reduce the amount
of funds that they spend to transport their clients.
Ace Atkinson said that by law, the IRC should not be
spending those funds for transportation if those clients
should and can be transported by a public transportation
agency.
Chairman Cornelison asked if in the event that the clients
cannot be transported by existing services, is there a
transportation allowance for those people. She said that is
what is being discussed: whether or not the Commission
needs to look at providing a service to take over what the
IRC is paying for.
Barry Beck said that the people that Ace Atkinson spoke of
are currently being provided transit service and in staff's
opinion, they are being provided in a very efficient manner
through Meditrans. DAR services in areas such as Rubidoux
was so costly and it has not been able to work. In fact,
the Rubidoux dial -a -ride had to be dis-continued because
there simply was not enough ridership to justify the ser-
vice. Similarly, the Moreno Valley dial -a -ride service was
converted to fixed route service. Arrangements were made
with Meditrans to provide transit service for those pre-
viously using the dial -a -ride service. Everybody is being
served and it is not a question of the 209 people being
without service. It is just a question of who pays for it.
Ace Atkinson referred to a law that the IRC should not pay
for the service if other services are available. There is
no other service available and we would have to implement a
new service. Furthermore, there is another law that the
social service providers including regional centers should
not be pulling back money that they have historically been
contributing toward transit services. He said that if the
Commission initiates such a policy, other agencies such as
the school districts that are currently providing transpor-
tation for handicapped students to special programs as well
as for students that reside beyond 2-3 mile limit, will be
looking to the Commission to provide those service.
Dwight Tate, IRC, said that they receive "purchase of ser-
vice" funds to purchase service that are needed but they do
not receive any transportation service funds. So when they
expend funds for transportation, there is less money to
utilize for other client needs and there is a cost to the
client. He noted that as of July 1, 1985, San Bernardino
County has agreed to pay for transit service for 160 people.
They would like to work with Commission staff on this matter
3
RCTC Minutes
April 18, 1985
as a long term process.
Chairman Cornelison stated that the same question applies to
the school districts. They do not receive transportation
funds to transport students but rather use educational
funds. IRC could utilize existing services to meet the
needs of its clients. She asked if it is possible for IRC's
clients to use existing services.
Dwight Tate said that very few of their clients will be able
to use existing service. He said that they have clients
that can't even use the dial -a -ride service. He commented
that the services in Riverside and Hemet are very good but
that there is a need in the outlying areas of Riverside.
Barry Beck commented that. the staff report was silent on
this matter as staff has already begun discussion with IRC.
A meeting has been scheduled between RCTC and IRC staff to
identify those people who could use RTA rather than Medi-
trans to cut the cost by IRC and also to look at the possi-
bility of extending a route a couple of blocks outside the
City limites if there are enough people to justify it.
M/S/C (MANSFIELD/WILSON) to direct staff to continue to
work with the Regional Center to identify areas where
regular public transportation can serve IRC's clients
and, thus, reduce the cost. Request staff to present a
report to the Commission as to the status on this
matter.
Stn. Gorgonio Pass Area
At the hearing held in Banning, the Commission received
testimony on the need for dial -a -ride service in the area.
Subsequent to the hearing, staff has been working with the
City of Banning and the County Office on Aging and has
nearly reached an agreement on how to provide the service.
The proposal being discuss is for Banning to use the van
that is being used to provide some very limited transporta-
tion service in the Cabazon area. The Office on Aging would
pay Banning for the cost of part-time drivers. Since the van
used is not in good condition, the Commission, in accordance
with its already established policy, will provide 80% to-
wards the purchase of a new vehicle. This is consistent
with RCTC's standing policy on use of State Transit Assis-
tance funds for purchase of new vehicles. Staff expects
that Banning's City Council will approve this plan as it is
a low cost way to meet the needs.
4
RCTC Minutes
April 18, 1985
Barry Beck continued and said that there was also testimony
on the need for transportation from Banning to the Hemet and
Palm Springs areas. Staff does not believe that a service
from Banning to Palm Springs is viable especially since
SunLine Transit Agency tried to initiate such a service a
couple years ago and was unsuccessful. However, regarding
the service to Hemet, staff thinks that there might be a
need for this service. RTA is in the midst of doing a
study to determine whether service would be feasible or not.
Staff is recommending that RTA include the Hemet service in
its SRTP and its proposed budget pending the results of the
study that they hope to have completed in the next few
months.
Don Foster, City of Banning, informed the Commission that a
meeting between two Banning councilmen, RCTC and Banning
staff is scheduled for Tuesday, April 23rd, to discuss the
dial -a -ride service. He said that, at this point, nothing
has been finalized.
Marie Hurst, Banning resident, stated that two of Banning's
councilmen strongly oppose dial -a -ride service.
Roosevelt Williams, Banning Councilman, commented that it is
his feeling that the City Council will go along with the
proposed plan for dial -a -ride service in Banning. With
regards to the Banning to Palm Springs service, Caltrans
looked into running a bus from Beaumont and Banning but
found that most people preferred carpooling instead.
Barry Beck agreed with Councilman Williams' comments that
carpooling or vanpooling is far better for everybody in-
volved. Regarding the proposed Banning dial -a -ride service,
he had a meeting with two of Banning's council members and
that he received a very positive response.
William L. Hurst, Banning resident, expressed an interest to
attend the meeting between Banning elected officials and
RCTC and Banning staff.
Barry Beck suggested that Mr. Hurst contact the City of
Banning.
Cathedral City
Barry Beck said that the Commission received testimony and a
number of letters on the need for a dial -a -ride service in
Cathedral City. SunLine is in the process of implementing
the service.
5
RCTC Minutes
April 18, 1985
Corona/Norco Area
A fixed route service connecting Norco and Corona has been
in RTA's Short Range Transit Plan for several years but it
has always been pushed back due to a concern that there may
not be sufficient ridership to justify the service. At the
same time, the ridership in dial -a -ride service for Corona
and Norco has declined and, in fact, Corona has experienced
problems meeting the 20% farebox requirement. Staff is
proposing that over the next year, staff work with RTA, and
the cities of Corona and Norco to determine the feasibility
of converting the existing dial -a -ride service into a fixed
route system. He reminded the Commission that in the
Rubidoux and Moreno Valley areas and fixed route services
replaced the dial -a -ride service and they are working out
very well. Also, there may be a need to provide a dual
service just as is being proposed for the Banning area.
Moreno Valley/Perris
The Commission received comments from the handicapped who
could not utilize the fixed route service. Based on the
number of elderly and handicapped people that used dial -a -
ride in Moreno Valley prior to its being discontinued (15
people per day), there is not sufficient demand to justify a
vehicle for just this purpose. Staff has found out that the
County Office on Aging will be assigning a van to the Moreno
Valley area to provide transportation to that area's nutri-
tion site. They have tentatively agreed that in addition to
providing transit service to the nutrition center that they
will be able to utilize the van to provide transit service
for the handicapped as well.
With regards to providing service between Perris and Moreno
Valley, staff is recommending that RTA's proposal of a
second route in Moreno Valley be moved up one year to
1985/86 instead of 1986/87.
M/S/C (WILSON/STUART) to:
1. Find that there are no unmet transit needs that
can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley
area.
2. Find that there are no unmet transit needs that
can be reasonably met in the Coachella Valley area
provided that SunLine proceeds with its plans to
implement dial -a -ride service for the elderly and
handicapped in Cathedral City.
6
RCTC Minutes
April 18, 1985
3, Find that there are no unmet transit needs that
can be reasonably met in the Western County area
provided that:
a. There is a commitment to provide dial -a -ride
service for the elderly and handicapped in
Banning.
b. That RTA commits to implementing a second
route in Moreno Valley that will provide a
connection to Perris in fiscal year 1985/86
rather than 1986/87.
4. Request SCAG to concur with the above findings.
5. Direct staff, in cooperation with RTA and the
cities of Corona and Norco, to study the
feasibility of converting the present dial -a -ride
systems to a fixed route system.
6. Suggest to RTA that it include in its proposed
plan and budget funds to provide service between
the San Gorgonio Pass area and Hemet/San Jacinto
pending the outcome of RTA's study of the
feasibility of such a service.
5. Status of 1985 State Transportation Improvement Program.
Barry Beck said that RCTC's proposal of $15.5 million for I-
215 is still intact. A meeting of the four county commis-
sions, SCAG and Caltrans was held last month and Riverside
County's I-215 project was approved. Also approved at the
meeting is a statement concerning the Harbor Transitway
stating that if the Harbor Transitway project impacts any
other non -interstate projects that SCAG will take a position
on it. The SCAG Executive Committee is scheduled to take
action on the STIP proposal on April 19th. The California
Transportation Commission will be holding hearings on the
STIP in May with the approval of the STIP slated for the end
of June. Staff is very confident that the I-215 project
will be approved by the CTC since it is both in the RCTC
proposal as well as Caltrans' proposal.
Murray Bywater, City of Riverside's Airport Director and
RCTC's representative to SCAG's Aviation Work Program Com-
mittee, expressed his appreciation for the Commission's
support on Riverside's STIP aviation projects. He informed
the Commission that the Aviation Work Program Committee is
in the process of completing the report on helicopter
activity.
7
RCTC Minutes
April 18, 1985
Barry Beck requested Murray Bywater to keep the Commission
apprised on any new regional airport proposal.
Murray Bywater stated that there is little activity on the
matter at present.
6. State Legislation.
SB290 (FORAN)
Barry Beck said SB 290 is held up in Committee. He has
heard that there may be Republican support for a local
option type of proposal either a local option gas tax as
embodied in SCA 12 which, if passed, would allow the Board
of Supervisors by a 4/5 vote approve of gas tax increase or
a local sales tax initiative where there would be a vote of
the people. Two such bills are being proposed in San Diego
County and it may be expanded to include the whole State.
He understands that this kind of proposal may be embraced as
an alternative to the Foran bill.
££ 661 (BERGESON)
Staff is recommending support of SB 661. It would dedicate
diesel fuel sales taxes for transportation purposes.
aa 964 (MORGAN)
Staff is recommending support, in concept, of SB 964. There
is a problem with the technical language of the bill but
support the concept to speed up the usage of FAU funds
because with the large unobligated balance around the
nation, there is danger that Congress could cut off the FAU
Program.
S$ 1000 (ROBBINS)
This would create a new Caltrans district in Los Angeles
County which is an apparent attempt to get around the county
minimum provision. With Los Angeles County being $1.3
billion over their county minimum, staff does not think that
they need additional legislative assistance so staff is
recommending opposing the bill.
S$ 1268 (MORGAN)
This bill would increase incrementally the minimum farebox
ratios to 33% in urbanized areas and 17% in rural areas.
Staff is recommending opposition of the bill because it
would have a significant impact in services in Riverside
County.
8
RCTC Minutes
April 18, 1985
A. 1020 (CLUTE)
This bill was sponsored by SCAG as an incentive to
vanpooling. It would exempt vanpool vehicles from the 2%
property tax in lieu fee and would have a minor impact on
revenues statewide.
M/S/C (WILSON/MANSFIELD) to:
A. Support SB 661 and AB 1020.
B. Support SB 964, in concept.
C. Oppose SB 1000 and SB 1268.
D. Direct staff to communicate the Commission's
action to appropriate sources.
7. Proposed UMTA Section 9 Program for FY 85/86.
Barry Beck stated that staff is recommending for budgetary
purposes that RCTC assume that the federal government will
cutback transit operating assistance by 25% next year. The
Administration is proposing complete elimination but staff
suspects that there will be some compromise. Also, it is
recommended that the Commission reserve an additional amount
of TDA funds to cover a further cut to 50% of federal oper-
ating transit system amount. If the program is totally cut,
the Commission would then have to, in mid -year, come back
and reduce the amount of funds to be allocated for local
streets and roads. Staff's initial analysis shows that
because of the large increase in economic activity in the
County, TDA funds for streets and roads this year is ex-
pected to be up by 50%. Enclosed in the agenda packet is
the proposed UMTA capital and operating assistance programs.
M/S/C (MANSFIELD/STUART) to:
1. Approve the UMTA Section 9 operating and capital
assistance programs for FY 85/86.
2. Direct staff to include a reserve for transit
purposes equivalent to 25% of the federal
assistance apportionment for the County in its
recommended TDA program for transit to be
presented to the Commission in June.
8. Proposed State Transit Assistance Program for FY 85/86.
Barry Beck said that the program is similar to programs in
previous years particularly in operating projects. Staff is
9
RCTC Minutes
April 18, 1985
proposing providing funding for operating projects at the
same level as the past two years. Also, staff is proposing
funding for transit vehicle and transit facility projects be
made using the same Commission policy in past years which is
to provide the 20% local match for federally funded projects
and provide 80% of the cost for locally funded projects.
M/S/C (STUART/WILSON) to approve the proposed State
Transit Assistance Program for FY 85/86.
9. 1985/86 Commission Budget.
At this time, Chairman Cornelison appointed Commission
members to the Finance and Personnel Committees as follows:
Finance Committee Personnel Committee
Kay Ceniceros
Roy Wilson
Carmen Cox
Melba Dunlap
Jean Mansfield
Norton Younglove
M/S/C (MANSFIELD/WILSON) to hold the public hearing on
the Commission's 1985/86 budget at the May 16, 1985
RCTC meeting.
9. Miscellaneous Items.
A. Regarding filling vacancies on the Citizens' Advisory
Committee, Commissioner Mansfield suggested that staff
asked CTAC to submit a name to the RCTC.
B. Commissioner Wilson requested that staff extend an
invitation to Bill Leonard, Sr. to join RCTC at one of
its meetings.
10. Adjournment.
nk
There being no further business, Chairman Cornelison
adjourned the meeting at 2:46 p.m. The next RCTC meeting
will be held at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, May 16, 1985, at the
Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor
Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
Respectfully submitted,
Barry Beck'
Executive;Director
10