HomeMy Public PortalAbout07 July 8, 1985 Citizens Advisory040237
R IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
July 8, 1985, 1:30 P.M.
Riverside CityHall, 5th Floor Conference Room
3900 Main Street, Riverside 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Moreno Valley Transit Improvements.
4. TDA Fare Revenue Ratio Study.
5. I-215 Report.
6. Other Business.
7. Adjournment.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 4-85
June 10, 1985
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by Vice Chairman Rena Parker on Monday, June 10, 1985
at 1:36 p.m., at the Riverside City Hall, 5th Floor
Conference Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside 92522.
Members Present: Members Absent:
Terry H. Allen
Jordis Cameron
Marian Carpelan
Herb Krauch
Ben Minnich
Joanne Moore
Rena Parker
Laurence M. Weinberg
Others Present:
.Kay Van Sickel, RTA
Harry Brinton
Dick Jandt
Shiela Velez
Bertram Vinson
Ran Wyder
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (WEINBERG/ALLEN) to approve the minutes of the
Citizens Advisory Committee meeting held on April 8,
1985 as submitted.
3. Quarterly Transit Operations Report.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, presented the staff
report on ridership and costs for the third quarter of the
year. He then noted the new graphs included in the report
showing the subsidy per passenger for fixed route and Bial-
a -ride services operated by the Riverside Transit Agency and
the SunLine Transit Agency.
Vice Chairman Parker asked how the Palo Verde Valley Transit
Agency has managed to keep their cost per vehicle hour down.
Paul Blackwelder responded that PVVTA's dial -a -ride service
is operated by the Palo Verde Valley Handicapped Association
and the agency's low cost per vehicle hour may be due to low
overhead expenses.
Vice Chairman Parker requested staff to contact Palo Verde
Valley Transit Agency to determine why that agency's cost
per vehicle hour service is much lower than other transit
agencies and to note the reasons in the next report.
1
Barry Beck, Executive Director, pointed out that the dial -a -
ride subsidies per passenger for SunLine shown on the graph
are high. SunLine is planning some changes to reduce these
costs. The Palm Springs and Palm Desert dial -a -ride ser-
vices will be operated by the senior centers. The contracts
will be on a per passenger basis and should result in a
lower subsidy per passenger.
4. Citizens Advisory Committee Activities in Other County
Transportation Commissions
Paul Blackwelder reviewed and discussed the staff report on
the compositions and acitivities of the citizens advisory
committees of other commissions.
Ben Minnich commented that he does not have a concept on the
function of the Committee and wondered if the Commission
even looks at Committee recommendations.
Paul Blackwelder replied that the Committee was established
to make recommendations on all transportation matters. All
Committee recommendations are received and reviewed by the
Commission. There have been no directives from the Commis-
sion on matters or issues that the Committee should deal
with. In the past, the Committee has limited itself pri-
marily to public transit issues because most of the members
were interested in this particular area.
Larry Weinberg mentioned one instance where a motion taken
by the Committee on SB 290 was not reported to the
Commission.
Paul Blackwelder said that the Committee's action on SB 290
was not forwarded to the Commission because the Commission
had already taken a position to support SB 290. Also, the
action by the Committee pointed out that SB 290's funding
source was unfair but there was no suggestionon anothersource
of funds was made.
Barry Beck agreed with Larry Weinberg that staff should have
reported the Committee's action on SB 290 to the Commission
regardless of whether or not they had already taken action.
Normally, however, if the Commission has already taken
action on an item and the Committee recommends a change of
position, the Committee, in addition to the recommendation,
forwards some justification why the Commission should res-
cind its previous position. Lacking that justification,
staff was in an awkward position of what to do with the
recommendation.
Ben Minnich said that he would personally like to see the
Committee address other aspects of transportation and not
limit its activities to public transit issues.
2
Terry Allen stated that one subject that he is interested in
is the need to obtain funding for secondary roads which are
in poor condition. For example, the Sanderson crossing.
Paul Blackwelder suggested to Committee members to add
topics of interest to them to the list of issues for dis-
cussion previously developed by the Committee.
Barry Beck said that, if the Committee so desires, staff
could bring reports prepared by Caltrans on the various
highways before the Committee. He noted the slowness of
the process for getting improvements done on highways. Pro-
jects currently underway are I-15 between Norco and Corona
and I-215 which will be under construction in two years.
5. Route 79 Report.
Terry Allen said that it is regretful that Caltrans has not
acquired additional right-of-way needed to widen Route 79
before the area experiences growth and land becomes expen-
sive.
Barry Beck said that there are two issues on Route 79: the
redesignation of Route 79 to Sanderson Avenue and the safety
problem on Lambs Canyon. Because of flooding problems at the
river crossing, a proposal was made to reroute Route 79
through Sanderson Avenue. If Sanderson Avenue became Route
79, the State could then build a bridge to correct the
problem. The State has indicated a willingness to the
change but cannot guarantee that they will build a bridge.
Also, they will only consider the redesignation if there is
a consensus between local agencies (Hemet, San Jacinto,
Riverside County). There has been a problem getting a
consensus at the local level. San Jacinto opposed the
proposal because once Route 79 is relocated the city would
be responsible for maintaining the old route. Meetings
between the respective agencies are planned to work out a
solution. He said that the problem could probably be re-
solved if Riverside County agrees to provide some of the
funds needed for maintaining the road.
Barry Beck continued that with regards to Lambs Canyon, five
years ago there were_ funds available to straighten one of
the curves. The Commission was approached by Caltrans to
use these funds for an improvement project on Route 60 which
has a higher accident rate. They advised the Commission
that the problem on Lambs Canyon was partially alleviated by
some signing and striping work that they have done. Cal -
trans is now indicating that they would like to do the Lambs
Canyon project but it is no longer a priority project be-
cause its accident statistics are low. He then noted that
the same type of funds that are used on Route 60 are to be
used for Route 86. Route 86 has been the Commission's No.
1 priority as it has a much worse safety record. Another
project competing for the same type of funding is a widening
3
project on Route 74 through Perris.
Laurence Weinberg reminded the Committee of comments made by
Herb Krauch two or three months ago concerning the varying
widths of Route 79 which is a very important safety factor.
Herb Krauch described the problem along Lambs Canyon and
said that installation of signs and guardrails could ease
the safety problem.
Barry Beck said that the Committee could make a recommen-
dation to the Commission on this matter but suggested that
prior to doing so that staff first approach Caltrans staff
of the problem. He will informed the Committee on Caltrans
response to the problem.
It was determined by the Committee that staff include a
report on I-215 for the next meeting.
6. State Transportation Financing Legislation.
Barry Beck informed the Committee that SB 290 is dead. Two
other bills to increase funding for transportation purposes
have been introduced and are moving through the Legislature.
SB 300 (Foran) and AB 2341 (Katz) would increase funding for
State highways, local streets and roads, and transit by
using existing State funds. Both bills were passed out of
the Policy Committee but still must go before the Finance
Committee. Both bills would redirect sales tax on diesel
fuel to transportation. The Foran bill would put the funds
into the Transportation Planning and Development Account
using 40% for guideway projects and 60% to be allocated by
formula for transit purposes. Katz' bill would put the
funds into the State Highway Account to help make-up the
projected shortfall. It would also increase the truck
weight fees by 50% and put the funds in the State Highway
Account. This increase would generate approximately $800
billion for- four years. Staff will include the two bills on
the Commission's June agenda but no action for support will
be recommended because the bills are currently in a state of
flux.
Barry Beck continued and said that there is a growing
interest statewide for a local option sales tax to generate
additional funds for local streets and roads, state high-
ways, and transit. A statewide bill (AB 2329) was intro-
duced to allow an agency such as the commission to put a
local sales tax in the ballot but the bill did not get out
of the Policy Committee and will now become a two-year bill.
The chance of the bill passing is less than 50%. At one
time, it was thought that the bi 11 would be supported by the
Governor because the responsibility for increasing taxes
would be placed with the voters. One reason that the bill
did not get out of the Policy Committee is that the bill
requires approval of the tax by a majority of the voters in
4
the county. The Policy Committee felt that it should re-
quire a two-thirds vote in the spirit of Proposition 13.
Santa Clara County has just passed legislation for a 1/2
cent sales tax for 3-4 specific state highway projects. A
few other counties are interested in this concept on an
individual basis. San Diego County is moving ahead with
their bill which would give San Diego County the ability to
enact a 1/2 cent or 1 cent sales tax to be used for projects
that the local transportation commission approves. Other
counties that are interested are Contra Costa, Fresno and
Sacramento. The problem with counties going this way is
that the State will delegate the responsibility to fund
transportation to local agencies. Small counties with a lot
of road miles to maintain but with a very small tax base
would be devastated if this is the route taken.
7. Short Range Transit Plans - Approved.
Paul Blackwelder stated that the Commission approved the FY
1986-1990 Short Range Transit Plans for all public transit
operators in the County except for the cities of Banning and
Rancho Mirage. Recommendations by the Committee that a
study be conducted on the Corona -Norco dial -a -ride service
to determine if fixed -route service would provide better
service and increase ridership, and implementing a separate
line between Moreno Valley and Perris rather than rerouting
Line 27 were incorporated into the plan. Funding was
included in RTA's budget for a service between the Pass area
and Hemet.
With regards to the SunLine plan, the Commission left the
Palm Desert Trolley service and the proposed expansion of
Line 4 to run on Saturday in the plan. Funding for these
services will not be approved until SunLine submits and the
Commission approves a report outlining efforts to be taken
to increase ridership and containing ridership and subsidy
per passenger trip goals prior to starting these services.
The Commission reserved approval on the service level for
North Palm Springs until further details on the service are
submitted by SunLine. The two day/week single round trip
service implemented in July has not been successful and
attracted only 4-5 passengers/day. The SunLine Board has
now approved a dial -a -ride service to supplement the fixed -
route service. Residents of the area told SunLine that one
major problem for the elderly is walking to and from the
route. They believe that a dial -a -ride service will attract
more ridership. A report will be submitted by SunLine at
the end of the three-month operation containing a recommen-
dation on whether or not to continue the service.
M/S/C (ALLEN/WEINBERG) to recommend that the Commission
accept the service improvement proposed by the SunLine
Transit Agency for the North Palm Springs area for a
three month period from June to August.
5
8. Banning & Rancho Mirage Short Range Transit Plans.
Paul Blackwelder reviewed the Banning and Rancho Mirage
short range transit plans. The City of Banning is proposing
restructuring its fixed -route service from a single route to
two routes. The two -route system has been planned for
several years. Two new buses funded by a federal capital
assistance grant have been delivered and will allow the two -
route system to start in July. Banning is also proposing a
dial -a -ride service for the elderly and handicapped as a
result of testimony received at the unmet needs hearing.
The dial -a -ride service will be combined with the existing
Cabazon to Banning service. The service will be operated
Monday -Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Service between Cabazon
and Banning will be provided by three trips/day on Monday,
Wednesday and Friday. The service will be scheduled on a
24 -hour advance reservation system. The dial -a -ride fare
will be $0.75 and the fixed -route fare will remain at $0.45.
The City of Rancho Mirage requested Commission staff to
prepare a short range transit plan for them. By having a
short range transit plan approved, Rancho Mirage will be
eligible to claim TDA funds to support their dial -a -cab
service. Rancho Mirage contracts with the Desert Cab
Company. Service is available Monday -Saturday from 7:30
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The service area includes three destina-
tions outside the city (College of the Desert, Cathedral
City Shopping Center, Mission Plaza Shopping Center). The
service carries 8-10 passengers/day at a subsidy/passenger
trip of $4-$5/passenger..
M/S/C (WEINBERG/KRAUCH) to recommend Commission
approval of the Banning and Rancho Mirage FY 1986-1990
Short Range Transit Plan.
9. Remarks and Announcements.
Kay Van Sickel informed the Committee that public hearings
to receive input on the need for fixed route service between
Moreno Valley and Perris will be held in Moreno Valley and
Perris in July.
In response to Terry Allen's question when RTA will be
conducting the survey on the need for transit service
between Beaumont and Hemet, Kay Van Sickel said that a
newspaper survey had been conducted using local newspapers
in Beaumont, Hemet, San Jacinto and the Press Enterprise.
She said that RTA received most of the response through the
Press Enterprise ads. The respondents have indicated some
need for transit service for shopping and medical services.
There is more of a need for transit service from
Beaumont/Banning to Hemet than vice versa. Very few res-
pondents indicated a need to use public transit service for
work.
6
Terry Allen suggested that perhaps a monthly pass could be
sold through Deutsch Industries. Kay Van Sickel said that
there was very limited response from Deutsch employees and
that they would probably be better served if they carpool.
10. Adjournment.
There being no other business to come before the Committee,
Vice Chairman Parker adjourned the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
--Paul Blackwelder
Assistant Director
nk
7
ITEM NO. 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Moreno Valley Transit Improvements
The Riverside Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan calls
for starting a new route to provide Perris to Moreno Valley
intercity service and additional local service within Moreno
Valley. The attached chaps show the alternatives being considered
by RTA. Public hearings on these alternatives are scheduled to
be held in Moreno Valley on July 9th and in Perris on July 10th.
The RTA Board is scheduled to select the alternative at the end
of July and start service in September. Moreno Valley is cur-
rently served by Line 16 (Riverside -Moreno Valley) and Line 18
(local route).
Alternative I reroutes Line 18 to serve the northwest area of the
city near Ironwood Avenue/Pigeon Pass Road and the area east of
March Air Force Base (MAFB) between the Base and Perris Boule-
vard. The route is extended to Perris to provide intercity
service from Perris to Moreno Valley. The line would operate on
a one -hour headway using two buses. This single route provides
very circuitous routing for all riders. Line 16 service would
remain unchanged.
Alternative II leaves Line 18 on its existing alignment. A
second route is added to provide service from Perris to Moreno
Valley and local service to the Pigeon Pass Road/Ironwood Avenue
area and the area near the east gate of MAFB. Neither ❑f the
areas would be provided with direct service to the high school.
Both routes require one bus and would operate on hourly headways.
Line 16 service would remain unchanged.
Alternative III modifies Line 18 to provide less local service
and extends the line to Perris for intercity service. A second
route would be started to service the areas previously served by
Line 18 and two new areas; the Pigeon Pass Road/Ironwood Avenue
area and the area between the MAFB east gate and Perris Boule-
vard. Line 16 would be moved from Indian Avenue to Heacock
Street between Cottonwood Avenue and Sunnymead Boulevard.
RTA staff will be present at the meeting to discuss the alterna-
tives being considered for expanding service in the Moreno Valley
area.
Staff has reviewed the alternatives and considers Alternative III
as the best proposal for expanding the service. The two major
destination points in Moreno Valley are the high school and the
shopping center at Alessandro Boulevard and Perris Boulevard.
The two areas generating the most riderhip are the areas south
and west of the raceway near Day Street and the Warner Ranch area
1
CAC Agenda Item No, 3
July 8, 1985
east of MAFB. The Route 18 modification provides more direct
service between these two areas and the high school and shopping
center. By reducing the travel time, this routing could increase
ridership from both areas. The shopping center at Alessandro and
Perris Boulevards is expected to be the destination for most
riders from Perris. This shopping center has the R -Mart Store,
movie theaters and other stores. The new local route provides
service to the high school, junior high school and all remaining
shopping centers.
PB:nk
SIDE
I.r.,14-
Ak Fora.
-
BLVD
41
;'has:
Bo..
'-4
r
ont Ed e
Curran .L -
Ar Fore.
•
I
—4
ums-m---+--
Tr-
F
SQ II"�
',ammo, cL,Fr re
4LF Tar u
Id
, ; i,9MCfiimE I
IIjj •. �ry
� :i' ''�: - ramie. ! -
e ash 1 ..... 3
1 riil� . a 1 m : �� 'f
KLPIAIMIM .
-t-
- —+
/11
Ivo4 r
- ------ —
Ni
IN
1
I 1 1
T+— --------+
1'
_
•
1I
1
.? 1-. .;vt,
xtia'Sle•
T77
•
y111�1 I
+ _
e cif . '
44.
,....._ a \ I..
1 1
I
IT"' -irJiiir • / 1wws1i
/1 Y I
II I
L
. ...--s511fs‘ri•.
..1
V 1
grow
1 I
1� 1
11 Mal.
.11 ,
ITTMI
4-i
2 '_j_
F
44 1 1!
41"
T
rnr
{ 1(1.1
+
- -
• L^
4404414 44.4444.4.444.
I. I
I. I
ova I
.42 _
ant I ;d ! e
BRIO. RU
NM MI
-1- — —
old
j
Air Cwce
Ono
44.
.
—croup ,av— - —
;1
-
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: TDA Fare Revenue Ratio Study
Caltrans has hired a consultant to study the impacts of the
State required minimum fare revenue to operating cost
ratios. This study was required by the Legislature and a
report is due to the Legislature at the end of August. The
consultant has mailed a questionnaire to transit operators
and plannin-g.agencies throughout the State. Workshops have
been scheduled to discuss problems created by the minimum
ratio requirements and possible solutions. Transit oper-
ators from Riverside and other southern counties have been
invited to a workshop at SCAG on July 9th.
Over the years, the Commission has obtained legislative
changes in the minimum ratio requirements for Riverside
County transit operators. The requiremetns, as they now
stand, work quite well for our operators. Our initial
feeling is that there should be no changes. Any change
needed to solve a localized problem should be accomplished
on an individual basis as we have done in the past. Staff
will provide additional information and discuss the ratio
requirements further at the meeting.
BB/pb:nk
CAC Agenda Item No. 4
July 8, 1985
Agenda Item No. 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: I-215
Attached is a route concept report for I-215 that was pre-
pared by Caltrans recently. The report identifies required
capacity improvements as follows:
Segment Existing Lanes proposed Lanes
I-15 to Newport Rd. 4 6
Van Buren Blvd. to Rte. 60 4 6
Rte. 60 (East) to Rte. 91 6 8
Rte. 60 (West) to S.B. Co. Line 6 10
In addition to the lane requirements, the report also calls
for conversion of I-215 to freeway standards between Perris
and Route 60.
The 1984 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
includes $25 million to convert I-215 to a six -lane freeway
between Van Buren Boulevard and Route 60. This work is
scheduled to begin in FY 1987/88. The just adopted 1985
STIP adds about $25 million to convert I-215 to a four -lane
freeway between Nuevo Road (Perris) and Van Buren Boulevard.
Environmental and preliminary engineering work has begun,
but construction on this section will not start until around
1990.
BB:nk
Attachment
1
CAC Agenda Item No. 5
July 8, 1985
ROUTE CONCEPT REPORT SUMMARY
ROUTE 215
08-Riv-215-R9.0/08-SBd-215-17.8
DRMT
MAR 15 1984
The attached Route Concept Report defines the overall concept for
development of Route 215 in District 8 for a 20 -year planning
period (1985-2005).
In. summary, the proposed concept is to provide a "B" level of
service for the rural stretch of 215 between the South Junction of
Route 15 and Newport Road near Sun
215, an urban highway, the concept
between Newport Road and Route 259
level of service between Route 259
City. For the remainder of
provides a "D" level of service
in San Bernardino and a "C"
and the North Junction of Route
15. This will necessitate adding two lanes (one in each direction)
between South Junction of Route 15 and Newport Road and between
Nuevo Road and the West Junction of Route 60. The concept will
also necessitate adding four lanes (two in each direction) between
West Junction of Route 60 and Route 259 and two lanes (one in each
direction) to the remainder of Route 215. Geometric restrictions
between the West Junction of Route 60 and Route 259 are so severe
that adding two (2) lanes in each direction to achieve a "D" level
of service may be prohibited by excessive environmental, right of
way, and construction costs and could be politically sensitive due
to community distruption.
TSA15LI
ROUTE DESCRIPTION
DR T
VAR 15
ROUTE CONCEPT REPORT
ROUTE 215
8-Riv-215-R9.0/8-SBd-215-17.8
Interstate Route 215 is a Principal Arterial which begins at the
southern junction of Route 15 near Temecula in Riverside County
and terminates at the northern junction of Route 15 near Devore in
San Bernardino County, a length of 54.4 miles.
ROUTE PURPOSE
Primary Purpose - Interregional travel
Secondary Purpose - Intraregional/local travel
The portion of Route 215 between the east junction of Route 60 and
the northern junction of Route 15 near Devore is part of the
Subsystem of Highways for the Movement of Extra -Legal
Permit Loads (SHELL).
In addition, 215 is part of the FHWA's Proposed Final Designation
of Routes for Larger Trucks.
Route 215 is a :major route which, in conjunction with Route 15,
links southern Riverside/San Diego Counties and the
Riverside/San Bernardino urbanized area.
As such, 215 carries
commute, recreational, commercial and local traffic.
Segments 5, 6 and 7,
which stretch from the junction with 60/91 to
the junction with 259, link the San Bernardino area to Riverside.
ments, in conjunction with Route 91, also link the
These se g
ardino area to Orange County/southern Los Angeles/
San Bern ortion of
Long,
Beach and comprise the most heavily traversed p
Route 215.
Segment 4, which lies between the east and west
Finally,
with 60, provides route continuity for Route 60 from Los
east
to Sunnymead and Interstate' Route 10 near Beaumont.
junctions
Angeles
PARALLEL STATE ROUTES
to Route 15 parallels Route 215 on the west from the
Interstate unction
southern junction with 215 near Temecula to the northern j
at Devore. Route 15 is a 4- to 8 -lane freeway in
with 21 5
except for a 1.1 mile stretch of conventional highway
District 8 being upgraded to
near Riverside County Line, which is currently
hway from Junction 91 to
freeway, and for the stretch of hig Interstate
ion 60, which will be built as_a freeway by 1988•
Junction ;unction
Route carries 20,000 vehicles per day at the southern
unction.
with
215 and 26,000 vehicles per day at the northern j
EXISTING FACILITY
a four- to six -lane freeway
at Ethanac Road in Segment
of expressway from the intersection
junction with Route 60 (Segment 3).
includes interchanges at Van Buren Boulevard
Expressway, both of which have been built to
Route 215 is
intersection
2
with Neuvo
except for an at -grade
and a 10.5 mile segment
Road to the east
This expressway
segment
and Ramona
freeway standards.
CURRENT OPERATING CONDITIONS
Level of Service (LOS) 1
Route 215 is operating at the following levels of service:
Urban/Rural Operating
Segment Area Limits LOS1 Speed
1 Rural S Jct 15 to Newport Rd A 60
2 Urban Newport Rd to Nuevo Rd B 55
3 Urban Nuevo Rd to E Jct 602 C 50
4 Urban E Jet 60 to W Jct 60 D/E 45
5 Urban W Jct 60 to SBd/Riv Co Ln C 50
6 Urban SBd/Riv Co Ln to Rte 10 C 50
7 Urban Rte 10 to Rte 259 E 30
8 Urban Rte 259 to N Jct 15 (Devore) C 55
Currently, Segments 4 and 7 are operating at a "D/E" and "E" LOS
respectively with corresponding volume -capacity (V/C) ratios of
0.87 and 0.99. Segment 4 will need an additional lane in each
direction within the next five years to maintain a "D" target LOS.
The V/C ratio of 0.99 for Segment 7 exceeds the maximum threshold
V/C ratio of 0.95 established by the Problem Identification
Criteria for a 6 -lane urban freeway. Also, preliminary surveys
1LOS and Operating Speed are calculated values based upon
empirical data and may vary from actual conditions. See attached
exhibits for supplemental facility characteristics and operating
conditions.
2Four-lane expressway at present (1983 STI.P projects programmed to
upgrade expressway segment to a four and six -lane freeway).
-3-
indicate that evening peaks along Segment 7 last a minimum of one
hour (from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m.) with operating speeds of less than 35
mph, the minimum threshold speed listed in the Problem
Identification Criteria. Furthermore, this segment needs the
immediate addition of one lane in each direction to provide a
target LOS for present traffic volumes.
nD„
Accidents
None of the eight segments of Route 215 approach or exceed the
maximum threshold levels established by the Problem Identification
Criteria.
CURRENT (83) STIP AND
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Segment 2 - 1.0 mile - Construct Interchange at Ethanac Road
(1987-88 FY of 1983 STIP)
Segment 3 - 6.3 miles - Upgrade to freeway from 0.5 mile south of
Nuevo Road -to 0.5 mile south of
Van Buren Boulevard (1986-87 FY of
1983 STIP).
- 3.6 miles - Convert to 6 -lane freeway from 0.5 mile
north of Van Buren Boulevard to East
Junction 60 (1987-88 FY of 1983 STIP).
ROUTE CONCEPT (2005)
Target LOS
Rural Area
Segment 1
Urban Area
Segments 2-7
Segment 8
Lane Requirements - 2005
LOS "B" length, 9.5 miles
LOS "D" length, 35.7 miles
LOS "C"* length, 9.2 miles
Existing Required Additional Length
Segment (1982) (2005) Required (Miles)
1 4 6 2 9.5
2 4 4 0 9.4
3 4[6]** 6 2[0]** 10.5
4 6 8 2 5.2
5 6 10 4 2.0
6 6 10 4 4.0
7 6 10 4 4.6
8 4 6_ 2 9.2
For Segments 1, 3, 4 and 8, only two additional lanes (one in each
direction) are needed by 2005 to maintain a "D" target LOS for
increased traffic volumes.
* Rolling terrain and traffic with urban characteristics.
** Proposed STIP projects will convert 4 -lane expressway to a
4 -lane freeway south of Van Buren Boulevard and to a 6 -lane
freeway north of the Boulevard.
-5-
For Segments 5, 6 and 7, four additional lanes (two in each
direction) are needed by 2005.• In these segments, geometric
restrictions (e.g., narrow right of way, medians and bridge
structures) are so severe that adding four lanes and attaining a
"D" target LOS may be prohibited by excessive environmental, right
of way and construction costs and could be politically sensitive
due to community disruption.
ALTERNATE CONCEPTS CONSIDERED
Lower Target LOS
A lower target LOS for 215 was rejected on the grounds that an LOS
lower than "B" for Segment 1, lower than "D" for Segments 2-7 and
lower than "C" for Segment 8 would not be consistent with State-
Standards.for urban and rural Principal Arterials.* However, if
improvement costs are excessive in attaining the target LOS, then
a lower target LOS may have to be accepted.
Higher Target LOS
A higher target LOS was rejected on the grounds of the excessive
improvement costs associated with raising the target LOS above
State standards.
*Urban areas - LOS "D"
Rural areas - LOS "B" (LOS "C" in rolling or mountainous terrain)
ALTERNATE IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED
No Build
The No Build (no additional lanes) alternative was rejected as it
fails to provide the target LOS for seven segments (1, 3, & 4-8) of
215 -as indicated in the following table:
Target V/C1 LOS1 0peratingl
Segments LOS (2005) (2005) Speed
1 B 0.60 C 50
2 D 0.61 C 50
3 D 0.972 E 30
4 D 1.18 E/F <30
5 D 1.43 E/F <30
6 D 1.29 E/F <30
7 D 1.33 E/F <30
8 C 0.85 D 45
Two Added Lanes
The alternative of adding only two lanes (one in each direction)
along Segments 5, 6 and 7 fails to provide the target LOS as
indicated in the following table.
1Based on 2005 P.ADT and Post-STIP facility.
2Based on a 4 -lane freeway.
However, this alternative does improve the V/C ratios and
operating speeds over the no -build alternative.
Target V/C1 LOS1 0peratingl
Segments LOS (2005) (2005) Speed
5 D 1.07 E/F <30
6 D 0.97 E 35
7 D 1.00 E/F <30
1Based on 2005 AADT and two additional lanes.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Various TSM and operational improvements to 215 should be
investigated, especially along Segments 5, 6 and 7. These
segments comprise the most heavily traversed portion of Route 215
and link the San Bernardino area to Riverside and, in conjunction
with Route 91, Orange County and southern Los Angeles. The long-
distance nature of commute travel between Orange/Los Angeles/
Long Beach and the San Bernardino/Riverside area combined with
Commuter Computer's strengthened ridesharing efforts should expand
the number of carpools/buspools along Segments 5, 6 and 7 of
Route 215. Also, morning and evening peak -hour ramp -metering and
the designation of any new lanes for HOV use should be examined
for these segments.
TRAFFIC FORECAST METHODOLOGY
The 2005 ADTs were calculated utilizing the Growth Rate and the
Present (1982) ADT found in the 1983 State Highway Inventory
Route Segment Report. The percent of ADT in the Design Hour was
adjusted downward somewhat from that found in the inventory in
order to calculate a Design Hour consistent with those found on
higher volume freeways.
The 2005] Volume -Capacity (V/C) Ratios were calculated using the
Geometric Factor and the Truck Grade Factor found in the
inventory. - A Peak Hour Factor of 1.0 was used in calculating both
current and 2005 operating levels of service.
It is recognized that other studies are currently under way to
determine future year traffic forecasts for major arterials in the
Riverside/San Bernardino ur: ized area. At such time as the
results of these studies are available, any significant
differences will be reconciled.
COORDINATION
Route 215 is entirely within District 8 and inter -district
coordination is not applicable.
RCTC MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 5-85
May 16, 1985
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commis-
sion was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison at
1:37 p.m. on Thursday, May 16, 1985, at the Riverside
County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. The Chairman noted that a
quorum was present.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Susan Cornelison
Carmen Cox
Alternates present:
Pat Murphy
2. Approval of Minutes.
Melba Dunlap
Jean Mansfield
Roy Wilson
Wayne Stuart
M/S/C (MANSFIELD/WILSON) to approve the minutes of the
April 18, 1985 meeting as presented.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. FY 1986-1990 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, stated that Short
Range Transit Plans for the five municipal operators (Beau-
mont, Corona, Lake Elsinore, Palo Verde Valley, and
Riverside Special Services) were prepared by Commission
staff. The Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit
Agency prepared their respective plans. Plans for the
cities of Banning and Rancho Mirage will be presented to the
Commission at the June meeting. The Banning City Council,
at its meeting on May 14th, approved dial -a -ride service for
the elderly and handicapped and a second fixed route.
Rancho Mirage plans to submit a Short Range Transit Plan
for their presently City -funded dial -a -ride service in order
to be eligible to use TDA funds for the service. He then
gave a summary of the service expansion and improvements and
capital improvements as proposed in the transit operators'
plans.
1
RCTC Minutes
May 16, 1985
Paul Blackwelder, referring to the graphs showing the sub-
sidies per passenger, said the SunLine graph shows that
subsidies projected for the Palm Springs and Palm Desert
dial -a -rides are higher than should be experienced next
year. Based on contracts negotiated with the senior
centers, the subsidies for next year should be lower than
shown. The North Palm Springs subsidy is also high as
SunLine is projecting no increase in ridership. They will
be meeting with theresidentsof North Palm Springs to
discuss proposals to improve the service. Staff feels that
the ridership level should be higher which would reduce the
projected subsidy.
SunLine is proposing implementing Saturday service on Line
4. RCTC staff is not recommending funding for this because
of the high cost per passenger.
The Palm Desert Trolley service has been operating for two
years and has averaged 40-45 passengers carried per day this
year. In addition to the subsidy shown on the chart, the
City of Palm Desert is paying approximately $100/day to
lease the trolleys. Since this service only transports
visitors of Palm Desert between Palm Desert Town Center and
specialty shops along El Paseo Drive at high subsidy levels,
we do not believe that the service should be funded. Staff
is recommending that both services remain in the Plan but
that funding not be approved unless SunLine submits a report
to the Commission prior to starting the services showing the
efforts that SunLine intends to undertake to increase rider-
ship and goals for ridership and subsidy per passenger. If
the Commission accepts the ridership and subsidy goals,
funding would then be approved until March 1st. SunLine
would be required to submit a follow-up report to the Com-
mission by February 1st showing the actual ridership and
subsidy levels for the two services. This report would be
the basis for Commission approval of further funding of the
services.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, said that in reviewing Sun -
Line's plan, staff discovered some discrepancies in the
subsidy per passenger data for the Palm Springs Line 4 and
Palm Desert Trolley services. The report that SunLine will
submit to the Commission may include revised data which
could potentially lower the subsidy per passenger costs for
both services.
2
RCTC Minutes
May 16, 1985
Commissioner Ceniceros said that when she spoke with Dick
Cromwell about North Palm Springs, he said that they are
looking at supplementing a fixed route service which hasn't
worked very well and propose modifying that line to add more
trips and also have available return trips by dial -a -ride.
She said that this is not shown in the Plan for North Palm
Springs.
Paul Blackwelder stated that the Commission could approve
SunLine's plan as submitted but noting that further recom-
mendations are forthcoming for the North Palm Springs ser-
vice which will be presented at the Commission's June meet-
ing.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/COX) to:
1) Approve the FY 1986-1990 Riverside County Short
Range Transit Plan for Beaumont, Corona, Lake
Elsinore, Palo Verde Valley, Riverside Special
Services, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine
Transit Agency and funding for the .proposed FY
1986 levels of service except for the SunLine
Transit Agency Line 4 Saturday service and the
Palm Desert Trolley services, and with the under-
standing that further details on North Palm
Springs will be submitted by SunLine and acted on
by the Commission at its June meeting.
2) That funding for Line 4 Saturday service and the
Palm Desert Trolley service will be approved,
provided that SunLine submits and the Commission
approves, prior to the start of service, a report
outlining efforts to be taken to increase
ridership and containing ridership and subsidy per
passenger trip goals.
5. State Transportation Legislation.
SB 290 LForan1
Barry Beck said that SB 290 appears to be dead although
there is a slight possibility that it may come up for con-
sideration again in May. There is some activity on a local
option sales tax alternative. The main bill that seems to
be emerging is AB 2329 (Stirling). The bill has been
amended to require a majority vote of the electorate rather
than a 2/3's vote. The maximum sales tax increase would be
1 cent in 1/4 cent increments. The Commission's position
3
RCTC Minutes
May 16, 1985
has been to oppose local option. The Commission may wish to
alter its previous position if this in fact becomes the only
vehicle for getting additional street and road funds. It
looks like that this maybe shaping up to be an
Administration -sponsored bill.
Eric Haley, SCAG, said that AB 2329 is a California Trans-
portation Commission bill. It allows a maximum of 1 cent in
1/4 cent increments, requires an expenditure plan, and it
would be for a maximum of 15 years. Funds could be used
for transit capital projects, streets and roads, and state
highways. It has to be approved by the board of super-
visors, and a majority of the city councils having a
majority of the population in the county. AB 2329 is
emerging as the Administration's option as it is entirely
locally generated revenue, voted for by the people with a
time limit.
Commissioner Ceniceros stated that in discussing this matter
with Bruce Nestande at a Ca1C0G meeting, she said that the
concerns on a local option gas tax are not any different
from a local option sales tax. She raised the point with
him that a sales tax is not a users tax. People who use
their cars only 50 miles/month shouldn't have to bear the
same share of road repair, construction, etc., as to those
that drive 3,000 miles/month.
Commissioner Murphy noted that problems could arise if all)
neighboring counties don't approve the local sales tax
option.
Barry Beck said that some agreement could be arrived at to
group counties together. He added that the 1/2 cent sales
tax in Los Angeles County really hasn't had much of an
impact on sales. Also, the Board of Equalization claims
that if a resident of one county purchases a car in another
county, the sales tax is credited to the county where the
purchaser resides.
Carl West, Caltrans District 11, said that the San Diego
County Association of Governments formed a committee and
proposed a local option 1/2 sales tax for streets and roads
(AB 1553). The funds could be use for transit, street and
road, ' and state highway projects. He said that it was felt
that a sales tax would provide more money than a gas tax and
the sales tax will go up with inflation. Barry Beck said AB
1553 would make the San Diego Association of Governments a
county transportation commission. The Stirling bill is
4
RCTC Minutes
May 16, 1985
different as it is on a statewide basis.
Barry Beck stated that it is probably premature to take a
stance one way or the other on the bill but the Commission
should start thinking of its position if this becomes the
only vehicle for getting any more money for streets and
roads. Riverside County's study has indicated that an equi-
valent of 8 cents gas tax is needed to catch up with the
backlog of projects and maintain roads properly. The sales
tax is an opportunity to get the amount of money needed,
and then having that amount keep up with inflation.
Chairman Cornelison requested staff to send copies of the
amended AB 2329 to members of the Commission.
SB 1979 Elder).
Commissioner Dunlap commented that SB 1979 has an adverse
affect on Riverside County. She said that the present
criteria used by the State to rank railroad grade separation
projects has been in placed and seems to have worked very
well for many years and it shouldn't be changed just to give
privileges to the ports cities. She said that there are 16
crossings in her district alone that will be impacted by
coal trains. Limonite Avenue at the Union Pacific railroad
is currently No. 15 on the list with the possibility of
moving up. It is critical that the same criteria be main-
tained.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that it would relieve Riverside
County from some of the competition if the $10 million was
designated to the ports projects. Barry Beck stated that
the bill will not hurt Riverside County but that the extra
$10 million would not help our County projects. The ports
projects are behind us in priority so funding them would not
move our projects up in priority.
Eric Haley said that the bill failed to pass out of the
Assembly Transportation Committee. What is likely to happen
is that they are going to schedule interim hearings on the
bill in July during recess to try and go over the whole
issue. The problem is not even so much as the ports versus
everybody else but that there is no support for raising any
additional money from any source. Also, the League of
California Cities and everybody else is fully aware that
only 3-4 projects are funded a year and there are approxi-
mately 200 projects in line. He does not think that there
is a possibility that this kind of proposal will pass.
5
RCTC Minutes
May 16, 1985
Barry Beck said the Commission needs to make a statement
within its own region that we would like to get fair and
equal treatment.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/WILSON) to support SB 1979 if the
present State criteria for allocating railroad grade
separation funds remains in place for ranking the pro-
jects.
6. Commission's Short Term Objectives.
Barry Beck said that attached to the staff report is the
list of Commission -adopted short term objectives. Staff is
recommending deleting a number of the objectives as they are
no longer applicable, they have already been accomplished,
or they've become more of a long term endeavor rather than
short term. Staff is proposing adding two objectives to the
list: 1) That a Norco -Corona transit study be undertaken
which was approved by the Commission as part of the unmet
needs process; and, 2) To seek changes in the Transportation
Development Act.
M/S/C (WILSON/COX) to adopt the revised list of short
term objectives as recommended by staff.
7. Commission Budget for FY 85-86.
Barry Beck said that the proposed FY 1985-86 budget is very
routine except for two items in the Professional and Specia-
lized Services Account which includes: 1) $50,000 for per-
formance audits. of County transit operators and of the
Commission which is required to be done every three years;
and, 2) $8,000 for Smith & Egan Associates, the Commission
lobbyist.
Commissioner Wilson said that the Finance Committee met
prior to the Commission meeting to review the proposed
budget and recommends approval.
No testimony was received from the public on the proposed FY
1985-86 Commission budget.
M/S/C (WILSON/COX) to approve the proposed FY 1985-85
RCTC budget as presented.
6
RCTC Minutes
May 16, 1985
8. Funding Request from Commuter Computer.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that Commuter Computer is
requesting a 6% increase over the current year's allocation.
Staff recommends Commission approval to allocate $78,000 in
FAU funds to Commuter Computer.
M/S/C (COX/CENICEROS) to approve the allocation of
$78,000 in FAU funds to Commuter Computer.
9. Amendments to Transportation Improvement Program.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/MANSFIELD) to approve the inclusion of
the Guava Street and Hamner Avenue projects in the
Commission's Transportation Improvement Program.
10. Miscellaneous Item.
Barry Beck reminded Commission members of the tour and
luncheon meeting with Assemblyman David Kelley and
California Transportation Commission member, Bill Leonard
Sr., tomorrow.
11. Adjournment.
There being no further business, Chairman Cornelison
adjourned the meeting at 2:35 p.m. The next RCTC meeting
will be held at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, June 20, 1985, at the
Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor
Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
Respec fully submiLtred,
nk
arry Beck
Executive
irector
7