HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 27, 1988 Citizens Advisory040255
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
1:30 P.M., MONDAY, JUNE 27, 1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
14TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
4080 LEMON STREET, RIVERSIDE 92501
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan. DISCUSSION/
ACTION
4. Riverside Transit Agency's Proposed Corona -Norco
Fixed Route.
5. SB 821 Committee Appointments.
6. FY 1989-93 Transportation Improvement Program
(Highways).
7. Additional Items.
8. Adjournment.
DISCUSSION/
ACTION
ACTION
INFORMATION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 5-88
May 23, 1988
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by Chairman Terry Allen at 1:35 p.m., at the Riverside
County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501.
Members present:
Terry Allen
Ace Atkinson
Ray Baca
Cathy Bechtel
Herb Krauch
Others present:
Don Kurz
Lori Nickell
Don Senger
Bill Udell
Dick Weeks
Paul Blackwelder, RCTC
Luke Clarke, Press Enterprise
Barry Samsten, RTA
Hideo Sugita, RCTC
2. Approval of Minutes.
Chairman Allen stated that Bert Vinson's name was not listed
as present at the last meeting and on Page 3, 4th paragraph,
3rd sentence, 5th line "...by the State." should instead be
"...by the local regional center."
Don Kurz pointed out that on Page 5, 4th paragraph, 1st
sentence, "...spending 11_3 million..." should be
...spending $1.3 billion..." Also, he stated that his
comments related to the possibility of investigating using
the facility for a tram or minirail.
On Page 2, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence, Cathy Bechtel
clarified that $.5 million is spent for transportation
services in Riverside County.
It was moved, seconded and carried to approve the
minutes of the April 25, 1988 Citizens Advisory
Committee minutes as corrected.
Page 2
2. Park and Ride Facility Security/Vandalism.
Jo Sanford, Caltrans District 8, briefed the Committee on
theft and vandalism problems in park and ride facilities,
solution to the problems and data gathered on the type and
number of crime committed, and the times they are being
committed at various park and ride lots. He said that
problem encountered by law enforcement agencies in reporting
crime in park and ride lots is that the lots are not
assigned addresses. Mr. Teagarden of the Riverside County
Sheriff's Department, in a report to Caltrans on reducing
crime at park and ride facilities has made the following
suggestions: 1) Post signs with contact numbers to call for
assistance and that the area is under surveillance; 2)
Install phony cameras; 3) Provide pamphlets; and, 4) Car
owners put a bar between the brake and the steering wheel to
prevent theft.
Chairman Allen suggested that Caltrans District 8 look into
the possibility of leasing space to agencies such as the
Goodwill Industries as being proposed in San Diego County.
Don Kurz stated that it would be ideal to locate a park and
ride facility in the Mira Loma Space Center as there is a
guard stationed in the area. He will be glad to provide
the name of the contact person for the Space Center to
Caltrans.
The Committee also discussed the possibility of imposing a
small fee to those persons using the park and ride
facilities and that the fees collected be used to provide
adequate security.
It was moved, seconded and approved that the Commission
request Caltrans District 8 to obtain addresses for
the park and ride lots in Riverside County and to
attempt to lease limited space in the lots to agencies
that would assign an employee to the lot to reduce
thefts and vandalism.
Herb Krauch stated that the Committee in a previous meeting
has taken action for the Commission to request Caltrans to
place warning signs on Route 79 north and south of the Route
79/Gilman Hot Springs Road intersection. He asked on the
status of the request.
Paul Blackwelder stated that the Commission sent a letter to
Caltrans and a response has not been received to date.
4. UMTA 16(b) 2 Capital Assistance Grants.
Hideo Sugita informed the Committee that the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration (UMTA) annually makes
Page 3
available funding to non-profit organizations for the
purchase of capital equipment to provide transportation to
elderly and handicapped persons. The program in California
is being administered by Caltrans. Statewide, approximately
$2.8 million available for fiscal year 1988-89. This year,
three Riverside County agencies have submitted applications
for UMTA 16(b)2 funding. The agencies are: 1) Meditrans
applied for a 15 -passenger lift -equipped van with two
tiedowns to serve the developmentally disabled in the Moreno
Valley area; 2) Cathedral City Senior Center applied for a
15 -passenger lift -equipped van with base and mobile radio
units to provide elderly and handicapped service to
approximately 69 seniors per week; and, 3) Jewish Community
Center of Palm Desert. The application submitted by the
Jewish Community Center was not complete and the Center will
work with Caltrans staff to produce a complete application
in the next cycle. Staff is proposing that the Committee
recommend to the Commission: 1) That the Meditrans and the
Cathedral City Senior Center grant applications be highly
recommended for approval by Caltrans; and, 2) That Meditrans
and the Cathedral City Senior Center, as a condition of
approval, cooperate and coordinate their services with the
public transit operators and any new operator that may be
created as a result of the CTSA Study.
Ray Baca pointed out that funding for the Cathedral City
Senior Center is provided by Cathedral City. He felt that
the Center has other means to fund a van. If the Commission
recommends Caltrans approval of the Cathedral City
application, it will set a precedent and that every senior
center in the Coachella Valley will possibly be requesting
UMTA funding for vehicles.
Paul Blackwelder said that the Senior Center applications
showed private funding and not City funding. If the City
funded the program, they would not be eligible. The
Commission could not turn down an application for UMTA
funding if the request for an equipment is legitimate. UMTA
funds are provided by the federal government and as long as
there is no duplication of service and they can document a
need for the equipment, the Commission will recommend
approval of the application. Agencies are encouraged that
they should make every effort to obtain funding from other
sources if they are able to do so as it takes approximately
18 months after the application is approved to receive the
vehicle.
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that the Commission
has supported a bill that would change the annual UMTA
16(b)2 Program so that 85% of the annual State apportionment
funds would be allocated to the local Caltrans Districts
based on the percentage of elderly and handicapped
population. An analysis done by the Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission staff indicated that although
Page 4
we've done fairly good in getting applications approved,
additional vans could have been funded if the allocation of
UMTA 16(b)2 funds was based on the elderly and handicapped
population.
Ace Atkinson said that one of the ways to document an unmet
need is by keeping track of the number of people that the
transit provider is not able to provide service to. If the
Desert Blind Association is a transit provider under
contract to SunLine, then one of the requirements placed on
them by SunLine should be to keep data on turndowns to
document unmet need.
Paul Blackwelder explained that the people that the Senior
Center will going to serve are frail elderly people who have
difficulty remembering appointments. These people are not
able to use a fixed route service but have great difficulty
using a standard dial -a -ride type service. He would defined
the Senior Center service as one for very specialized social
service -type trips that is beyond the duty of a public
operator to provide. The Commission staff is concerned
though that the Cathedral City Senior Center's application
does not clearly identify the number of people it will serve
and that Caltrans staff should attempt to obtain additional
information.
Paul Blackwelder agreed with Ace Atkinson that Desert Blind
should be keeping track of turndowns and giving the
information to SunLine. If in fact there are a number of
riders that could not be provided transit service, SunLine
should give Desert Blind additional vans to provide the
service because SunLine is the contractor.
Ace Atkinson stated the vehicle that the Senior Center is
requesting for may only be used to transport 1-2 people in
the 3 -hour period.
Paul Blackwelder said that there is a condition on the
recommendation that both the Senior Center and Meditrans
participate in the CTSA Study. If the vehicle would be idle
or under used for a length of time, it could then be
required that the vehicle be shared with other agencies.
Ace Atkinson mentioned that Ian Brodie, who is the Chairman
of the Social Services Advisory Council in San Bernardino
County, is promoting a system out of Washington State and
Monterey County in which services to the frail elderly is
done through payment of subsidies, lunch and mileage for
healthy seniors who use their own vehicles to provide
service. He suggested that perhaps the Committee could
request Mr. Brodie to make a presentation on the
Monterey/Washington program.
Page 5
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that RSVP is an
organization in the Coachella Valley area consisting of
able-bodied elderly persons assisting in providing
transportation to other elderly persons who either do not
have a vehicle to get around unable to drive. He stated
that the Committee could request RSVP to make a presentation
at some future meeting on the service that they provide and
that they will certainly be included in the CTSA study for
the Coachella Valley.
Ray Baca added that RSVP insures their volunteers under a
blanket insurance policy but they do not have coverage for
their passengers.
Dick Weeks said that he is a member of the Committee that
reviews UMTA 16(b)2 applications. Basically, the program is
for capital funds to purchase van. One of the problems is
that on pre.ious years there have been very few
organizations applying for UMTA funds from this area. He
commended Caltrans and Commission staff for assisting
organizations in completing their applications so that they
can compete at the State level.
It was moved, seconded and approved to recommend to the
Commission:
1) That the Meditrans and Cathedral City Senior
Center should be highly recommended for approval
by Caltrans.
2) That Meditrans and Cathedral City Senior Center,
as a condition of approval, should be required to
cooperate and coordinate its services with the
public transit operators and any new operator that
may be created as a result of the Commission's
CTSA Study.
3) That the Cathedral City Senior Center provide
information to Caltrans documenting the need for
the service.
5. Short Range Transit Plan.
Ace Atkinson noted that RTA's Short Range Transit Plan
indicates in several sections that they are not going to
implement a fixed route to Norco. But in the Corona -Norco
section, it indicates that a fixed route service will be
implemented. Also, RTA failed to mention the CTSA Study in
their Plan.
Paul Blackwelder explained that RTA intends to implement by
January 1989 a fixed route from Norco to Corona to connect
with Line 2 to Riverside. It may have been that RTA failed
to make the changes in some sections of the Plan. With
Page 6
regards to the CTSA Study, the study will be done through
the Commission, not SunLine nor RTA, and, therefore, need
not be mentioned in RTA's Plan. done through the
Commission.
It was moved, seconded and approved that the Commission
approve the FY 1989-1993 Short Range Transit Plan for
the public transit operators in the Western County and
Palo Verde Valley areas of Riverside County.
6. Other Items.
A. Herb Krauch asked when the highways/streets plan will
be brought to the Committee.
Paul Blackwelder said that the Transportation
Improvement Program consisting of listings of highways
and streets and roads projects to be funded for FY
1989-1993 has been reviewed and approved by the
Technical Advisory Committee and Federal Aid Urban
Committees and adopted by the Commission. He explained
the FAU process to the Committee. He will provide
copies of the adopted program to the Committee for
information purposes at its next meeting.
Herb Krauch stated that he is interested in the
projects proposed to be funded by the one-half cent
sales tax measure to be on the ballot in November.
Paul Blackwelder said that he plans to bring the
Expenditure Plan, which list the projects to be funded
by the sales tax, to the Committee at the June or July
meeting.
B. Don Kurz circulated a petition for Amtrak's Desert Wind
to stop in Riverside.
C. Don Kurz asked about the status of the Riverside/Orange
County Commuter Rail Study.
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that the
Commission has hired a consultant to do a feasibility
study of commuter rail from Riverside to Orange County.
The report should be presented to the Commission in
July.
D. Paul Blackwelder briefed the Committee on the status of
installing callboxes in Riverside County. He stated
that the Commission had hired a consultant. The first
step is to determine the the number of callboxes that
can be installed and the locations where the callboxes
should be installed.
Page 7
7. Adjournment.
It was moved, seconded and approved to adjourn the
meeting at 2:45 p.m.
ectfully submitted,
Paul Blackwelder
Assistant Director
nk
ITEM NO. 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: SunLine Transit Agency's FY 1989-93 Short Range Transit
Plan
Enclosed with the agenda is a copy of SunLine Transit Agency's FY
1989-93 Short Range Transit Plan which is scheduled for approval
by the Commission at their July 6, 1988 meeting.
Staff has reviewed the SunLine plan for compliance with the
Commission's unmet transit needs findings, reasonableness of
estimated cost and ridership increases, compliance with fare
revenue to operating cost ratios requirements, and justification
for capital projects. Since the SRTP is updated annually, the
service assumptions, studies to be accomplished, and
justification for capital projects programmed in the first two
years of the plan are reviewed more closely than those in years
three to five, which are more subject to change in future plan
updates.
SunLine
planned
funding
1)
has developed a four tier approach that outlines the
level of service for the five year period based on
scenarios, they are:
Tier I - Service levels with no funding limitations
2) Tier II - Service levels with 10% of the expected local
sales tax revenues for the Coachella Valley area to be
used for transit.
3) Tier III - Service levels with 5% of the expected local
sales tax revenues for the Coachella Valley area to be
used for transit.
4) Tier IV - Service levels using current revenue sources
available for transit.
The four tier approach used to present various service levels
demonstrates SunLine's potential for expanding service if the
local sales tax revenues become available. However, regardless
of whether or not the measure, to be voted on in November, is
successful, the level of service planned for FY 1989 in all four
tiers is the same and can be done with existing revenue sources.
Due to a federal requirement that plans adopted must be fundable,
staff recommends adoption of Tier IV (Service levels using
current revenue sources available for transit) as the basis for
SunLine's FY 1989-93 Short Range Transit Plan.
Agenda Item No. 3
rar A/97/PP
Page 2
If the sales tax measure is successful, staff recommends that
alternative service level Tiers II and III should be considered
for the development of SunLine's FY 1990-94 SRTP. These
alternatives provide valuable information on the increases in
services that could be accomplished if additional revenues are
made available and we commend SunLine staff for their efforts in
preparing the alternatives.
The plan will serve as educational tool to show voters in the
Coachella Valley how important this measure will be for funding
the expansion that will be needed as population increases in the
future.
SunLine will continue all existing services, including the inter-
valley handicapped service and will expand services as described
below in FY 1988-89:
Line 4 Sunday service (12 hours) on 60 minute headways
Line 5 Sunday service (15 hours) on 60 minute headways
Line 19 Additional 1 hour of service on Sundays (15 hours) 14s +'
Line 20
Thousand
Palms
Reduce headway to 30 minutes, operate 14 hours on
Sunday with 60 minute headways. a `
Changing route from Thousand Palms to Cathedral City
and Palm Springs to service between Thousand Palms and
the Palm Desert Town Center.
Banning SunLine is projecting three round trips between Banning
Express and the Coachella Valley for the purpose of
transporting people in Banning to work in the Valley.
This is expected to be self-supporting and may have the
potential to be contracted to a private provider.
AM SunLine is reviewing the potential of limited stop
Express express service in the Coachella Valley and will be
implementing 2 round trips in the morning.
East New Tel -A -Ride service in the La Quinta, Indio,
Valley Coachella, Thousand Palms and Bermuda Dunes area.
TAR SunLine is currently seeking a private provider to run
this service.
Staff has reviewed SunLine's proposed capital program for FY
1988-89, and recommends that all available TDA funds for the
Coachella Valley Area be set aside as a capital reserve and that
approval of the bus purchase portion of the capital plan be held
until we have time for additional review.
Staff concern is with the proposal of acquiring used transit
coaches to expand services. One problem is stated in SunLine's
SRTP, "The SunLine fleet consists of many different makes and
lq `wt.
?
)
Page 3 ` �r
models of buses, each requiring different servicing and spare
parts. This mixture within the fleet decreases the efficiency 4.j,
with which buses can be repaired and replaced." We are concerned
whether or not the fleet mixture maintenance problem will be or tip,;
exacerbated through the acquisition of used vehicles and what the
financial impact of a greater mixture of vehicles in the fleet
would have on the maintenance budget;.
Secondly, Federal formula funds available to SunLine under the
UMTA Section 9 Program allow replacement of approximately 1
bus/year and the program has been cut back each of the past three
years. Expansion of the fleet will further increase the need for
capital funds to replace buses. The underlying assumption of the
bus replacement program is that UMTA Section 3 funds, or some new
and undetermined source other than the sales tax revenues, will
be available. The Section 3 program is a nationwide
discretionary program with a major emphasis on rail projects and
a minor emphasis on bus replacement. The chance of SunLine
receiving all or even 1/2 of the funds that would be needed for
their projected bus replacement program is slight at best.
Without a sound capital replacement program, either services
would have to be cut back or they would be run with buses that
were both unreliable and costly to maintain. Staff believes more
consideration should be given to assuring that a fiscally sound
bus replacement program is in place before the services are
significantly expanded.
Third, the cost assumption for the used buses for expansion is
$10,000 per bus ($3,000 purchase and $7,000 rehabilitation).
Staff has two concerns: 1) Whether there are buses available for
this price that will provide reliable service for five years as
assumed in the plan; and, 2) Whether or not buses purchased for
this price would be lift equipped to provide accessibility for
the handicapped. Both of these questions, and particularly the
accessibility question, need to be explored before the program is
approved.
SunLine staff will attend the meeting to present their plan and
to answer questions from the Committee.
RECO
1 Di ,
ATIONS
That the Committee recommend to the Commission:
1. Approval of the SunLine Transit Agency Plan for FY 1989/93
described in Tier IV.
2. Approval of the capital improvement program to support Tier
IV, except the expansion buses portion of the program until
further review of financial impacts can be accomplished.
3. That until a financially sound bus replacement program is
developed, all remaining TDA funds for the Coachella Valley
should be reserved for transit capital purposes.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
From: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: RTA Proposed Corona -Norco Fixed Route
The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) will , in conformance with its
recently approved Short Range Transit Plan, start a fixed route
service between Norco and Corona by January, 1989. The route
will provide local circulation in the Norco -Corona area and a
connection to the RTA Route 2 for service to Tyler Mall,
Riverside Plaza and Downtown Riverside via Magnolia Avenue.
When the Committee made its recommendations regarding "unmet
transit needs" to the Commission, they requested that RTA bring
the proposed alignment of the Norco -Corona route for review prior
to approval by the RTA Board. Staff from RTA will attend the
meeting to review the alternative routes considered, the selected
route to be recommended to the RTA Board, and the testimony
regarding the proposed service received at the public hearing in
Corona on June 9th.
PB
Agenda Item No. 4
CAC 6/27/88
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: SB 821 Committee Appointments
Each year, 2% of all Transportation Development Act funds
available to Riverside County are set aside for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities projects. This year, an estimated $398,400
plus any funds returned on projects not completed in FY 1987/88
will be available to fund eligible projects. The Commission is
scheduled to approve the SB 821 program for FY 1988/89 in
September. All cities and the county are eligible to receive
these funds under a discretionary program established by the
Commission. Selection of projects to be recommended to the
Commission is done by an ad hoc committee comprised of three (3)
members from the Citizens Advisory Committee and three (3)
members from the Technical Advisory Committee. Projects are
ranked using criteria established by the Commission.
The Citizens Advisory Committee members appointed to the
ad hoc committee last year were Terry Allen, Jim Kenna and Lori
Nickel.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Chairman appoint 3 members of the Committee to be
members of the SB 821 Ad Hoc Committee to review project
applications and make recommendations to the Commission for the
FY. 1988/89 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program.
PB
Agenda Item No. 6
CAC 6/27/88
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: FY 1989-93 Transportation Improvement Program (Highways)
Attached, for information purposes, is a copy of the FY 1989-93
State Highway, Federal Aid Urban (FAU), and Federal Aid Secondary
(FAS) funded projects approved by the Commission at their meeting
on May 4, 1988 for submittal to SCAG for inclusion in the
Regional Transportation Improvement Program and the State
Transportation Improvement Program (State Highway projects). The
various programs are developed and processed as outlined below.
The State Highway projects are recommended to the Commission by
Caltrans after consultation with Commission staff. The
Commission may either approve the list as submitted or recommend
a modified list of projects. Please note that the projects
recommended for approval by the Commission are proposed to be
funded partly by state and federal funds and partly by revenues
expected from the proposed local sales tax measure to be voted on
in November.
The FAU projects are developed by the two FAU Riverside County
Committees comprised of city and county representatives and are
then forwarded to the Commission via the Commission's Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) for approval. The FAS projects are
submitted to the Commission for approval from the County of
Riverside via the TAC.
PB
Attachment
Agenda Item No. 6
CAC 6/27/88
PROJ - RTE
POST M ILES
E/A - PROG
FED FUNDS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1/88 EST. ESCALATED
COST COST PROGRAM
($1,000'S) ($1,000'S) YEAR MEASURE A STATE
0075D 086 FROM 0.3 MILE SOUTH OF AVE 82 TO 15291 17200 1991 17200
R002.4/R010.7 (RTE 195) 2 -LANE EXPRESSWAY
48034N HE14 (STAGE I)
F
0076 091
00.0/011. 1
34540G HE13
F
0072A 091
011.1/021.7
34280G HB4
F
ORANGE COUNTY LINE TO MAGNOLIA AVE
A DD 2 LANES
ROUTE 91 EAST OF MAGNOLI A
TSM
28153 31668 1991 15834 15834
2600 2924 1991 1462 1462
0080 086 IN RIV ERSIDE COUNTY, FROM AVE 62 TO 18512 22522 1993 11261 11261
R012.8/R022. 5 0.2 MILE NORTH OF DILLON ROAD
09411S HE14 4 -LANE EXPRESSWAY (STAG E II)
F
0078K 086
R010.7/R012.8
47161N HE14
F
AV ENUE 66 TO AVENU E 62
4 -LANE EXPRESSW AY (STAGE II)
10712 13032 1993 6516 6516
0075 086 0.5 MILE SOUTH OF A VENU E 82 TO 11440 13918 1993 6959 6959
R002.2/R010.7 AV ENU E 66 (ROUTE 195)
47417N HE14 4 -LAN E EXPRESSWAY (STAGE II)
F
0125A 215 ROUTES 215/91/60 INTERCHANGE 41080 49980 1993 24990 24990
042.7/044.2 RTE 60 WEST MVMT TO RTE 91
34490G HE11 SOUTH M OVEMENT -BRANCH CONNECTOR
IR
PROJ - RTE
POST MILES 1/88 EST. ESCAL ATED
E/A - PROG COST COST P ROGRAM
FED FU NDS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ($1,000'S) ($1,000'S) YEAR MEASURE A STATE
0121 215 EAST J UNCTION RO UTE 60 TO WEST 14196 17272 1993 8636 8636
R038.3/043.3 JUNCTIO N ROUTE 60
34560G HE13 ADD 2 -LANES
IR
0038A 060
07.5/11.8
34600G HE13
F
0040C 060
12.1/30.4
34610G HE13
F
VALLEY WAY TO MAIN STREET
ADD 2 -LANES
EAST JUN CTION 215 TO REDLANDS BLVD
A DD 2 -LANES
12668 15412 1993 7706 7706
16360 19904 1993 4952 14952
HIGHWAY PROJECT S
1988 - 92 (REVISED)
OUNTY: RIVERSIDE
EDERAL FUND TYPE: FAU
REPARED BY: P.BLACKWELDER
28 -Mar -88
AGENCY
11 CALTRANS
102 CALTRANS
12 CALTRANS
13 CALTRANS
14 CALTRANS
99 CALTRANS
23
24
26
27
100
34
29
30
99
31
25
101
CORONA
CORONA
CORONA
CORONA
CORONA
CORONA
CORONA
CORONA
CORONA
CORONA
CORONA
CORONA
51 COUNTY
49 COUNTY
55 COUNTY
48 COUNTY
53 COUNTY
50 COUNTY
54 COUNTY
95 COUNTY
94 COUNTY
96 COUNTY
97 COUNTY
PROJECTS
COMMUTER COMPUTER
ROUTE 91, MAG TO CO. LINE
COMMUTER COMPUTER
COMMUTER COMPUTER
COMMUTER COMPUTER
COMMUTER COMPUTER
6TH & E. GRAND
6TH & W. GRAND
MAIN @ RINCON
E. GRAND @ CIRCLE CITY
SMITH @ POMONA RD.
MAGNOLIA @ FULLERTON
S MAIN AT GRAND BLVD
PARKRIDGE @ CORONA
W. GRAND @ SECOND
SIXTH @ SMITH
6TH & VICENTIA
RAILROAD @ COTA
DESCRIPTION
RIDESHARE PROGRAM
WIDEN
RIDESHARE PROGRAM
RIDESHARE PROGRAM
RIDESHARING PROGRAM
RIDESHARING PROGRAM
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
SIGNAL CONTROLLERS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
SIGNALS
SIGNALS
* *
CENTER, IOWA AVE TO .51 MI E WIDEN
LIMONITE, ETIWANDA TO WINEVILLE WIDEN
RIVERVIEW, LIMON. TO MISSION RESURFACE
BELLEGRAVE, ETIW. TO MISSION RESURFACE
LIMONITE, VAN BUREN TO RIVERV. RESURFACE
ARMSTRONG RD, SR 60 TO SIERRA WY WIDEN
RUBIDOUX, RTE. 60 TO S.B. CO. RESURFACE
MT. VERNON, CO. LINE TO PIGEON PASWIDEN
VAN BUREN, BARTON RD. TO I-215 RESURFACE
CENTER, SPRR TO MT. VERNON WIDEN
AGATE, MISSION TO KIM RESURFACE
*
TOTAL
LOCAL/ PROJ.
PHASE FY COST FEDERAL OTHER TYPE
C 88 $86,000 $86,000 $0 110
P 88 $150,000 $150,000 $0 123
C 89 $90,000 $90,000 $0 ,
C 90 $95,000 $95,000 $0 1f0
C 91 $99,000 $99,000 $0 110
C 92 $105,000 $105,000 $0 110
C 88 $75,000 $75,000 $0 201
C 88 $70,000 $70,000 $0 201
C 88 $70,000 $70,000 $0 201
C 88 $170,000 $170,000 $0 201
C 88 $80,000 $80,000 $0 201
C 88 $80,000 $80,000 $0 201
C 88 $30,000 $30,000 $0 201
C 88 $70,000 $70,000 $0 201
C 88 $80,000 $80,000 $0 201
C 88 $30,000 $30,000 $0 201
C 88 $85,000 $85,000 $0 201
C 88 $80,000 $80,000 $0 "-)
C 88 $260,000 $224,000 $36,000 123
C 88 $436,000 $375,000 $61,000 123
C 88 $116,000 $100,000 $16,000 211
C 88 $163,000 $140,000 $23,000 211
C 88 $337,000 $290,000 $47,000 211
C 89 $378,000 $325,000 $53,000 123
C 88 $419,000 $360,000 $59,000 211
C 89 $300,000 $258,000 $42,000 123
C 89 $380,000 $326,800 $53,200 211
C 90 $400,000 $344,000 $56,000 123
C 91 $80,000 $68,800 $11,200 211
HIGHWAY PROJECT S
1989 - 93
:OUNTY: RIVERSIDE
FEDERAL FUND TYPE: FAU
PREPARED BY: P.BLACKWELDER
28 -Mar -88
107 CALTRANS
12 CALTRANS
13 CALTRANS
14 CALTRANS
99 CALTRANS
112 CALTRANS
102 CORONA
30 CORONA
26 CORONA
34 CORONA
31 CORONA
29 CORONA
100 CORONA
99 CORONA
104 CORONA
103 CORONA
55
53
48
54
50
49
94
106
96
51
56
95
98
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
AGENCY
PROJECTS
ROUTE 91, MAG. TO CO. LINE (I)
COMMUTER COMPUTER/ OCTD
COMMUTER COMPUTER/ OCTD
COMMUTER COMPUTER/ OCTD
COMMUTER COMPUTER/ OCTD
ROUTE 91, MAG. TO CO. LINE
RAILROAD I COTA
PARKRIDGE I CORONA
MAIN I RINCON
MAGNOLIA I FULLERTON
SIXTH I SMITH
S MAIN AT GRAND BLVD
SMITH N POMONA RD.
W. GRAND I SECOND
LINCOLN AT CITRON
MAGNOLIA AT KELLOGG
DESCRIPTION
WIDEN
RIDESHARE PROGRAM
RIDESHARE PROGRAM
RIDESHARING PROGRAM
RIDESHARING PROGRAM
WIDEN
/ *
SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
SIGNAL CONTROLLERS
SIGNALS
SIGNALS
SIGNALS
SIGNALS
* * *
RIVERVIEW, LIMON. TO MISSION RESURFACE
LIMONITE, VAN BUREN TO RIVERV. RESURFACE
BELLEGRAVE, ETIW. TO MISSION RESURFACE
RUBIDOUX, RTE. 60 TO S.B. CO. RESURFACE
ARMSTRONG RD, SR60 TO SIERRA WAY WIDEN
LIMONITE, ETIWANDA TO WINEVILLE WIDEN
VAN BUREN, BARTON RD. TO I-215 RESURFACE
VAN BUREN, WOOD TO SUTTLES RESURFACE
CENTER, SPRR TO MT. VERNON WIDEN
CENTER, IOWA AVE TO .51 MI E WIDEN
VAN BUREN, LIMONITE TO JURUPA RESURFACE
MT. VERNON, CO. LINE TO PIGEON PASWIDEN
MISSION, VALLEY TO RIVERVIEW RESURFACE
PHASE FY
P 89
C 89
C 90
C 91
C 92
P 92
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
93
93
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
90
90
90
92
93
93
TOTAL
LOCAL/ PROJ.
COST FEDERAL OTHER TYPE
$150,000 $150,000 $0 123
$90,000 $90,000 $0 ]-l0
$95,000 $95,000 $0
$99,000 $99,000 $0 110
$105,000 $105,000 $0 110
$450,000 $450,000 $0 123
$80,000
$70,000
$70,000
$80,000
$30,000
$30,000
$80,000
$80,000
$85,000
$85,000
$116,000
$337,000
$100,000
$419,000
$378,000
$436,000
$380,000
$449,000
$400,000
$260,000
$314,000
$300,000
$126,000
$80,000 $0 201
$70,000 $0 201
$70,000 $0 201
$80,000 $0 201
$30,000 $0 201
$30,000 $0 201
$80,000 $0 201
$80,000 $0 201
$85,000 $0 201
$85,000 $0 201
$100,000
$290,000
$85,900
$360,000
$325,000
$375,000
$326,800
$386,140
$344,000
$224,000
$270,000
$258,000
$108,360
$16,000
$47,000
$14,100
$59,000
$53,000
$61,000
$53,200
$62,860
$56,000
$36,000
$44,000
$42,000
$17,640
J
211
211
123
123
211
211
123
123
211
123
211
HIGHWAY PROJECT S
1989 — 93
COUNTY: RIVERSIDE
FEDERAL FUND TYPE: FAU
PREPARED BY: P.BLACKWELDER
28 -Mar -88
AGENCY PROJECTS
97 COUNTY AGATE, MISSION TO KIM
105 NORCO
76 RIVERSIDE
77 RIVERSIDE
2ND, HAMNER TO RIVER RD
VARIOUS MAJOR STREETS
JURUPA, DEERFIELD TO PALM
DESCRIPTION
RESURFACE
WIDEN
* * *
RESURFACE
WIDEN
TOTAL
PHASE FY _ COST
C 93 $80,000
C 92 $2,000,000
C 89
C 92
LOCAL/ PROJ.
FEDERAL OTHER TYPE
$68,800 $11,200 211
$250,000 $1,750,000
$1,500,000 $1,220,000 $280,000 123
$1,529,000 $1,315,000 $214,000 123
H I GHWAY PROJECT S
1989 - 93
:OUNTY: RIVERSIDE
?EDERAL FUND TYPE: FAU
?REPARED BY: P. BLACKWELDER
30 -Mar -88
# AGENCY PROJECTS
L000 BANNING SUNSET, I-10 TO WESTWARD
L002 BANNING
L003 BANNING
1135 BANNING
1136 BLYTHE
L017 CALTRANS
L021 CALTRANS
L016 CALTRANS
L123 CALTRANS
L037 CATHEDRAL
WILSON, HGHLND SPR TO EIGHTH
LINCOLN, SAN GORG. TO HATH.
RAMSEY @ EIGHTH
LOVEKIN, 14TH TO HOBSON
ROUTE 74 @ LYON
SAN JAC. AT OAKLAND & DEVONSHIRE
DATE PALM N HWY 111
RAMONA/MAIN ST AT SAN JACINTO
DATE PALM, HWY 111 TO RAMON RD.
L040 COACHELLA DILLON RD., I-10 TO AVE. 44
1048 COUNTY
1137 COUNTY
1054 COUNTY
1055 COUNTY
L081 HEMET
L079 HEMET
1076 HEMET
L082 HEMET
1091 INDIO
1090 INDIO
L092 INDIO
L093 INDIO
1088 INDIO
ESPLANADE, LYON TO STATE
RAMONA EXPY, CEDAR TO FLOR
PEBBLE BCH,BRADLY TO CHER. HLS.
CAMINO, PALM TO YERXA
STATE, FLORIDA TO ACACIA
STATE AT MENLO
PALM AT STETSON AVENUE
STATE, FLORIDA TO ACACIA
MONROE @ AVE. 47
SH 111 @ RUBIDOUX
MONROE AT HOOVER
MONROE AT INDUSTRIAL
ARABIA AT SH 111
DESCRIPTION
RECONSTRUCT
RESURFACE
RESURFACE
WIDEN, MODIFY SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
* *
WIDEN, MOD. SIGNALS
SIGNALS
MODIFY INTER ., SIG.
SIGNALS
* * *
WIDEN AND RESURFACE
* * *
RECONST.
* * *
RESURFACE
WIDEN
RESURFACE
RESURFACE
* *
WIDEN, MODIFY
SIGNALS
SIGNALS
WIDEN, MODIFY SIGNALS
* *
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
SIGNALS
*
SIGNALS
*
TOTAL
LOCAL/ PROJ.
PHASE FY COST FEDERAL OTHER TYPE
C 86 $236,000 $203,000 $33,000 211
C 89 $241,000 $207,000 $34,000 2
C 89 $60,000 $52,000 $8,000
C 92 $85,000 $73,000 $12,000 201
P 89 $40,000 $40,000 $0 201
C 89 $180,000 $100,000 $80,000 203
C 89 $260,000 $260,000 $0 201
C 89 $231,000 $209,000 $22,000 203
C 89 $110,000 $110,000 $0 201
C 89 $500,000 $430,000 $70,000 203
C 89 $162,000 $139,000 $23,000 211
C 89 $128,000 $110,000 $18,000 211
C 89 $1,100,000 $700,000 $400,000 123
C 89 $100,000 $86,000 $14,000
C 90 $70,000 $60,000 $10,000 ill
P 89 $13,000 $11,600 $1,400 201
C 89 $113,000 $113,000 $0 201
C 88 $105,000 $105,000 $0 201
C 89 $132,000 $113,100 $18,900 203
C 89 $100,000 $100,000 $0 201
C 89 $100,000 $100,000 $0 201
C 89 $117,000 $117,000 $0 201
C 89 $117,000 $117,000 $0 201
C 89 $115,000 $115,000 $0 201
HIGHWAY PROJECTS
1989 — 93
'OUNTY: RIVERSIDE
'EDERAL FUND TYPE: FAU
'REPARED BY: P.BLACKWELDER
30 -Mar -88
# AGENCY
. 138 LAKE ELSINORE
.139 MORENO VALLEY
.099 PALM DESERT
.106 PALM SPRINGS
.107 PALM SPRINGS
.134 PALM SPRINGS
.140 PALM SPRINGS
.114 PERRIS
. 116 PERRIS
.115 PERRIS
.120 SAN JACINTO
PROJECTS
SAN JACINTO BRIDGE
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
HWY 111, EL PASEO TO OCOTILLO
VISTA CHINO, SUNRISE TO VIA ROBB.
EL CIELO, SONORA TO SUNNY DUNES
SUNRISE WAY 0 SUNNY DUNES
SUNRISE AT AMATO
ROUTE 74 H NAVAJO RD.
RTE. 74 AT "A" ST.
ROUTE 74 @ PERRIS BLVD.
MAIN ST., SAN JAC. TO LOS BANOS
DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCT BRIDGE
* * *
RESURFACE
* *
WIDEN TO 6 LANES
* *
WIDEN
WIDEN
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
* *
SIGNALS
SIGNALS
SIGNALS
* *
RECONSTRUCT
*
*
*
*
TOTAL
PHASE FY COST FEDERAL OTHER TYPE
C 93 $1,700,000 $275,780
C 89 $490,692 $421,995
C 89 $2,000,000 $1,046,000
C 89 $481,000 $413,660
C 89 $251,000 $216,000
C 90 $95,000 $95,000
C 90 $95,000 $95,000
C 89 $135,000 $110,000 $25,000
C 89 $163,000 $163,000 $0
C 89 $110,000 $110,000 $0
C 89 $162,000 $139,630 $22,370 211
LOCAL/ PROJ.
$1,424,220 ]23
$68,697 211.—
$954,000 123
$67,340
$35,000
$0
$0
123
123
201
201
201
201
201
HIGHWAY PROJECTS
1989 — 1990
COUNTY: RIVERSIDE
FEDERAL FUND TYPE: FAS
PREPARED BY:P. BLACKWELDER
30 -Mar -88
AGENCY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
COUNTY
PROJECTS
LIMONITE AVE., WINEVILLE TO HAMNER
AIRPORT BLVD., POLK TO WHITEWATER RIV.
DILLON RD. AT PALM DR.
COUNTRY CLUB @ WASHINGTON
E. BENTON RD., SAGE TO DE PORTOLA
GILMAN SPRNGS RD., RTE. 79 TO BRIDGE ST.
DESCRIPTION
WIDEN
WIDEN
SIGNALS
SIGNALS
CONSTRUCT
CONSTRUCT
PHASE FY
C 89
C 89
C 89
C 89
C 89
C 90
TOTAL
COST
$541,000
$203,000
$125,000
$125,000
$2,705,000
$1,622,000
LOCAL/ PROJ.
FEDER AL OTHER TYPE
$465,000 $76,000 115
$175,000 $28,000 1' `•
$125,000 $0 201
$125,000 $0 201
$2,326,000 $379,000 124
$1,395,000 $227,000 124
a
RCTC MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 5-88
May 4, 1988
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission/Service Authority For Freeway -Emergencies Board
was called to order by Chairman Don Baskett at 2:02 p.m. on
Wednesday, May 4, 1988, at the Riverside "County
Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room, 4080
Lemon Street, Riverside.
Members present:
Don Baskett
Susan Cornelison
Kay Ceniceros
Alternates present:
Jack Clarke
Dick Deininger
Al Lopez
2 Approval of Minutes. .
Melba Dunlap
Roy Wilson
Pat Murphy
Wayne Stuart
Ray Tanner
M/S/C (CLARKE/CORNELISON) to approve the minutes of the
April 6, 1988 meeting as submitted.
3 Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4_ Consent Calendar.
Al/S/C (DUNLAP/TANNER) to approve the consent calendar
items.
A. City of Palm Desert Time Extension - SB 821
Funding.
To approve the City of Palm Desert's request to
extend the time to use previously allocated 5B 22::
funds for the Magnesia Falls bikeway project to
September 30, 1988.
B. Route 79 Sinning Request.
To request Caltrans to place warning signs on
Route 79 north and south of the Route 79/Gilman
Hot Springs Road intersection.
Page 2
5. FY 1988-89 RCTC and SAFE Budgets.
Jack Reagan, Executive Director, informed the Commission
that the Finance Committee, comprised of Commissioners Don
Baskett, Al Lopez and Ray Tanner, had met and reviewed the
proposed RCTC and SAFE budgets for FY 1988-89. He then
briefed the Commission on the proposed revenues and
expenditures for both budgets.
Chairman Baskett opened the public hearing. There
being no one desiring to speak on the budgets, the hearing
was closed.
Chairman Baskett commented that he and the Finance Committee
members felt that all budget items had been properly
explained. The Finance Committee recommended
Commission/Board approval of the RCTC and SAFE budgets.
M/S/C (WILSON/CENICEROS) to approve the budgets of the
Riverside County Transportation Commission and the
Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies for fiscal
year 1988-89.
6. Unmet Transit Needs Findings.
Paul' Blackwelder, Assistant Director, stated that all of the
service requests received at the three public hearings held
by the Commission were reviewed with the transit operators
and are listed in the staff report in three categories: 1)
requests which will be totally or partially accommodated by
services already planned by the operators; 2) requests which
may be accommodated but would require further investigation;
and, 3) requests for improved or revised services which
should not be implemented because the cost would not be
justified by the anticipated use of the service. He then
reviewed the service requests and response to the requests.
Paul Blackwelder continued and informed the Commission
that the Commissions Citizens Advisory Committee/Social
Servise Advisory Council held two meetings to review the
service requests and staff responses and supported the
following staff recommendations: 1) That the Commission
expand the scope of the proposed alternatives/feasibility
study for the implementation of a Consolidated
Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) in the Coachella Valley
to include the Western Riverside County area. In particular,
the study should consider alternatives for operating And
funding social service transportation; and, 2) Based on
review of existing services and services planned to be
implemented in the next fiscal year, find that there are no
unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met in Riverside
County and that SCAG concur with this finding.
Page 3
Commissioner Cornelison commented on the request made by Mr.
Ed Crispin at the public hearing to change the Riverside
Special Services Program from an elderly and handicapped
service to a general public service. She had understood
that the reason for their request was that both Mr. and
Mrs. Crispin are legally blind and have young children.
They are not able to use the Riverside Special Services
because their children are not allowed to travel with them.
She said that there may be others in the City who are in the
same situation as the Crispins.
Paul Blackwelder said that he would discuss this matter with
Riverside Special Services staff to determine if a
reasonable solution to cases such as the Crispins could be
arrived at and staff will report back to the Commission next
month.
M/S/C (CORNELISON/DUNLAP) to:
1. Expand the scope of the propez d
alternatives/feasibility study for the
implementation of a Consolidated Transportation
Service Agency (CTSA) in the Coachella Valley to
include the Western Riverside County area. In
particular, the study will consider alternatives
for operating and funding social service
transportation.
2. Based on review of existing services and services
planned to be implemented in the next fiscal year,
find that there are no unmet transit needs that
can be reasonably met in Riverside County and
request SCAG concurrence with this finding.
7. Proposed 1938 Riverside County Regional Transportation
Improvement Program. ---
Jack Reagan stated that the highway portion of the
Transportation Improvement Program in Riverside County
should be approved by the Commission at this meeting in
order to satisfy SCAG's schedule for developing the RTIP
submittal for the STIP. The State Commission has decided to
defer its adoption of the STIP pending the outcome of the
June election because of three measures (Propositions 71,
72, 74) on the ballot that may affect transportation
funding. SB 140 mandates to the State Commission that Si
billion/year be programmed for capacity expanding highway
projects which would result in programming an additional
$1.8 billion. I -f Riverside County received its 100% share,
there would be an estimated additional $93 million in State
programming capacity for Riverside County - $42 million
county minimum and $51 million fair share of the
discretionary bid pot in the SCAG region.
Page 4
The list of project recommended for programming in Riverside
County included: 1) Route 86, construct 2 lanes, $14.7
million, FY 91; 2) Route 91, add 2 lanes/TSM - Magnolia
Avenue to the Orange County line, $27.1, FY 91; 3) Route 91,
TSM - 60/91/215 Interchange to Magnolia Avenue, $2.5
million, FY 91; 4) Route 86, add 2 lanes (complete 4 lane
Expressway) - Indio to Imperial County, $39.1, FY 93; 5)
Route 60/215/91 Interchange,construct one leg of the
interchange, $39.5, FY 93; 6) Route 60, add 2 lanes - Valley
Way/Main Street, $12.18 million, FY 93; and, 7) Route 215,
widen - interchange to Route 60, $13.6 million, FY 93. He
pointed out•that except for the Route 86 two-lane project,
the remainder would be funded 50% local sales tax revenues
and 50% state/federal funds.
Commissioner Ceniceros commented that the proposal is for
new monies. She asked why staff is only going for 100% of
the County's fair share and if this could place the County
receiving less its fair share.
Jack Reagan said that in dealing with the State Commission,
if they know that all we're requesting was 100% of the share
that ought to be attributable to Riverside County, they
would be hard pressed not to approve the request. Anything
over the county minimum is up to the State Commission's
discretion in programming.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that this County has previously
received funding for projects that exceeded the county
minimum. She thinks that there are a couple of points that
are at play and should be pointed out for Riverside County.
First, we have a greater growth rate than in most other
areas with less of a system to accommodate it. Secondly,
even though the growth rate is increasing rapidly, a dollar
currently buys more right-of-way here than in most of the
other jurisdictions. She asked if it had been Riverside
County's experience that our credibility is better if we
only asked for 100% ❑f our share.
Jack Reagan said that strategically, although the Commission
could defer this -matter, he felt the Commission should take
action today in order to send a message to the State
Commission an' to the public that a great deal could be
accomplished by developing a partnership with the State to
jointly fund the State highway projects. Adding the Route
60/215 to Redlands Boulevard project requested by
Commissioner Tanner would put us over our 100% share by
about $3 million. If were to continue to add to the list,
we would be getting into projects that are (costly) big
ticket.
Page 5
Commissioner Ceniceros suggested that the recommended
projects should be presented in a context of our greater
need for projects based on rapid growth and very sparse
system.
Commissioner Tanner asked if would be possible to have an
attachment to the list of projects with the explanation
relevant to our growth rate being the highest in the State,
our need for highway improvements is greater and that there
are less facilities in place because of growth. Dollars
spent now would far less be required later when the funding
for projects will be mandatory.
Commissioner Edmonds stated that Caltrans worked with
Commission staff to develop the joint proposal. He agreed
with Commissioner Ceniceros' proposal in light of the fact
that we are trying to improve the job/housing balance for
Riverside County by trying to entice business here that a
better freeway system is necessary. This would be more
consistent with the SCAG plan. When you look at the cost of
improvements to Route 91 going into Orange County and Route
60 and I-15, we should also consider the potential of
constructing a highway in the Cajalco Corridor. There are
currently three corridors feeding into one (Route 91). He
added that increased travel on Routes 91 and 15 are is also
generated from the San Bernardino County and that Route 60
traffic also comes from San Bernardino County.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that our strategy might be to
compose a list of top priority projects that fit within our
100% share but not stop the list there. We would continue
with other high priority projects with the arguments for
them being the improvement of job/housing balance and that
the movement of goods and services more closely aligned with
residences will, if it is successful, relieve congestion on
the entire network in Southern California, the fact that
right-of-way can be purchased at lesser cost than in other
areas, and the absence of suitable freeway network in the
Western County area. Our best point would be trying to lure
commerce here to balance out the jobs and housing to relieve
some of the commuter congestion from the freeway system.
Commissioner Tanner said that there would be more than
enough testimony and facts to show that even our alternate
request is greater need than in other counties because of
the points mentioned by Commissioner Ceniceros.
Paul Blackwelder reviewed the preliminary TIP for public
transit operators. He explained that thed Commission needed
to approve the TIP and should send this TIP to SCAG in order
to have funding by July 1st. The TIP is preliminary without
an approved Short Range Transit Plan and we should explain
to SCAG that there could be significant changes in the TIP
once the SRTPs are approved.
Page 6
M/S/C (CLARKE/DUNLAP):
1) To approve the proposed FY 1989-1993 Riverside
County RTIP for State highway projects listed on
the staff report including the Route 60 project
from Valley Way to Main and 1-215 to Redlands
Boulevard, and point out the importance of the
projects to the Riverside County to: 1) improve
job/housing balance, 2) improve the movement of
goods, and, 3) having an adequate highway system
in place for the future.
2) To approve the public transportation projects,
with a condition that the public transportation
projects may be significantly amended following
the adoption of the FY 1988-1993 Short Range
Transit Plan for Riverside County.
8_ Joint RCTC/OCTC Project Development for Route 91
Commissioner Baskett said that he, Commissioners Dunlap and
Clarke, and Commission staff had met earlier today with
Orange County Transportation Commission members to discuss
project development work on Route 91.
Jack Reagan stated the staff includes two recommendations
regarding Orange County participation on the project
development work on Route 91: 1) To request the State
Commission to revise the Special Studies list to define the
Route 91 project from Magnolia Avenue in Riverside County to
Route 57 in Orange County; and, 2) That RCTC, OCTC, and
Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 execute agreements to undertake
the Route 91 project development work as described in the
staff report. The Orange County Commission would be the
lead agency for the environmental documentation work to be
done by a consultant. RCTC's share of the contract would be
up to $150,000. The RFP's will be ready for review in July;
it will take up to 14 months to do the environmental
documentation. RCTC will be responsible for the design
engineering if the voters approve the local sales tax
measure in November. The reason for expediting work is to
have all project development work completed and construction
contracts ready for award by June 1991. The project will
meet the statutory deadline to be eligible for a share of
$300 million State matching funds for locally funded
projects.
Chairman Baskett said that the Orange County Commission will
have this item on their agenda later this month. His
impression is that staffs and commissioners of both counties
are very positive about improving Route 91. They are just
as anxious to work with us as we are to work with them.
Timing is crucial on this issue.
Page 7
Commissioner Ceniceros asked if SanBAG would be involved.
In the past, she has spoken with Larry Walker of the Chino
area and they contribute a significant slice of the traffic
on Route 91 from Route 71 to Route 57. She also asked
whether this project is consistent with the RIVSAN Study.
Jack Reagan responded that SanBAG is not involved at this
time as the project is from Magnolia Avenue to Route 57. It
is consistent with the RIVSAN Study. The proposed project
is what can be accomplished within the existing right-of-
way.
Commissioner Dunlap stated that there is also a group from
the San Bernardino County area that has been meeting with
representatives from Orange County to discuss transportation
issues.
Commissioner Edmonds informed the Commission that he has met
with a group from Yorba Linda to explore bringing Route 71
into Orange County on the west side of Green River parallel
to Route 91 and then connecting into the new Foothill (toll
road) corridor.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/CLARKE) :
1. That the RCTC and OCTC jointly request the CTC to
revise the Special Studies list to define the
Route 91 project from Magnolia Avenue in Riverside
County to Route 57 in Orange County.
2. RCTC, OCTC, and Caltrans Districts 8 and 12
execute agreements to undertake the Route 91
project development work as described in the staff
report.
9. Route 55 Study. Report/Riverside - Orange County Van_pooI_
Demonstration Project.
Kay Van Sickel and Gary Edsen, Orange County Transit
District, briefed the Commission on the Route 55 study in
Orange County and on the Vanpool Demonstration Program. The
purpose of the vanpool program is to get Riverside County
commuters to participate in vanpools to various employment
areas in Orange County. Gary Edsen stated that one problem
they found in Riverside County is that there are not enough
park and ride staging areas. They are proposing that in
cooperating with Caltrans, a study be done to identify lots
(in churches, bowling alleys, etc.) and come up with a
package that could be presented to the owners of those lots.
Paul Blackwelder suggested that this be done through the
local Chambers of Commerce.
Page 8
Gary Edsen outlined other measures that could be taken to
increase vanpooling once the initial demonstration projects
shows some success.
Jack Reagan said that this project was also discussed with a
members of the Orange County Transportation Commission.
Commission staff will work with OCTD to better define the
functional responsibility of each county. He noted that
there are funds available through the Federal Aid Urban
Program for carpooling. He will bring a more specific
proposal to the Commission for approval in the next few
months.
Gary Edsen invited the Commission to a joint meeting being
held with UMTA and the two Transportation Management
Associations being formed in Orange County on May 25th at
10:30 a.m.
Chairman Baskett proposed that the Commission appoint a
Commuter Committee to attend the meeting on May 25th and to
become more involved in commuter -related meetings. The
Chairman then appointed Commissioners Dunlap and Cornelison
to the Commission's Commuter Committee.
10. Status Report on Sales Tax Expenditure Plan.
Chairman Baskett stated that a S'ales Tax Committee appointed
by the Commission had worked with staff in developing the
original Expenditure Plan that was to be submitted to the
voters last year. There is a need for this committee to
meet again to review possible revisions to the plan that
might be requested by supporters of the measure. Staff will
set up meetings of this committee to review these
proposals.
Jack Reagan stated that Bechtel Civil Inc., the firm hired
by the Commission to review the costs of the proposed
highway and regional arterial projects, is nearing
completion of the study. The study will also be helpful to
the Coachella Valley Association of Governments with regards
to their proposed transportation mitigation fees for that
area.
Financial Forecasts
Jack Reagan explained that taking into consideration voter
approval of Propositions 72 and 74 and assuming State
funding of $19 million/year for capacity increasing projects
included in the sales tax expenditure plan, he feels that
the initial sales tax revenue forecast, 5% per year real
growth, which is partly from population growth and partly
from real economic growth, is on the high side. This is
especially possible because of the pending growth limitation
Page 9
initiative. Staff is looking at some alternative
assumptions for estimating real growth revenues. Other areas
in the State have assumed that there is a parallel between
actual population growth and growth in sales tax revenue.
The State Department of Finance forecast for Riverside
County projects annual population growth rates of
approximately 4.2% to 1990, 3.3% from 1991-95, and 2.6%
thereafter. This would result in sales tax revenues of
about $874 million over a 20 -year period as opposed to $992
million previously estimated. Over -estimating revenues may
pose some planning and project delivery problems in terms of
the sales tax. The Commission may want to use a lower and
safer revenue estimate. As a result there may be a need for
some revision to the sales tax expenditure plan because of
some projects that are now estimated at a higher cost and
some projects that could be added including two highway
projects. The combination of a lower revenue and little
higher cost of potential projects may result a need for
consideration of some revision to the expenditure plan.
Commuter. Rail Study
A survey done on the sales tax measure indicated a very
strong support for commuter rail service to Orange -and Los
Angeles Counties. The expenditure plan will need to address
both destinations. The Commission will have to make a
determination if commuter rail will be included in the
expenditure plan as a result of the study currently
underway. If commuter rail is included, he had hoped that
the ballot language for the sales tax measure could also
include the required State constitutional provision that
would allow us to access to the Article 19 funds to use on
commuter rail projects. D.J. Smith feels that there is
also a need to place a Proposition 5 measure on the November
ballot. At this time, he introduced Sharon Greene and Carl
Schiermeyer to the Commission.
Carl Schiermeyer briefed the Commission on the status of the
commuter rail study. He said that the study is about two-
thirds completed. They had determined that technically,
commuter rail service is feasible from Downtown Riverside
near Seventh Street along the Santa Fe tracks to Placentia,
Santa Ana, and Irvine. The leg from Downtown Riverside to
Placentia parallels the Route 91 freeway and from Placentia
to Santa Ana parallels the Route 55 freeway. Travel time
will take 74 minutes and average speed is approximately 40
mph. Factors they looked at included: 1) access to
regional population; 2) good arterial access; 3) sites with
enough land to provide sufficient parking spaces ; 4) sites
located on tangent railroad track. They estimate a
supportable capital cost of $78 million of which $35 million
are related to equipment. Insurance would cost approximately
Page 10
$5 million. Railroad track improvements are estimated at
$24 million for immediate and interim improvements to $81.4
million for fully double tracking from Riverside to Orange
County. Operating cost is projected at approximately $9.4
million/year and administrative cost is estimated at $1
million/year.
11. Pending Legislation.
Paul Blackwelder briefed the Commission on the following
proposed bills.
SB 2182 (Bergeson/Craven)
SB 2182 would immunize members of the SAFE against liability
caused by an act or omission within the scope of employment
but retains any liability of the SAFE as an entity. It
would redesignate the system as a motorist aid callbox
system rather than an emergency telephone system and it
authorizes members to receive compensation. It .would be a
misdeameanor for anyone to remove, interfere with the use
of, or obstruct a callbox without the consent of the SAFE.
Staff recommends support of SB 2182.
SB 665 (Johnson)
This proposed legislation would make it optional rather than
a requirement of the Commission to annually appoint
Productivity Advisory Committee(s). Staff feels that the
Committee have not been effective for small operators due to
limited opportunity for major changes in their operating
practices. The change would allow the Commission to use
this process when it is reasonable rather than annually as
it is required.
M/S/C (TANNER/WILSON) to support Senate Bills 2181 and
665.
12. Riverside SAFE/San Bernardino SAFE/Consultant Agreement.
Paul Blackwelder said that at its last meeting, the
Commission approved the hiring of Techplan Corporation for
Phase I System Design for the callbox systems to be
constructed in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The
cost would be split 43% Riverside SAFE and 53% San
Bernardino SAFE. An agreement has be developed and had been
approved to form by the Commission's Legal Counsel.
Page 11
M/S/C (TANNER/CENICEROS) to approve and authorize the
Chairman to execute the proposed agreement between the
Riverside County SAFE, the San Bernardino County SAFE
and Techplan Corporation for Phase I System Design of a
calibox system for Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties.
13. SCAG/RCTC Related Items.
Eric Haley thanked the Commission for their action and for
their personal involvement on SB 2625. The author, Senator
Marian Bergeson, has pulled the bill. The Katz bill is
going to be reintroduced in a different form next week. It
is going to included all of the Los Angeles County's
reorganization proposals.
Eric Haley continued and said that SCAG is discussing
authorization to be included in their budget for SCAG
regional offices in Riverside and Orange Counties.
Commissioner Cornelison said that she is the Commission's
representative to SCAG's TCC and that they will be
considering a position on Propositions 71 and 72. She asked
what the Commission's positions were on these propositions.
Jack Reagan said that the Commission has taken no position
on Proposition 71 and took a support position on Proposition
72.
14. Adjournment.
With no other items to come before the Commission, Chairman
Baskett adjourned the meeting at 4:19 n.m.
ecttuJ,ly submitted,
4, Jack Reagan
Executive Director
nK