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