Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07 July 7, 1986 Citizens Advisory040243 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1:30 P.M., JULY 7, 1986 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 THIRD ,STREET RIVERSIDE, CB. 92507 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. 3. Transit Operations Quarterly Report. 4. Highway 79 (Lambs Canyon Update). 5. RTA Maintenance/Administration Center Tour. 6. Other Business. 7. Adjournment. * * * * (INFO) (INFO) PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CAC MEETING WILL BE HELD AT THE RTA MAINTENANCE/ ADMINISTRATION CENTER. INCLUDED TN THE AGENDA PACKET IS A MAP SHOWING RTA'S LOCATION. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting No. 4-86 May 5, 1986 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to order by Chairman Terry Allen at 1:45 P.M. on May 5, 1986 at the Riverside City Hall, 5th Floor Conference Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside. Members present: Terry Allen Jordis Cameron Marian Carpelan Members not present: Harry Brinton Bill Freeman Bertram Vinson Jim Kenna Herb Krauch Don Kurz Others present: Joanne Moore Rena Parker Don Senger Shiela Velez Ran Wyder Nick Davies, Caltrans District 08 Eric Haley, SCAG Roger Levine, Automobile Club of So. California Jesse Roach, Riverside Transit Agency 2. Approval of Minutes. M/S/C (KURZ/KRAUCH) to approve the minutes of the April 7, 1986 meeting as submitted. 3. Olympic Legacy Program. A film presentation called "The Olympic Legacy: Let's Keep It Moving" which pointed out the strategies undertaken by the public and private sector, and enabled the smooth flow of traffic during the Olympics was shown followed by a discussion led by Eric Haley, SCAG. He said that issue papers were developed by SCAG's Regional Advisory Council recom- mending strategies and policies to be implemented. The papers identi- fy legislative changes regarding routing and scheduling the deliveries of goods, reauthorizing legislation ridesharing, and implementing more flex work time, etc., to recreate the smooth traffic flow during the Olympics. Barry Beck, Executive Director, informed the Committee of a one -week program currently being set up by the County intended to promote ridesharing. The program assumes there is a 2nd stage smog alert and limits the number of available parking spaces to one-third of the spaces normally available. 4. Amtrak Service in Riverside. Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, told the Committee that as of April 27, 1986, Amtrak has rerouted its Desert Wind service between Los Angeles and Chicago through Riverside. Amtrak has advised the City of Riverside and Commission staff that a stop in Riverside could be arranged by formally requesting Amtrak to stop at the Santa Fe depot, repairing the depot loading platform at local expense and installing a pay telephone. The Commission, at its last meeting, authorized its Chairman, Jean Mansfield, and the Executive Director to pursue a request to Amtrak to stop in Riverside. In response to Don Kurz' question which RTA line would serve the Santa Fe train station, Jesse Roach said that Line 1 stops approximately 1/2 block from the train station. 5. Safety Problems - Highways 79 (Lambs Canyon) and 74 (Ortega). Herb Krauch stated that on Highway 79, reflector post lights are missing and need to be replaced. He also stated that a warning sign posted by Caltrans on the east side of Gilman Hot Springs Road blocks the view of the drivers waiting to cross Highway 79 from seeing cars coming down the grade. The cars coming down the Canyon are travelling at 50-60 mph. He asked if the speed in that area could be reduced. Nick Davies said that since Lambs Canyon is a State highway and the speed limit for State highways is 55 mph, it is impossible to reduce the speed. With respect to the missing reflectors and the sign, he will inspect the area and see if these items can be corrected. He told the Committee that the guardrail project which had been discussed at a previous meeting by John Chaudoin had not yet been programmed. He will follow up on the project and report back to Commission staff. He then discussed Highway 74. He identified four projects in the Lake Elsinore area totalling approximately $2 million aimed at widening, realigning and installing turnouts in the Caltrans program for Route 74. Joanne Moore asked if there are any plans to alleviate the bottleneck traffic problem on Route 74 in Perris, from A Street to D Street. Nick Davies said that Caltrans would very much like to see the street widened to four lanes. Unfortunately, this would be a very expensive project because of right-of-way costs. A bank, commercial properties and a train station are located in the required right-of-way. Don Senger said that the City of Perris' redevelopment plan includes a plan to take the bank building and the liquor store out and widen the street to solve the traffic problem in that area. Barry Beck added that another plan that is being looked at as a long- term measure is extending Ethanac Road as a bypass for through traffic not going to the City of Perris. Don Senger asked about the status of the signal project proposed for Perris Boulevard and Indian Circle. Barry Beck replied that the signal is expected to be installed in FY 88-89. At the time the project was proposed, he encouraged the City of Perris to do the engineering work, which seems to be one of the reasons for the delay in addition to some right-of-way and channeliza- tion work that needs to be done. 6. FY 1987-1991 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan. Paul Blackwelder stated that the Riverside County plan consists of transit plans for seven small operators (Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Lake Elsinore, Palo Verde, Rancho Mirage, Riverside Special Services), the Riverside Transit Agency and the SunLine Transit Agency. The plan is basically a continuation of existing service with some minor changes in the service levels. Only one new service (a route between the San Gorgonio Pass Area and Hemet) is being proposed. He then reviewed the proposed service level changes for each transit agency. Marian Carpelan suggested that RTA should go door to door and hand out flyers to make residents aware of the change proposed for Line 29 in the Belltown area. Don Kurz noted that local newspapers, Riverside County Record and Jurupa District, are distributed to 18,000 homes in the area and that RTA should place ads for the Line 29 service in those newspapers. Don Kurz reported that two months ago when he rode Line 21, the bus driver did not layover at Country Village. The layover point was about half a mile beyond Country Village. Jesse Roach replied that the Line 21 bus is supposed to layover at Country Village and he would check this matter out. M/S/C (KRAUCH/MOORE) to recommend that the Commission approve the service levels proposed by the transit operators in the FY 1987- 1991 Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside County. 7. Other Business. Don Kurz invited members of the Committee to the annual luncheon of the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee of the City of Riverside being held on May 13. 8. Adjournment. M/S/C (CARPELAN/MOORE) to adjourn the meeting at 3:32 p.m. ectfully submitted, aat Assistant Director ackweiaer nk Date July 7, 1986 Citizens Advisory Committe. SIGN IN SHEET NAME ,2 .�� - REPRESENTn .1Q,0A327?- CA 1 r2, cx.-.1 c am- 477',5-5 TEL. NO rJ (mssF-17 637- 47'3? 734.-d 77 --r4 (5N -U 88'S o ITEM NO. 3 R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Transit Operations Report The attached table and graphs show transit operations data from the public transit operators in Riverside County during the third quarter of the year, January 1, 1986 through March 31, 1986. The information used to develop this report was provided by the transit operators. Ridership Total ridership in the third quarter of the year was 1.22 million passengers. Third quarter ridership is continuing to increase over prior years as shown in Attachment II. The increase over last year is 4.6%. Most of the increase in ridership was re- ported by the SunLine Transit Agency reporting an increase 10.7% over last year as shown in Attachment III. Operating Costs and Subsidies Total operating costs for the quarter were $2.82 mil ion, an increase of 17.2% over 1 Year to ate costs reported were $8 million . % over cost . The -cost increase is attributed to an increase in service_of approximately 8.9% and significantly higher insurance premiums paid by the transit oper- ators. With operating costs increasing at a higher rate than ridership, the assen er trip for the first three quarters of the year has risen from 1.71 last year_ta—$1.A.9 this year, an increase of 10.5%. The RTA average subsidy per passen- ger trip has increased by 14.9%. The only exception is.the SunT1ine Transit Agency subsidy per passenger trip which is ap- proximately the same as last year due to an increase in ridership of 19% this year. Even though the subsidy per passenger trip has increased, RTA and SunLine are projecting that minimum re u d fare revenuee ra�'ios wiT7`be suet n out increasing f Les. The subsidies per passenger trip for various services operated by RTA and SunLine are shown in Attachments V and VI. The Palm Desert Trolley service did not meet the $3.00 maximum subsidy per passenger trip goal and will not be operated by SunLine next fiscal year. The service may be operated by a private contractor subsidized by the City of Palm Desert and/or the business com- munity. The SunLine dial -a -ride service subsidy per passenger trip rates are still high in the third quarter. The SunLine plan was ap- proved contingent upon SunLine taking action to improve ridership and/or decrease the costs for these services to lower the subsidy per passenger trip. RCTC Agenda Item No. 3E June 19, 1986 The RTA Line 18 (Moreno Valley) and 19 (Moreno Valley -Perris) subsidy per passenger trip rates of $4.49 and $6.44 are high for these types of services. These are new services and continued ridership increases are expected to decrease the subsidy per passenger trip. Ridership for the two lines in the third quarter is 74% higher than ridership for the single line that was run during the third quarter of last year. PB:nk Attachments QUARTERLY TRANSIT OPERATIONS REPORT RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERATORS 1/1/86 to 3/31/86 Rancho River sid e Banning Beaumont C orona LETS PVVTA Mirage Spec.S vcs . RTA Su nline TOTAL F.R. Passen gers 17,420 22,222 731,367 340,801 1,111,810 DAR Passenger s 14,488 16,429 1,410 922 31,461 36,048 12,250 113,008 Total Passengers 17,420 14,488 16,429 22,222 1,410 922 31,461 767,415 353,051 1,224,818 F.R. Expen se s $38,071 $94,048 $1,320,747 $811,550 $2,264,416 DAR Expens es $52,666 $64,758 $5,697 $5,198 $138,934 $212,279 $74,088 $553,620 Tota l Expe nse s $38,071 $52,666 $64,758 $94,048 $5,697 $5,198 $138,934 $1,533,026 $885,638 $2,818,036 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE HR. FIXED ROUTE 12.54 NA NA 11.88 NA NA NA 23 .91 15.57 DIAL -A -RIDE NA 7.97 6.30 NA 4.27 0 .00 5.45 5.45 4 .86 COST PER VEHICLE HR. FIXED ROUTE $27.41 NA NA $50.27 NA NA NA $43.18 $37.08 DIAL -A -RIDE NA $28.97 $24. 84 NA $17.26 0.00 $24.05 $32.08 $29.39 FARE REVENUE RATIO 13.8% 16. 6% 22. 6% 6.7% 15.2% 20 .3% 10.6% 21.5% 22.1% SUBSIDY/PASSENGER FIXED ROUTE $1.88 NA NA $3. 95 NA NA $1.39 $1.83 DIAL -A -RIDE NA $3. 03 $3.05 NA $3.43 $4 .49 $3 .95 $5.15 $5 .28 f, 7 II TOTAL RIVERSIDE COUNTY' RIDERSHIP gN y N— rno y = o v L 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1,1 0.9 0,6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1.3 1.2 — 1,1 — 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 — 0.5 0,4 0,3 — -R. fl, fr rf I I I I , r 1981/62 1962/83 I I I I I 1933/34 1984/85 Fiscal Years THIRD QUARTER RIDERSHIP TOTAL RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1985/36 r f f ../:/://;;'////;/; 0.2 0.1 t 1931/32 1932/33 1984/35 1933/84 Fiscal Years 1965/36 III SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY RIDERSHIP 500 1982/83 I983/84 1984/85 Fiscal Years THIRD QUARTER RIDERSHIP SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY 400 — 300 -- 1981/82 1982/63 1985/86 i 1963/84 Fiscal Years IV RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIDERSHIP 900 800 — N C a 700-- 600 fiN PJ 500 — 400 — 300 900 800 — 700 — 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 r r 1 1 f 1981/82 1982/33 1981/82 1983/84 Fiscal Years 1964/85 THIRD QUARTER RIDERSHIP RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1982/63 1983/84 Fiscal Years • 1984/85 1985/86 1985/86 SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER 15 RTA THIRD QUARTER 14-- 13 — 12 — 11 — i9 — 9 8- 7 6 -- 5 Fixed -Route 4 — 3 2 1 0 2 T / 7 7 / f✓ / 7- 15 14 16 29 25 13 12 FIXED ROUTES 2 Corona - Riv 1 Magnolia Av 15 Arlington Av 14 Indiana Av 16 Moreno Valley - Riv 29 Rubidoux 25 Riv - Loma Linda 13 Arlanza 12 California Av 21 Country Village - Tyler Mall 22 Perris - Riv 24 Lake Els. - Perris - Riv 17 U C R - Mag Center 27 Hemet - Perris - Riv 18 Moreno Valley 30 Hemet - San Jacinto 19 Moreno - Perris / i / / / Service / 2 24 17 27 18 30 19 DIAL -A -RIDES / D -A -R 7. / 7 / / SC H P Perris D -A -R SC Sun City D -A -R H Hemet/ San Jacinto D -A -R N Norco D -A -R VI $C•00 Per Passenger 20 19 9- SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER SOMME: THIRD QUARTER Fixed -Route D -A® R 7- 6- 5- 4- 3- 2- 1 20 FIXED -ROUTES f 19 PS 2 MV 4 PD 20 Palm Springs - Coachella 19 DHS - Coachella PS Palm Springs Sun Special 2 Palm Springs Local MV Mt. View- 1000 Palms 4 La Quinta - Palm Desert PD Palm Desert Trolley SERVICE fJ F OHS PS PD DIAL -A -RIDES IV Intervalley Hdcp D -A -R DHS Desert Hot Springs D -A -R PS Palm Springs D -A -R PD Palm Desert Dial -A -Ride VII 50 BANNING TRANSIT RIDERSHIP 40 — 30- 20— i 0 0 50 r I f• 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 Fscat Years . I 1 r I I ! 1984/35 1965/a6 BEAUMONT DIAL -A -RIDE RIDERSHIP 40- 30-6 20 -, 10 — a I ! i ! I 1981/82 1982/83 I I ! f T 1983/84 1984/E15 1985/86 Fiscal Years VIII CORONA DIAL -A -RIDE_ RIDERSHIP 50 40 — 30—f 20 — 10 — 50 40 30 20 10 0 f i f r 1 r 1981/82 1982/83 r I I F I I 1983/84 1984/85 Fiscal Years LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT RIDERSHIP I I I 1985/86 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 Fiscal Years f f I 1985/86 IX PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT 20 19 - 1S - 17 - I6 - 15 - 1413 - 12 - 11 - 10 -. 9 - a - 7 -I 61 5 4 3 2 0 10 RIDERSHIP r 1981/82 r I r 1 I 1982/83 1983/84 Fiscal Years f 1 1984/85 RANCHO MIRAGE DIAL -A -CAB RIDERSHIP r 7 1985/86 9 - 8 7 -- 6-, 5 - 4- 3 2 - 0 i r r I I T 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 r 1985/36 Fiscal Years X RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES RIDERSHIP 50 40 — 20- 1 0 — 0 r e r r e 1981/82 1982/83 r r e i 1983/84 Fiscal Years I f r I r 1984/85 1985/85 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Highway 79 (Lambs Canyon) Update At the last Committee meeting, Mr. Nick Davies of Caltrans District 8, discussed safety problems on Highway 79 in Lambs Canyon. Three safety problems were identified. Mr. Davies agreed to review the need for additional guardrails, the replacement of missing reflector posts and the position of the warning sign at Gilman Springs Road, and to report back to the Committee through staff. Mr. Davies has advised us that the Maintenance Department has been requested to replace the missing reflector posts and to relocate the warning sign at Gilman Springs Road to improve sight distance for vehicles waiting to cross at the intersection. He was still waiting for the field report on the need for guardrails in the area. His report and recommendation should be available at the meeting. PB:nk CAC Agenda Item No. 4 July 7, 1986 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: RTA Maintenance/Administration Center Tour The new Riverside Transit Agency Maintenance/Administration Center is completed and buses began operating out of the Center on Sunday, June 22nd. RTA management is proud of its new Center and has agreed to conduct a tour for Committee members. Staff encourages all members to attend the Committee meeting and to tour the Center. PB:nk CAC Agenda Item No. 5 July 7, 1986 ROTC MINUTES R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No. 4-86 April 17, 1986 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commis- sion was called to order by Chairman Jean Mansfield at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 17, 1986, at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501. Members present: Kay Ceniceros Susan Cornelison Carmen Cox Melba Dunlap Alternates present: Don Baskett Jack Clarke Naomi Feagan Jean Mansfield Roy Wilson Norton Younglove Pat Murphy Wayne Stuart 2. Approval of Minutes. M/S/C (COX/YOUNGLOVE) to approve the minutes of the March 20, 1986 meeting as submitted. 3A. Public Comments. There were no public comments. 3B. Miscellanous Items. 1. Appointment of RCTC Finance Committee. Chairman Mansfield reappointed Commissioners Ceniceros, Wilson and Cox to the Finance Committee. 2. RCTC Representative to SCAG's Transportation and Communications Committee. Chairman Mansfield noted that the adopted Commission policy regarding the Commission's representative to SCAG's TCC has been for the Vice Chairman and Chairman to be the RCTC representative and alternate, re- spectively. There is a need to re-examine the policy with the recent change of officers. Vice Chairman Kay 1 Agenda Item No. 3A May 15, 1986 RCTC Minutes April 17, 1986 Ceniceros is already extremely involved in a number of SCAG activities and that she, too, finds it difficult to devote the necessary time to this function. She proposed that Commissioner Susan Cornelison be appointed as the RCTC representative to the SCAG TCC as she has the time and interest in this function and that she has been representing the Commission over the past few months. Commissioner Younglove suggested that an alternate to Commissioner Cornelison should be appointed as well. M/S/C (CENICEROS/COX) to appoint Commissioner Susan Cornelison and Chairman Jean Mansfield as the Commission's representative and alternate, respectively, to SCAG's TCC. 3. Closure of Ethanac Road at Highway 215. Copies of a letter from the County's Road Commissioner, LeRoy Smoot, to Caltrans' District 8 Director, Bill Edmonds, regarding the County's position on the pro- posed closure of Ethanac Road at Highway 215 were distributed to members of the Commission. Commissioner Younglove said he would like input on the letter from the Commission prior to forwarding it to Caltrans. He said that he would like the last para- graph to be worded more strongly. He said that we have to recognize that there is a serious accident problem at the location but it is also extremely important to recognize that if the closure of Ethanac Road was allowed, Caltrans and others may take advantage of that to see to it that it's never opened again. Commissioner Ceniceros noted that when the Ethanac Road project was in the STIP, the Commission concurred to shifting the funds from Ethanac Road to a project in Corona. Part of the reason for the decision was that Ethanac Road would not be closed and that the project would most likely be put back in the STIP because there was a commitment by the State to the federal government that the entire length of I-215 be of freeway standards by 1990. The flood control problem that was going to delay the Ethanac Road project beyond the STIP date will be solved by 1990 so that there is no reason for the project to not go forward in 1990. She then passed an article on the Sun City news criticizing the decision to shift the funds from Ethanac Road. RCTC Minutes April 17, 1986 Commissioner Cox commented that at the time the Commis- sion discussed the shifting of the Ethanac Road funds, she was in opposition of the action. Barry Beck, Executive Director, said that he had dis- cussed this matter with Bill Edmonds and he is in agreement that if Ethanac Road is fully closed, we would be in danger of losing the interchange as the federal requirement would, in fact, be met. He said that after reviewing the accident pattern, simply closing the median would probably rectify much, if not, all of the safety problems that exist there. By leaving it open to the right turn ingress and egress, the road would still be open and, therefore, subject to the FHWA agreement. The Commission would still have that lever with the State to build the interchange. Barry Beck stated that staff has reviewed the matter fully with County and Caltrans staff, and recommends that the Commission support the improvements proposed by the County for Ethanac Road. M/S/C (CENICEROS/COX) to urge the California Transportation Commission to program the Ethanac Road project by 1990 and point out that the Riverside County Flood Control District will correct the flood control problem by that date. M/S/C (CENICEROS/YOUNGLOVE) to endorse the letter of the Riverside County Road Department to close only the median portion of Ethanac Road. 4. Unmet Transit Needs. Barry Beck said that a variety of comments were received by the Commission on transit services. Many of the comments were operational complaints such as maintenance of the buses, litter, schedule adherance, etc, that are outside the purview of the Commission but were, nevertheless, legitimate complaints and were referred to the appropriate operator for disposition. Most of the requests were for modest service changes which reflect the fact that the County has a fairly comprehensive level of transit service in every populated area. Many of the requests received will be accommodated by the operators in the coming fiscal year or in some cases sooner. Some of the requests received will be partially accommodated or will be investigated further. There were also some requests that were probably legitimate needs for that particular individual but staff did not think that there was sufficient demand such that it could reasonably be met. 3 RCTC Minutes April 17, 1986 Concerning the comment from the Inland Regional Center on the need for transportation for handicapped individuals in several areas, this is the same comment received last year. Further investigation by Commission staff indicates that needs are being met by the IRC through contracts with Medi- trans and other private providers. The complaint boils down to who provides and pays for the service. It is Commission staff's opinion that these are not unmet needs but a ques- tion of who pays for the service. Barry Beck informed the Commission of a complaint received relating to the lack of air conditioners in SunLine buses used for dial -a -lift service. As pointed out in the summary, SunLine has budgeted for this but staff is con- cerned that the amount of funds budgeted was not sufficient and that the schedule to purchase the buses is uncertain. He recommended that the Commission attach a proviso with the finding on unmet transit needs that SunLine forward a letter to the Commission confirming that they will have air-condi- tioned buses on that service at the beginning of summer. Dick Cromwell, SunLine Transit Agency, stated that SunLine is aware of the problem and they are in the process of negotiating with Laidlaw to provide the service in the summer period. He said that they are running into some difficulty finding the equipment. Commissioner Ceniceros commented that with regards to the concern by the Inland Regional Center, she has taken into account that there is a transportation allowance associated with some of the programs individually and with the resi- dential programs. She agreed that Line 30 is poorly patron- ized and there is a request to amend the service and give some opportunity to the clients at the Valley Resource Center to have access to the Line 30 bus system. Staff stated that the line is so poorly ridden now and that it would be impractical to expand the service, she wondered how much thought was given to that and if there are any tradeoffs that might accommodate them. Barry Beck stated that at present, all of the clients can and are being served on the dial -a -ride. The request is to provide more independence to the clients that are able to use a fixed route system. Staff felt that the need was not critical but it was just a matter of how the clients was going to get to the workshop. Commissioner Younglove suggested that the certification of no unmet need that can be reasonably met is a legal require- ment and that the Commission ought to move forward on that. In like manner, because of the concerns expressed by Commis - o. RCTC Minutes April 17, 1986 sioner Ceniceros and by others, the Commission direct staff to work directly with the transit operators to work on problems such as air-conditioning, service changes, etc, and provide the Commission with monthly reports so that it will be able to monitor and step in whenever necessary. Ace Atkinson, Executive Director of the Developmental Dis- abilities Area Planning Board No. 12, commented that over the years, the Commission and its staff has done a very good job in encouraging the transit operators to expand their service as the needs come up. He has become involved with transportation because the Inland Regional Center has not been able to develop a working relationship with the service providers as he had with Commission staff. He said that in the coming months he will work better with them and the operators to better see where they could expand or be more efficient with the service. With regards to the fixed route service in Hemet, it is his understanding that if 10 riders could be served by the fixed route, it would certainly go a long way to improving the route and would reduce the use of dial -a -ride service which is a more expensive service. He agreed with Commissioner Younglove's suggestion that they work with Commission staff and operators to make the system more appropriate. Ace Atkinson continued that he has a major legal argument regarding Commission staff's position on the use of the Inland Counties Regional Center's resources to provide public transportation. He does not believe that the Commis- sion should expect social workers to run public transporta- tion services. If the idea that as long as IRC is providing the service then the Commission does not have a responsi- bility for it then essentially what it may be doing is saying regardless of how inefficient and how expensive that may be to the taxpayers, it does not have a responsibility. The IRC's mistake is that it is purchasing services when that is the Commission's responsibility. They are not going to do that anymore. He is going to work with the Regional Center to look at the services and efficiency in each of the communities and where it is reasonable, and where there are reasonable unmet transit needs, he will cooperate with the Commission in establishing that service. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/CENICEROS) that: 1) Based on a review of existing services and new or improved service planned to be implemented by next fiscal year, find that there are no unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met and request that SCAG concur in this finding. 5 RCTC Minutes April 17, 1986 2) Staff provide to the Commission a monthly report in relationship to those actions taking place to resolve some of the current and other problems. Commissioner Baskett asked if public transportation is available from the San Jacinto Valley to Loma Linda or Kaiser medical facilities. Barry Beck said that there is a limited service available to Loma Linda. Meditrans provides service one day a week from the Sun City -Ferris area. They are discussing coordinating the schedule of the Meditrans service with the Line 27 service such that the two services would meet in Perris. From there, a direct service would be provided to Loma Linda. This is the best that can be done short of having some dedicated service which staff thinks would be too costly given the very limited sporatic use of the service. In response to Commissioner Ceniceros' question of whether people will be notified of the Commission's action, Barry Beck said that staff will respond to all those who submitted testimony as well as to those who wrote and called regarding unmet transit needs. Trade of Surplus UMTA Section 9 Funds. Barry Beck said that two years ago, the Commission autho- rized staff to negotiate with Los Angeles County to trade UMTA Section 9 transit capital funds. Following that, nego- tiations were started with Santa Clara County. A tentative offer was made to trade $2 million in UMTA funds for $1.33 million in sales tax funds. However, the payments would be stretched out over a 2 1/2 period. In the meantime, there was renewed interest from the LACTC. Staff has had some informal discussions with LACTC staff and they now feel that a trade can be made and they would provide funds within a period of two -three months. Staff is requesting authoriza- tion to renew negotiations with the LACTC to trade up to $2 million in UMTA Section 9 transit capital funds. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/CENICEROS) to authorize staff to renew negotiations with the LACTC to trade $2 million in UMTA Section 9 transit capital funds for $1.33 million in State Transit Assistance funds. 6. Trade of Federal Aid Urban Funds. Barry Beck said that staff recently learned that Caltrans has taken action to temporarily transfer FAU apportionments to Santa Clara County. The County could make its own trade with Santa Clara County. In doing so, the discount rate 6 RCTC Minutes April 17, 1986 would still be the same but the advantage is that funds received from Santa Clara County would be immediately avail- able to the cities and the County who are willing to make the trade. If we allow Caltrans to transfer the funds, the funds would be tied up for approximately three years. Under the Caltrans plan, funds would not be returned until such time as funds have accumulated interest to bring the prin- cipal back up to the par value which would probably take about three years. Commissioner Younglove asked what is it about Santa Clara County that is worthwhile for the State to transfer $32 million funds all over the State. Barry Beck responded that the main reason is that they have a highway project that they could immediately use the money on. In addition, Santa Clara County recently passed a dedicated 1/2 cent sales tax for use on transportation projects. At this time, copies of the policies approved by the Subcom- mittee for allocating the funds were distributed to the Commission. Barry Beck informed the Commission that he met with the cities and the County regarding this matter. It was their desire that the trade be on a voluntary basis for each city and the County with a fair share balance of FAU funds to trade with Santa Clara County. The Commission would coor- dinate the trade and administer the exchanged funds. The Subcommittee also developed some policies on how the ex- changed funds would be allocated to the agency. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/COX) to: 1. Authorize the trade of FAU funds with Santa Clara County on the basis of 80 cents for each FAU dollar. 2. The amount of FAU funds to be traded will be the aggregate of the "fair share" FAU balances of the County and the cities wishing to trade funds. 3. The allocation of the funds received in exchange for the FAU dollars shall be allocated per the policies adopted by the FAU Subcommittee. 7. Status of Emergency Call Box System Proposal. Barry Beck stated that the County has not yet acted on the emergency call box system proposal and, therefore, Commis- RCTC Minute April 17, 198G sion staff has not approached the cities yet. He mentioned that when the Commission discussed the proposal last month, it was the consensus that the Commission be the authority rather than creating a single purpose agency. To facilitate this, staff felt that a better approach would be to seek an amendment to the legislation allowing a county commission to be designated as a SAFE directly. M/S/C (COX/CENICEROS) to seek legislation that allows a county transportation commission to be named as a Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies. 8. Legislation. Barry Beck said that there are several transportation - related bills introduced or revised that are of significance to the Commission. He said that SCA 12 would designate all fuel taxes and vehicle registration and use taxes as user fees and they would, therefore, not be subject to the Gann budget limitation provision. This is critical as the State's budget is close to the Gann limit and in order for us to see any increase in the gas tax or vehicle fees, it is very crucial that SCA 12 be passed. Eric Haley, SCAG, stated that SCA 12 seems to be breaking into partisan alignment and it would be very helpful if the Commission contacted Republican legislators for their support. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/COX) to adopt the staff recommendations and authorize the Chairman and the Executive Director to take the appropriate follow-up action to accomplish the objectives. 9. Release of TDA Funds Reserved for Transit. Barry Beck said that at the beginning of the fiscal year, the Commission set aside contingency funds in the event that federal funds would be cut back in response to the Adminis- tration's proposal to cut back operating funds and/or the Gramm Rudmann budget amendment. As it turned out, there was no cutback in transit operating funds so it is no longer necessary to retain the contingency funds. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/COX) to approve the relase of TDA funds that had been held in reserve for transit to the County and cities for street and road purposes. 8 RCTC Minutes April 17, 1986 10. FY 1986/87 Commission Budget. M/S/C (COX/YOUNGLOVE) to hold a public hearing on the FY 1986/87 Commission budget on May 15, 1986. 11. Executive Director's Report. A. AB 1246 Meeting. Barry Beck informed the Commission that an AB 1246 meeting between the county transportation commissions and SCAG was held this morning. He and Commissioner Cornelison attended the meeting. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the regional recommendation on the STIP. There was not much discussion on this matter since there were no funds available for the next STIP. SCAG presented their proposal for the 1986 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan. From the presentation, he is optimistic that the plan will be helpful to the entire region and SCAG has indicated that they are going to attempt to define a plan of improvements for the next 25 years. Also discussed was a policy proposed by SCAG governing fund trades. The recommendation was simply that the first priority of the fund trades be within the region and only if a trade cannot be affectuated within the region then could an agency trade outside the region. B. Change in I-215 Projects' Schedule. The I-215 project between Van Buren Boulevard and Route 60 is going to be delayed for five months which throws the project from the first quinquennium accounting period into the second period. The I-215 project between Van Buren Boulevard and Nuevo Road will be advanced one year. Caltrans is proposing that the project be moved up to FY 89-90. C. Proposed Cajalco Freeway. Copies of a number letters sent to Supervisor Walt Abraham were received protesting the Commission study- ing the possibility of establishing an expressway or freeway in that corridor. D. Possibility of Amtrak Service to Riverside. Staff has just learned that Amtrak proposes to reroute their Desert Wind service to Chicago from Los Angeles through Orange County and Riverside with a stop in San 9 RCTC Minutes April 17, 1986 Bernardino and Las Vegas. They've indicated that there is no problem of getting a stop in Riverside at the Santa Fe Depot as long as it is requested by either the City or County of Riverside and that the platform at the depot be reestablished. The train schedule, how- ever, will not be amenable to any kind of commuter service. M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/FEAGAN) to seek having the Amtrak Desert Wind service stop in Riverside and author- ize the Chairman and staff to pursue that ob- jective. E. CTC Dinner Hosted by SanBAG. SanBAG has invited the Commission to a dinner that they are hosting for the California Transportation Commis- sion on April 23rd in conjunction with the State Commi- ssion's meeting in Ontario on April 24th. They invited the Commission to make a presentation. Staff contacted members of the Commission to determine who will be attending the dinner and only two members have indi- cated that they will be able to attend. He recommended that unless there is a big turnout by the Commission that we should downplay a presentation. Commissioner Cornelison suggested that the Commission simply thank SanBAG for inviting the Commission and invite the CTC to come to Riverside next year. Commissioner Younglove stated that in order that RCTC not blow the opportunity for the CTC to come to Riverside County, the presentation should be rather brief and be a formal at -the -gathering invitation to the desert area to look at Route 86 and other problems in Riverside County. F. Meeting with Riverside City Council Transportation Committee. A meeting with members of Riverside's City Council Transportation Committee was to be held today but due to conflicting schedules, staff was unabled to schedule it. He said that he will try and schedule the meeting at the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Murphy noted that the League of Cities has scheduled a training session for Mayors and members of the City Councils in San Francisco on the same day as the Commission's meeting date next month and suggested that the meeting be scheduled for another date. 10 RCTC Minutes April 17, 1986 Commissioner Ceniceros requested that the Olympic Legacy Program be included in next month's agenda. 12. SunLine Transit Agency Line 19 Service Change. Dick Cromwell reported that SunLine's Line 19 backbone ser- vice is currently on a 30 -minute headway from Desert Hot Springs to Palm Springs to Coachella Monday -Saturday. The same service is on a 60 -minute headway on Sundays. The proposal is to run 30 -minute service only between Palm Springs to Indio. The other section of the line does not warrant the 30 -minute headways since it only produces 18% of the ridership. At the Indio -Coachella end, they propose to create a separate route that would service Downtown Indio and Coachella on 40 -minute headways and would tie in with Line 19. During the off-season, they're currently running the service on a 60 -minute headways between Desert Hot Springs and Coachella Monday -Saturday only. They would like to try to provide the seasonal service year round which would improve efficiency between Palm Springs and Indio and add the Sunday service from Desert Hot Springs to Coachella on a 60 -minute headways. They expect that the off-season improvement will increase ridership by at least 50%. They will provide the Commission with a report on the service changes in November, 1986. M/S/C (WILSON/CENICEROS) to approve SunLine's proposed service changes with the condition that SunLine prepare an evaluation report to be submitted to the Commission by November, 1986. 13. Adjournment. There being no other items to be discussed, Chairman Mansfield adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barry Beck Executive Director. nk 11 R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No. 5-86 May 15, 1986 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Vice Chairman Kay Ceniceros at 1:35 p.m. on Thursday, May 15, 1986, at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501. Members present: Kay Ceniceros Carmen Cox Norton Younglove Susan Cornelison Roy Wilson Alternates present: Don Baskett 2. Public Comments. There were no public comments. 3. Consent Calendar. Wayne Stuart M/S/C (COX/CORNELISON) to approve the following consent calendar items: A . RCTC Minutes. To approve the RCTC minutes of the April 17, 1986 meeting. B. FY 1986/87 UMTA Section 1$ Program To approve the FY 1986-87 UMTA Section 18 program of projects for Riverside County. C. FAU Project Addition a Project Schedule Change 1. To approve the addition of a traffic signal project at Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trail to the FAU Program for FY 1985/86. 2. To approve the rescheduling of the El Cielo Way widening project from FY 1986/87 to FY 1987/88. D. Proposed Bridge Replacement Projects, To approve the inclusion of the Guava Street and 49th Avenue bridge replacement projects in the Commission's Trans- portation improvement Program. RCTC Agenda Item No. 3A June 19, 1986 RCTC ?inutes May 15, 1986 4. 1987-91 Short Range Transit Plan. Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, said that the FY 1987-1991 Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside County includes the plans for seven small transit operators (Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Lake Elsinore, Palo Verde, Rancho Mirage, Riverside Special Services), the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). The plan for the next five years is basically a conti- nuation of existing services with some modifications in the ser- vice levels. Only one new service, a route between the San Corgcnio Pass area and Hemet, is being proposed. He then reviewed the service and capital improvements proposed by RTA and SunLine. He said that at the time the SunLine plan was reviewed with Sun - Line staff, concern was expressed regarding the high subsidies for the dial -a -ride services in Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs - Cathedral City, and Palm Desert. Staff recommends that SunLine be required to submit a report to the Commission in December on actions taken to increase ridership and reduce the subsidy per passenger trip for its dial -a -ride services. The Citizens Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed Short Range Transit Plan and recommended approval. M/S/C (CORNELISON/COX) to approve the FY 1987-1991 Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside County and require the SunLine Transit Agency to submit a report in December on actions taken to increase ridership and reduce the subsidy per passenger trip on its dial -a -ride services. 5. State Transit Assistance Program for FY 86-87. Paul Blackwelder stated that $1,682,000 in State Transit As- sistance funds is estimated to be available to Riverside County. The proposed program continues the Commission's commitment to operating projects at the same level as the current year. For bus acquisitions using no federal funds, STA amounts would be at 80% of the total cost and the remaining 20% would be funded with Transportation Development Act funds. An estimated $60,000 balance is available to program additional projects that may be identified during the year. Barry Beck, Executive Director, said that the City of Riverside is requesting $10,000 for the refurbishment of the Santa Fe depot platform. This was not included in the program because staff is currently investigating whether STA funds could be used to fund this project. Vice Chairman Ceniceros asked if there is a process to apply for the remaining unprogrammed STA funds and whether the request will brought before the Commission. 2 RCTC Minutes May 15, 1986 Barry Beck responded that any additional proposals using STA funds will be brought before the Commission. He added that unless current legislation is amended, no STA funds will be available in FY 1987-88 because of the decline in fuel prices. For FY 1986- 87, STA funds are to be funded out of the State General Fund account. M/S/C (WILSON/CORNELISON) to approve the proposed State Transit Assistance Program for FY 1986/87. 6. FY 1986-87 UMTA Section 9 Programs of Projects. Paul Blackwelder informed the Commission that the proposed programs contain eligible projects from the transit operators' FY 1987-1991 short range transit plans. As required by UMTA, a notice of public hearing was published in the newspaper and input on the programs was requested from the private transit operators. Commissioner Baskett asked which agencies are eligible to apply for UMTA Section 9 funds. Barry Beck said that UMTA Section 9 funds are available to transit operators. At this time, Vice Chairman Ceniceros opened the public hearing. There being there were no public testimony, the public hearing was closed. M/S/C (COX/WILSON) to approve the proposed FY 1986-87, UMTA Section 9 programs of projects for Riverside County. 7. Progress Report On Meeting Transit Needs. Barry Beck stated that the Commission, at the last meeting, re- quested staff to prepare a status report on efforts to meet iden- tified transit needs during the public hearing process. A majority of the proposed service improvements have been approved and have already been implemented or are scheduled for imple- mentation. Three service improvements are in the planning/study stage and staff is optimistic that they will be resolved in the next month or two. 8. Trade of IIMTA Section 9 Funds with the South Coast Area Transit Agency. Barry Beck noted that the amount of Section 9 funds being traded should be $446,408. Be told the Commission that Ventura County was to lose $446,408 in UMTA funds if they were not used by September 30, 1986 unless they spend it on a project that they didn't need. With regards to the overall trade with LACTC, it is coming to fruition. The SCAG TCC approved it and it will be 3 RCTC Minutes May 15, 1986 before the LACTC the end of this month. The item will be on the SCAG Executive Committee's agenda the first week of June. LACTC has indicated that they will be paying the traded funds in two increments - the first in July and the remaining in September. Vice Chairman Ceniceros commented on recent articles regarding the trading of funds. She said that the public does not realize the red tape that local agencies have to go through. It is so complex to get the right color of money for a particular project. M/S/C (COX/CORNELISON) to approve the proposed three-way trade of funds with SCAT and LACTC. 9. Follow -Up to Olympic Legacy Program. Barry Beck said that the Commission should discuss areas of RCTC involvement. Commissioner Cornelison said that when the item was discussed by the TCC, they came into realization that the papers will not be a working document but would be taken into consideration as the RTP was developed by SCAG. Vice Chairman Ceniceros stated that only 1/4 of the strategies are applicable to Riverside County. The 10-40 modified work week strategy would not be feasible for a small employee force but it could be done by employers with 1000+ employees that are con- centrated in one area. The County has been discussing the carpool issue whereby a two-week emergency period would be implemented. There are other things that could be done that are not part of the Olympic strategies. For instance, when new organizations come in an area that will have a major traffic impact. She mentioned that as an example in Riverside, there is plan by the County to move the Public Social Services and Mental Health Departments to the Riverside County General Hospital complex which is an area that is already congested. In addition, many other smaller traffic generators are beginning to cluster around that area and some- thing should be done such as carpooling, appropriate bus systems, etc. This would involve the City, County, RCTC, RTA and the private sector. Commissioner Baskett suggested that the City should set up some type of traffic district in the Tyler/Van Buren area because there are so many players involved. There needs to be some unique thinking for that area beyond the normal things that were done in the past. He mentioned that plans are underway to expand Tyler Mall which would further increase traffic. Also, Tyler Mall has an agreement with Caltrans to allow approximately 200 park and ride spaces in their property - except during the Christmas holiday season but it appears that there is in excess of 400 using it. 4 RCTC Minutes May 15, 1986 Commissioner Cornelison informed the Commission that the recom- mendation taken by the TCC was to simply approve the Olympic Legacy transportation policy issues as a general guideline, and consider the recommendations during the development of the RTP. It was the consensus of the Commission that items that may be agendized for the next meeting be: 1) park and ride facilities; 2) ramp meters; and, 3) advance transit plan for major generators. M/S/C (CORNELISON/WILSON) to direct staff to arrange reports for the Commission on a regular basis of those elements in the Olympic Legacy paper that might be able to be utilized in Riverside County. 10. FY 1986/87 RCTC Budget. Vice Chairman Ceniceros said that the Commission's Finance Committee composed of Commissioners Wilson, Cox and herself met and reviewed the proposed budget prior to the meeting and the Committee recommends approval of the budget. No testimony from the public on the budget was received. M/S/C (CORNELISON/COX) to approve the proposed FY 86-87 budget and authorize staff to claim $159,600 in TDA funds. 12. Miscellaneous Item. Commissioner Cox asked if there is something that the Commission could do with regards to ground access to Ontario Airport. She said that in the last month, because of trains passing nearby Ontario Airport, she has missed two flights. Barry Beck mentioned that SanBAG and the City of Ontario were asking for SCAG support of an overcrossing at the railroad tracks at Archibald Avenue, which will be the new main access of the airport. He said that this matter should be handled by SanBAC and the City of Ontario. He didn't feel Commission involvement was appropriate. 11. Executive Director's Report. A. Status of Emergency Call Box System. Barry Beck said that he still has not heard if the County has taken an action to endorse the emergency call box system. After that action is finally taken, staff is proposing that the Commission make a presentation before CVAG and the Mayors and Councilmen's Conference. After that process, the Commis- sion would then approach the cities for their support. In addition, staff has requested Senator Robert Presley's 5 RCTC Minutes May 15, 1986 assistance on the legislation to allow the commission to be directly named the authority. B. Legislation. Barry Beck mentioned that he received a letter from Senator Presley regarding SCA 12 indicating that he couldn't support the legislation. C. SCAG Proposal to Increase its Share of TDA Funds. Barry Beck informed the Commission that SCAG is proposing a legislative change to remove the $1 million cap in TDA funds allocated to SCAG. SCAG has given several reasons for want- ing to raise the TDA amount. The most compelling one is the impending shortfall of federal funds. Gramm-Rudmann has al- ready cut back SCAG funding by 4.3% and a further cut of 10- 20% next year is possible. Staff agrees that SCAG needs additional funds. At the same time, all transportation sec- tors are experiencing cuts. Therefore, staff is proposing that we simply not take away funds from operators and local agencies who are going to be hurt by reductions on federal aid for highways, revenue sharing, etc., but to take a look at where we could come up with some cost savings with those savings being added to SCAG's budget. He then distributed a proposal prepared by staff. The proposal is: 1) eliminate the $1 million cap; 2) change SCAG's percentage of TDA funds to 1/2%; 3) extend SCAG's statutory percentage of TDA funds to Imperial and Ventura Counties which new contribute, on a voluntary basis, substantially less than the four commission counties; 4) SCAG initiate discussions with the county com- missions and Caltrans to identify areas of overlapping re- sponsibility and identify costs that can be saved by elimi- nating unnecessary duplication; and, 5) and following that, consideration be given to increasing SCAG's percentage of TDA funds to 3/4% or whatever is necessary to insure adequate resources for SCAG. Commissioner Cornelison informed the Commission that during the discussion of this item by the TCC, she entered into the discussion the recommendations that RCTC staff would be pre- senting to the Commission without any recommendation because the matter has not been discussed by the Commission. She did not have sufficient time to poll the Commission members and because of this, she abstained from voting on the item. Barry Beck said that at the TCC meeting, it was made clear that the staff recommendations were not the official position of the Commission. 6 RCTC Minutes May 15, 1986 Vice Chairman Ceniceros noted that the Executive Committee did not have this item before them for action until the first Thursday of May. The Committee provisionally approved the proposal to increase SCAG's TDA planning funds through the legislative process. In addition, staff was directed to present the proposal to SCAG's policy committees for review and discussion and then the matter would be brought back tc the Executive Committee for final action next month. Eric Haley said that with the proposal, SCAG is proposing to raise the amount of money that would be generated in Riverside County by $55,000. The proposal that SCAG legis- latively initiate action to require Imperial and Ventura Counties to pay a full 3/4% of 1% would never be successful. His personal judgment is that it would be close tc zero chance to be able to move legislation like that even if they did want to. The reason that Imperial and Ventura Counties are treated differently is that they aren't county trans- portation commissions and that they are not required by law to pay anything to SCAG. Regarding Ventura County, they have met with the managers of the County and VCAG. The solution that is proposed in the adopted position by the TCC today of requiring mandatory legislation really runs counter to the fact that SCAG is a voluntary agency. Barry Beck spoke regarding the Imperial and Ventura County issue. He said that SCAG has to decide whether it is viable or not. He thinks that Riverside County at least has to bring up the issue of equity. All we are doing is recom- mending this to SCAG - that all six counties should pay equally. He doesn't think that Riverside and the other counties could just ignore the issue. Commissioner Younglove stated what the Commission should decide if we are committed to regional transportation plan- ning enough to provide a fair share. If we do not, the big clear losers are Riverside and San Bernardino Counties be- cause we have the largest regional transportation problems. Fe felt that if we can get the basic legislation through, we have to do it in the simpliest and most politically way we can, then we, with our voting representation at SCAG, could vote appropriately when it comes to using funds for projects in Ventura or Imperial Counties. M/S (YOUNGLOVE/CENICEROS) to support the recommended action as proposed by SCAG. Ayes: Ceniceros, Wilson, Younglove Noes: Cornelison, Cox The motion did not pass. 7 RCTC Minutes May 15, 1986 Barry Beck said that the reason the efficiency issue was tied in is that because we have been trying for a number of years to address it and have been unsuccessful with SCAG. Barry Beck noted that the SCAG TDA audit did mention that there is a problem with TDA administration. Be thinks that there is substantial savings to be accrued if we could get rid of the overlap between the commissions and SCAG. If we let SCAG get the $2 million, there won't be an incentive for SCAG to really negotiate. This issue has been brought up year after year and nothing has happened. M/S/C (YOUNG-LOVE/WILSON) to: 1) Approve SCAG recommendations 1 & 2. 2) Ask for a convening of a meeting between SCAC and the other county transportation commissions with the explicit purpose of identifying priorities, efficiency, and use of funds. 3) To vigorously pursue the financial responsibilities of Imperial and Ventura Counties with the basic objective of achieving their fair share funding or, in the alternative, restraints on SCAG's use of the money from the four county transportation com- missions to provide subsidized service to Imperial and Ventura Counties. It was the consensus that staff convey to SCAG RCTC's con- cerns in a formal way and address the letter to the President of the Executive Committee and the Chairman of the TCC. Commissioner Cornelison said that she is a little distraught that any question of the SCAG recommendation was perceived as an attack on SCAG. She wondered if she could make a request through Commissioner Ceniceros that members of the TCC es- pecially those that have to represent other bodies rather than citizen individuals have access to agenda items and recommended actions slightly earlier. Vice Chairman Ceniceros said that this is a common frus- tration of members of the Executive Committee as well as members of the policy committees. 8 RCTC Minutes May 15, 1986 13. Adjournment. There being no other items to consider, Vice Chairman Ceniceros adjourned the meeting at 3:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barry Beck Executive Director nk 9