HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 7, 1985 Citizens Advisory040238
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1:30 P.M., OCTOBER 7, 1985
RIVERSIDE CITY HALL, 5TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
3900 MAIN STREET, RIVERSIDE 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Quarterly Transit Operations Report. (INFO.)
4. RTA Marketing Efforts. (INFO.)
5. Citizens Advisory Committee Membership. (DISC/
ACTION)
6. Route 79. (DISC.)
7. State Highway Operational Improvements. (DISC.)
8. Other Business.
9. Adjournment.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO M';SS O
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 5-85
July 8, 1985
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by ❑ice Chairman Rena Parker on Monday, July 8, 1985
at 1:36 p.m., Riverside City Hail, 5th Floor Conference
Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside 92522. The Committee
operated as a Committee of the Whole due to lack of a
quorum.
Members Present:
Harry Brinton
Jordis Cameron
Marian Carpelan
Herb Krauch
Ben Minnich
Rena Parker
Members Absent:
Terry Allen
Dick Jandt
Joanne Moore
Shiela Velez
Bertram Vinson
Ran Wyder
Others Present:
Patrick Belton, RTA Steve 011er, RTA
Bob Boston, RTA
2. Approval of Minutes.
There were no corrections or additions to the minutes of the
June 10, 1985 meeting.
3. Moreno Valley Transit Improvements.
Bob Boston, Assistant General Manager ❑f RTA, reviewed the
three alternative routes being considered to provide addi-
tional transit service within Moreno Valley and intercity
service from Perris to Moreno Valley. He said that public
hearings on the alternatives are scheduled for July 9th in
Moreno Valley and July 10th in Perris. The RTA Board will
select a route plan at the end of July and service will
start in September.
Vice Chairman Parker asked what the current ridership is on
Line 18, Bob Boston said that ridership on Line 18 is
averaging 120 passengers/day.
1
CAC Minutes
July 8, 1985
4. TDA Fare Revenue Ratio Study.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, informed the Committee
that as required by the Legislature, Caltrans has hired a
consultant to study the impacts of the State -required mini-
mum fare revenue to operating cost ratios. The report is
due to the Legislature at the end of August. A questionnaire
was mailed by the consultant to transit operators and plan-
ning agencies throughout the State. The questionnaire in-
cluded questions as follows: 1) What negative and positive
impacts have the minimum farebox ratio requirements caused;
2) What changes, if any, in the requirements should be made;
and, 3) Should minimum requirements be established at the
local level rather than by the State. A workshop at SCAG is
scheduled to be held on July 9th for transit operators in
Southern California to discuss these issues with the con-
sultant. The Commission will discuss the issues and take a
position at their July meeting.
Paul Blackwelder said that currently, the required minimum
farebox-zevenue to operating cost ratios for Riverside
County are 10% for rural areas and elderly and handicapped
services, and 20% for transit service in urbanized areas.
For SunLine and RTA who provide transit services in both
rural and urbanized area, an intermediate ratio is cal-
culated by the Commission. The intermediate ratio takes
into consideration the cost of services in the non -urbanized
areas and in the urbanized areas.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, said that the study is to
determine whether the minimum farebox revenue to operating
cost ratios should be changed and whether the State should
be establishing the standards or would they be more appro-
priately established at the local level. Staff would like
to have the State set the minimum requirement. Local
government agencies would continue to have the ability to.
use higher minimum ratio requirements and to look at ser-
vices on a line by line basis. He said that the 10% for
non -urbanized areas and 20% for urbanized areas have served
Riverside County pretty well. Transit operators are keeping
in line with the ratios by cutting costs and eliminating
unproductive services. He knows of no transit services in
Riverside County that were needed and could be efficiently
operated that were not started because of the ratios.
Ben Minnich pointed out that RCTC staff already keeps track
of all services on a line by line basis. He would not like
to see the State set the minimum farebox revenue to oper-
ating cost ratios on a line by line basis.
2
CAC Minutes
July 8, 1985
Bob Boston, Assistant General Manager of RTA, commented that
RTA staff is basically in agreement with'RCTC staff and that
the 20%-10% requirement is an equitable system.
It was the consensus of the Committee to recommend that the
Commission continue to support the existing minimum fare
revenue to operating costs ratio requirements as far as
Riverside County is concerned.
5. 1-215.
Ben Minnich identified some important issues currently being
addressed on I-215. The issues were: 1) the locations of
the interchanges between Van Buren Boulevard and the Ramona
Expressway; and, 2) a proposal for a cul-de-sac on Water
Street. He felt that an interchange would be more bene-
ficial if it were built on Nandina Avenue rather than on
Oleander Avenue. The proposed cul-de-sac on Water Street is
not necessary since the street only leads to the parking
lots of two industrial plants. The street should be left
alone and -funds for the cu 1 -de -sac should be used for other
improvements in the project.
Barry Beck informed the Committee that Caltrans has not
adopted a specific design but is in the process of doing so.
An informal hearing was held in the Perris area. Most
persons who attended the hearing agreed with Ben Minnich
that the interchange should be located north of Oleander.
Another issue discussed was that Markham Street would be cut
off. The tentative plan south of Ramona Expressway provides
for an overcrossing at Placentia as a convenience for the
public to get from one side of the freeway to the other
because of the long distance to get to the next interchange.
Regarding the interchange previously proposed for construc-
tion at Nuevo Road, there has been discussion that the
interchange should be built north of Nuevo Road near Citrus
Street because a school had been built at Nuevo Road. Cal -
trans is considering moving the.interchange and constructing
an overcrossing on Nuevo Road.
Barry Beck continued and said that there is an adopted
frontage road alignment called "A" Street or Industrial Road
that parallels the freeway. Caltrans has suggested that the
frontage road be located next to the freeway rather than on
the "A" Street alignment. Industrial owners favor this
alternative. Similarly on the other side there is an infor-
mally adopted frontage road alignment. A decision has not
been made yet whether Caltrans would build the frontage road
at the same time the freeway is built or use the existing
roadway as a frontage road. Local agencies and others want
Caltrans to build the frontage road at the same time the
3
CAC Minutes
July 8, 1985
freeway is built.
Ben Minnich explained that the reason the school was built
on Nuevo Road was to provide access for students and that it
was important that the location be near the freeway. He
then commented that it is important that the State look at
three traffic patterns in the Perris area: 1) Lake Elsinore
to Riverside; 2) Lake Elsinore to Hemet; and, 3) Riverside
to Hemet. He said that the proposed interchanges on Nuevo
and Ethanac do not provide connectors to Highway 74. When
interchanges are built they ought to include connector roads
to make them work.
Barry Beck explained that the State's position is that the
State is responsible for State highways and local govern-
ments are responsible for local streets and roads. The
State doesn't have an unlimited amount of funds with which
they could provide arterial connections. In all, there is
general local agency agreement as far as the location of
interchanges and frontage roads is concerned. The only
disagreement is the necessity for some immediate action to
get connections from I-215 to Route 74.
Ben Minnich commented that he is not in agreement with the
proposal that a frontage road be located between the freeway
and the railroad tracks.
6. Other Business.
Vice Chairman Parker announced the resignation of Larry
Weinberg from the Committee.
7. Adjournment.
The meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairman Parker at 2:48
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
-aul ackwelder
Assistant Director
nk
4
ITEM NO. 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSiL‘N
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Quarterly Transit Operations Report
The attached table shows operations data for public transit operators
in Riverside County during the fourth quarter of last year, April 1,
1985 to June 30, 1985. The attached graphs show ridership by quarter
for each of the public transit operators over the past four years.
Staff comments on general trends and on individual operators are
provided below.
Ridership
Total county ridership reported by the transit operators for the
fourth quarter was 1.12 million passengers. Ridership for the quarter
was 9.6% (97,977 passengers) higher than last year and the highest
fourth quarter ridership reported to date. Both the RTA and SunLine
Transit Agency reported significant increases in ridership over last
year. The RTA-ridership increase- was 6.6% (48,899 passengers) and the
SunLine ridership increase was 23.1% (46,710 passengers).
Ridership for the full year (July 1, 1984 - June 30, 1985) was the
highest year reported to date. This year's 4.31 million passengers
was 8.2% (325,825 passengers) higher than last year. The three oper-
ators reporting significant increases were: RTA 4.6 (128,007 pas-
sengers), SunLine 23.7% (181,761 passengers), and, Lake Elsinore
Transit System 18.9% (17,396 passengers). Ridership reported by the
other operators was at approximately the same levels as last year.
Operating Costs and Subsidies
Total operating costs reported for FY 1984/85 were $9.66 million, an
increase of 8.1% ($722,000) over the previous year. The majority of
the increase was reported by the SunLine Transit Agency ($501,000) and
included increased service levels on the inter -city route Line 19
(Desert Hot Springs -Coachella). Service on this line was improved
from a 60 -minute frequency to a 30 -minute frequency during the months
of December 1984 - May 1985.
The total county transit subsidy increased by 7.2% ($517,000) compared
to the prior year. Due to the increase in ridership and the conver-
sion of some high subsidy per passenger dial -a -ride services to fixed -
route services by RTA, the average subsidy per passenger in the county
decreased from $1.80 in 1983/84 to $1.78 in 1984/85.
Required fare revenue to operating cost ratios were met or exceeded by
all of the transit operators during the fourth quarter and for the
full year.
PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No. 3
flrtnhcr 7 1 QQ
QUARTERLY TRANSIT OPERATIONS REPORT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERATORS
3/1/85 TO 6/30/85
F. R. Pa ssen ge rs
DAR Pas sen gers
To tal Passengers
F.R.Expen ses
DAR Expenses
Total Expen ses
pi ve rside
Banning B eaumont Corona LETS PVVTA4 Spe c.Svcs. RTA
16,881
16,881
$31,979
$31,979
27,350
13,881 18,403 1,830
13,881 18,403 27,350 1,830
$45,907
$46,920 $55,292
$46,920 $55,292 $45,907
31,726
31,726
725,378
37,141
762,519
$1,472,315
$7,571 $160,675 $227,178
$7,571 $160,675 $1,699,492
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Sunline
239,846
9,221
249,067
$694,042
$83,201
$777,243
TOTAL
1,009,455
112,202
1,121,657
$2,244,243
$580,837
$2,825,079
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE 18.17
DIAL -A -RIDE NA
COST PER VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A --RIDE
FARE REVENUE RATIO
SUBSIDY/PASSENGER
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
$34.42
NA
15.9%
$1.59
NA
NA NA 13.88 NA NA
10.73 7.28 NA 5.55 5 .49
NA NA
$36.26 $21.86
14.8% 20.0%
NA
$2.88 $2.40
$23. 30
NA
17.5%
NA $1.38
NA
NA NA
$22. 94 $27.83
12.1% 9.7%
NA NA
$3.64 $4.57
24.51
5.66
$49.76
$34 .60
20.9%
$1.59
$5.23
14 .79
4.47
$42.81
$40.31
19.0%
$2.31.
$8.30
TOTAL RrJERSII DE
R;DERSHIP
n✓ 0 ii! i V I
D.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
n.5
c nr1
•J
LOCI -1
3 00
err
1982/8.3
r
1 r r
1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85
Fiscai Yccrs
•- r; r-- i i I r
^iI ' !-jib'
SLJNLUNE TRANSIT AGEN1_'T
v
(77
1983/84
1984/85
Frsca! Y•Lars
0
rn
cI 0 0 u 0
0 C) 0 0 0
CO N u? u7
uliutrsr1.0141`
S_l.�6LIOS5OC
(. I
0
(•)
CO
C r
0
0.. .
I
LL
o C:1
Imo? (
CI
1:)
Cr)
CI
1_)
131
r_y 0
u; F
•:. I:i 1.1C1):: r,:) LI I. 1
IDI.14.J
0
N
C _l N !,
RIDERSHIP
500
400
300 1
200 -
1001
500
N
I I
1951/52
1q 7/R
1953/54
Fiscal Years
q84/54-',
U
'� l iR i r T i I C -. �
F (:,,� AR TTR R I F :) : u II D
SUNLINE TRANSIT .AGENCY
400 —
r 300-1
s
20u 4
?98; /82
r f A
•
1982•/83
Fiscal
1983/84
','ears
iii I..l...l
C.) ("I
If) 4 N'1 (-•1
Ti
11
UI
V) 1i
_ R1
0 LJ
(J ( )
q)
cn
(t'
f .:I CI I .) 1 .,
Ir'I .1 1 •"1 ( I
ELK.. 'd W'r....
(J
I)1
C)
117
--t
L, I L_1
i pu1_I1aric.:II-IJ"I
1.1.1)41:111:1616. 11,. ..1
I
C1.
I
I::] 1 .::1 1: CS)
Ira r. 1
rap .J1 .77; n,:.1 L -I 1.
'GAO B 11:d la F,:1), .I
IC )
1 •_I
CA I
01
VI
n
C•1
Ix]
CI)
J''.i.v5enc1er
I. I •Iigi_ISC)rI'15j
J
'.0
4)
N 111
Lx.
LAI
a1
.p
II
8
( )
J J .a ngr
k I h G.4.15i .Ind
G 1-) (,1 LI 01 03 1D f] •-• IJ GI •P n cr. v co Lp C?
-0_ I 1— 1_ _1 1 1 I I I I J
22
lJ
171
-U
V�
Zl
FISCAL YEAR 1585/86
20
14-
18
17
16
15
14
13
12 —
11
10
9
6
4
J
2
1
0
-4
Fixed Route
tf
//r
PD 4 WV IV DHS NPS PD PS
19 20 PS 2 MV PS
FIXED ROUTES
19 D.HS - Coachella
20 Palm Springs - Coachella
PS Palm Springs Sun Special
2 Palm Springs Local
MV Mt. View- 1000 Palms
1 Palm Springs Local
PD Palm Desert Trolley
4 La Quinta - Palm Desert
SERVICE
DIAL -A -RIDES
7./
,/
7
7/
WV Western Village
IV Intervalley Hdcp D -A -R
DHS Desert Hot Springs D -A -R
NPS North Palm Springs
PD Palm Desert Dial -A -Ride
PS Palm Springs D -A -R
UBR, iD'Y PER F N
RTA FO U R T H QUARTER
20
19 -'
1E:-
17 -
15 -
1
141 3 _I
12
11 -
10-
9-
a-
7-
6-
5 -
4-
3-4
2
0
1
Fixed Route
liq F
15161423
13
-pr
F
25 12 21
FIXED ROUTES
I /
222418
Service
2 Corona - Riv
;i Magnolia Av
15 Arlington Av
16 Moreno Valley - Riv
14 Indiana Av
29 Rubidoux
13 Arlanza
25 Riv - Loma Linda
12 California Av
21 Country Village - Tyler Mall
22 Perris - Riv
24 Lake Els. - Perris - Riv
18 Moreno Valley
17 U C R - Mag Center
27 Hemet - Perris - Riv
30 Hemet - San Jacinto
Ir
I
7 27 30
Dial -A -
Ride
7,1
DIAL -A -RIDES
P Perris D -A -R
SC Sun City D -A -R
H Hemet/ San Jacinto
N Norco D -A -R
Agenda_ Item No. 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM ISS;CN
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency Marketing Efforts
The Riverside Transit Agency has hired a new Marketing Manager, Linda
Harmon. Ms. Harmon will attend the meeting to become acquainted with
the Committee and to discuss the marketing efforts she has planned for
the near future.
PB:nk -4'
Agenda Item No. 4
October 7, 1985
Agenda Item No. 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Citizens Advisory Committee Membership
The Citizens Advisory Committee was established to provide the
opportunity for interested citizens to make recommendations to the
Commission on transportation issues throughout Riverside County.
There are 16 seats authorized on the Committee. The membership should
represent the various geographical and interest groups from throughout
the county. Committee members are appointed to four year terms and
may serve more than one term. There are currently 12 members on the
Committee (see attached list). The terms of 4 of the 12 members
expire in November, 1985.
With the existing 4 vacancies and the possibility of up to 4 more
vacancies on the Committee, staff feels it is appropriate for the
Committee to review its composition and activity level. How well does
the Committee represent the geographical areas, the transit and
highway interests, the elderly, handicapped, workers, students, and
business communities? What is the disired mix and how should we go
about recruiting members? These are the questions that the Committee
members should be prepared to discuss. To assist you, we have
attached a list of the geographical areas in the county and the
name(s) of committee members from the area. Staff will lead the
discussing using a workshop format similar to the one used when the
Committee identified issues of interest a few months ago.
PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No. 5
October 7, 1985
Representatives) 911
Geographical Areas The Committee
Riverside Marian Carpelan
Corona -Norco Harry Brinton,Rena Parker*
Jurupa (Rubidoux,Mira Loma,Pedley) Bertran Vinson
Moreno Valley
Perris -Mead Valley Joanne Moore, Ben Minnich*
Lake Elsinore -Rancho California Joanne Moore
Hemet -San Jacinto Terry Allen, Herb Krauch*
Banning -Beaumont
Coachella Valley
Palo Verde Valley
*Term expires 11/85.
Jordis Cameron
Ran Wyder, Dick Jandt*
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TERRY ALLEN
725 West Thornton Avenue, Sp. 137
Hemet, CA 92343
PHONE: (714) 929-2477 (Office)
Exp. 11/87
HARRY BRINTON
4591 California Avenue
Norco, CA 91760
PHONE: (714) 737-5274 (Home)
Exp. 11/87,
JORDIS CAMERON
40045 Frontier Trail
Cherry Valley, CA 92223
PHONE: (714) 845-6988
Exp. 11/87
MARIAN CARPELAN
5932 Edith Avenue
Riverside, CA 92506
PHONE: (7141_584-8343 (Home)
(714; 787-5707 (Office)
Exp. 11/87
*RICHARD JANDT
45915 Oasis
Indio, CA 92201
PHONE: (619) 347-0961 (Office)
Exp. 11/85
*HERBERT KRAUCH
20324 Sublette •
Gilman Hot Springs, CA 92340
PHONE: (714) 654-2374 (Home)
Exp; 11/85
*BEN MINNICH
P.0= Box 523
Perris, CA 92370
PHONE: (714) 657-5744 (Home)
Exp. 11/85
JOANNE MOORE
20641 Villa Knoll Drive
Perris, CA 92370
PHONE: (714) 674-7731 (Office)
Exp. 11/87
*Term expires 11/85
*RENA PARKER
1018 West Ontario
Corona, CA 91720
PHONE: (714) 737-2287 (Home)
Exp. 11/85
SHIELA VELEZ
1037 W. 6th Street, Ste. 120E
Corona, CA 91780
PHONE: '(714) 734-2260 (Office)
(714) 683-8996 (Home)
Exp. 11/87
BERTRAM VINSON
10580 Ermer Street, ¢C
Mira Loma, CA 91752
PHONE: (714) 685-2503 (Home)
Exp. 11/87
RAN WYDER
3131 North Indian Avenue
Palm Springs, CA 92262
PHONE: (619) 325-0532 (Home)
(619) 320-7368 (Office)
Exp. 11/87
ROTC MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM!SSc
Minutes of Meeting No. 7-85
July 18, 1985
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison
at 1:35 p.m. on Thursday, July 18, 1985, at the Riverside
County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. The Chairman noted that a
quorum was present.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Susan Cornelison
Carmen Cox
Alternates present:
Ed Shepard
Melba Dunlap
Bill Edmonds
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (COX/CENICEROS) to approve the minutes of the
June 20, 1985 meeting as mailed.
Abstention: Shepard
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. 1985 State Transportation Improvement Program.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, said that the CTC approved
$23.5 for I-215 between Nuevo Road and Van Buren Boulevard.
In addition, because of a concern by the State Commission
that $23.5 million will not be a sufficient amount for the
project, the project could get up to $5.6 million from a
San Bernardino County project. An estimate on the project
cost has not yet been made by Caltrans.
Barry Beck said that as explained previously, the State has
apparently overestimated the amount of available federal
funds. The STIP was based on authorization limits, however,
it is now estimated that obligational authority limits will
be the controlling factor. Projects will have to be
deferred and.the five-year STIP will become a 6 - 6 1/2 year
STIP. Not only will $650 million worth of projects have to
be dropped out at the end of the program but there will also
1
RCTC Minutes
July 18, 1985
be bumping of projects from year to year. It is estimated
that approximately $1.5 billion projects may have to be
delayed for about a year. The obvious projects that will be
delayed are the projects in the fifth year of the STIP. The
$23.5 million for I-215 will be delayed . Caltrans will be
recommending that the $37 million project on I-15 from
Parkridge to Sixth Streets be delayed. Given the fact that
Riverside County is a surplus county in the first three
years and that the CTC is delaying a total of $1.5 billion
worth of projects statewide, the delay of I-15 project is
not that bad. The project was scheduled for April, 1986
but it will have to be rescheduled to October, 1986.
In response to Commissioner Cox's question, Barry Beck said
that the Route 74 project through Perris is not in the
program. Because the fifth year of the 1986 STIP is almost
filled up, it is going to take about 2-3 years before we
could get any new projects.
The CTC still make the decision on the final list of delays
and deferrals in September. -
Commissioner Ceniceros commended staff efforts especially in
working with other agencies in getting Riverside County's
projects in the STIP.
5. Proposed Interchange at Yuma Street and I-15.
Barry Beck briefed the Commission on the background of the
Norco Reach project. In 1980, the Brown Administration
proposed building the Norco Reach project with only four
lanes and one interchange in the entire 11 mile stretch from
Route 60 and Corona. Local agencies wanted about six inter-
changes and eight to ten lanes. A compromise was made to
have six lanes and four interchanges despite freeway agree-
ments calling for additional interchanges at the border of
Norco and Corona in the vicinity of Cota Street and one at
Bellegrave, north of Santa Ana River. Since then, it has
become apparent that without the Yuma interchange, there
will be a significant traffic problem in Norco as traffic
would have to be funneled to Second Street which is not
compatible with the quantity and type of traffic. The
cities of Corona and Norco have recently passed resolutions
asking that the interchange be included as part of the Norco
Reach project.
Barry Beck continued that under the State's new policy on
interchanges an interchange such as Yuma would normally have
to be borne totally at local expense either by extracting it
from the developer or from local city funds. The Commission
could point out that Yuma Street should have been part of
2
RCTC Minutes
July 18, 1985
the 'overall freeway project and, therefore, be built at
State expense. If we are able to win that argument, the
next hurdle would be the financial situation. As suggested
in the staff report, the only answer to this problem would
be an internal trade - trading a project with a lower
priority. The Ethanac project was originally planned to be
completed in 1983-84 but because there was an overall drain-
age problem in the area, Caltrans has been letting it slip.
Ideally, the interchange should be constructed with an over-
all drainage project. If the Commission desires to pursue an
internal trade for the funds that are now programmed for
Ethanac, staff recommends that the recommendation include
the two conditions: 1) That the agreement between the State
and the Federal Highway Administration be amended to allow
for a delay in the Ethanac interchange construction from
1990 to 1992; and, 2) That there is an acknowledgement from
the California Transportation Commission that it will be a
high priority to reprogram the Ethanac interchange. If we
wait to build the Yuma interchange until funding is avail-
able, I -T1-5 will then be completed and the Commission would
lose its argument about the State's responsibility to build
the Yuma interchange as part of the overall highway project.
Based from these alternatives and the fact that the Ethanac
interchange is not a high priority based on technical
reasons, staff recommends going for the trade with the two
conditions.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked how realistic the recommenda-
tion is since the STIP process only looks at a five-year
period, and what is the likelihood of the commitment being
made.
Commissioner Edmonds stated that a commitment beyond the
five-year period can't be made. He said that he is going to
be recommending that Ethanac be finished. As far as extend-
ing the deadline and delaying the completion of I-215 for
two years or beyond, he is confident that the agreement will
be extended. There is no reason for the federal government
to pull out since the State has already put $75 million into
I-215. He suggested that the Commission not include too
many conditions. He agrees with Barry Beck that timing is
very important. The key is to get the Yuma interchange in
the STIP now and then get Ethanac project reprogrammed.
Commissioner Dunlap commented that the Yuma interchange is
critical to the area.
Walt Ingalls, representing Dick Owens, a property owner who
will be impacted by the construction of the Yuma inter-
change, spoke and said that the two interchanges (Yuma and
Bellegrave) that were deleted from the I-15 Norco Reach plan
3
RCTC Minutes
July 18, 1985
are critical in the development of 'the western part of
Riverside County. The Yuma interchange is definitely a
needed project and both the cities of Corona and Norco
support this. There is a lack of direct access to the
freeways at Route 91 or Route 15 without the Yuma inter-
change. He concurs with RCTC staff recommendation and ob-
served that if a message is not delivered now that the
compromise agreed to five years ago was one which was done
for political reasons, the opportunity will be lost and the
construction of the interchange will have to be borne by
local agencies.
Marion Ashley, who stated he represented property owners in
the area of Ethanac Road and I-215 (Charles Mott, John Mott,
John Coudures) , said that they realize the seriousness of
the problem if the Yuma interchange is not built now. They
are satisfied and support staff's recommendation but
requested that the Commission take a position against the
closure_Qf Ethanac Road,. He said that if the road was
closed, it could adversely -affect residents and businesses
in the area.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked if there is a developer con-
tribution being made towards the construction of the Yuma
interchange.
Walt Ingalls said that the City of Corona has already ex-
tracted from the developer a extremely high price for deve-
lopment. The land is presently being encumbered for a signi-
ficant amount of services. As a consequence, there is some
concern not only by his client but also by others that are
affected by the industrial and residential development that
the land can't carry any additional burden.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that she appreciate being in-
volved early in the process on this matter. She agrees with
Mr. Ashley's concern and while there is a safety issue
there, there is also a necessity to have that road kept open
for local service use. She noted that the Ethanac Road
interchange is still important and should be upgraded as
soon as possible.
In response to Commissioner Shepard's question, Commissioner
Edmonds said that Caltrans has jurisdiction over keeping the
road open. He suggested that the Commission give flexibi-
lity to staff during negotiations and should not make the
conditions binding. He could not guarantee that Ethanac
Road will remain open especially if a number of fatal acci-
dents occur at the intersection.
RCTC Minutes
July 18, 1985
Barry Beck said that it would be the position of the Com-
mission to keep Ethanac Road open and that it would do
everything in its power to convince the appropriate agency,
Caltrans, to keep the road open.
Chairman Cornelison asked that since the Commission has been
pushing the State Commission to keep its commitment with
FHWA, would the proposed recommendation put the Commission
in bad light.
Barry Beck said that Chairman Cornelison is correct that
there is general conflict in the statements but there is a
logical, rational answer to that conflict given the flood
control situation and that Caltrans has been letting the
project slip.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/CENICEROS):
1. -----To authorize the. Chairman and the Executive
Director to pursue with Caltrans and the
California Transportation Commission the temporary
trade of funds from the proposed interchange at
Ethanac Road and I-215 to fund an interchange at
I-15 and Yuma Street provided that the following
conditions are met: 1) That the agreement with
the State and FHWA is amended to extend the date
by which the Ethanac interchange must be built
from 1990 to 1992; and, 2) That the California
Transportation Commission acknowledge that the
reprogramming of the Ethanac interchange will be a
high priority in accordance with SB 215 which
gives higher priority to projects that were listed
in the 1980 STIP.
2. That it is the Riverside County Transportation
Commission's position that Ethanac Road be kept
open.
Commissioner Edmonds asked if the Commission's inactivity on
Bellegrave means that funding for that interchange is being
sacrificed in later years. He said that interchange may
also be needed in the short term and that the Commission
might think of a strategy for that interchange similar to
the Yuma project as the arguments are similar.
Commissioner Dunlap said that the Commission has discussed
Bellegrave in a previous meetings. She noted that with
Bellegrave, there is a chance to get funds from developers.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that in order to have a good
transportation system, there should be six interchanges on
5
RCTC Minutes
July 18, 1985
I-215. Perhaps staff could be given some latitude to bring
Bellegrave up as a proposal.
Barry Beck said that Bellegrave does not have the same
arguments as Yuma. It is closer to Limonite and it is more
amenable to funding with developer extractions. It could be
used as a bargaining ploy, but to go in there and mention
both projects initially, he is certain that we would have to
back off on Bellegrave.
Commissioner Dunlap pointed out that there are some feelings
that Galena instead of Bellegrave is a better location for
an interchange as it is between Limonite and the inter-
change on Route 60 and I-15. Although she would like to
negotiate for Bellegrave also, there is a much better chance
to get funding from assessments and from the developers for
Bellegrave than for Yuma.
It was determined by the Commission that staff explore
during It -s negotiations -with State Commission staff the
possibility of adding the Bellegrave interchange project to
the STIP.
Barry Beck reminded the Commission that we are already
working against the background that the State has a federal
shortfall of $650 million and a shortfall of $600 million in
State match as well as CTC's interchange policy.
6. Allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for
Streets and Roads.
A. Western County Area.
Barry Beck said that the Commission's adopted formula
for the Western County area is for each local agency to
receive a population based share of TDA funding in the
form of either street and road funds or transit ser-
vice. The agencies receiving relatively high level of
transit service will receive relatively less for
streets and roads and vice versa. An amended table
showing allocation of TDA funds for streets and roads
for the Western County area including a reserve in the
event of a federal funding cutback was distributed. He
said that those agencies that do not receive federal
funds will not be penalized if there is a cutback in
federal funds.
Commissioner Shepard asked staff to explain the metho-
dology used in the event of a federal cutback.
6
RCTC Minutes
July 18, 1985
Barry Beck said that last year's level was $1.2 million
in the western area and $187,000 Hemet/San Jacinto
urbanized area. He said that services in the City of
Riverside use the vast majority of the federal funds.
Therefore, if there is a federal c.utback, Riverside
incurs the biggest impact.
Attachment A shows the assumptions that were made over
the years regarding whether a service is an intercity
or local service. Because they are subjective in
nature, staff has brought them before the Commission to
give the Commission the opportunity to dispute them.
Commissioner Shepard said when a service is extended to
provide intercity service, it should be considered as
such. The service is not necessarily for Riverside but
for the intercity connecting ability.
Barry Beck explained that the entire connection from
Ty1ei Mall to Corona -was counted as intercity but the
remaining part of the service to the north end of
Riverside was considered as local service. With re-
gards to the Riverside to Moreno Valley service, since
it provides local service in Riverside, acts as local
line within Moreno Valley and it ties Moreno Valley and
intervening County area into Riverside, the cost for
the service was divided one-third Riverside local
service, one-third Moreno Valley local service and one-
third intercity.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/CENICEROS) to:
1. Approve the .allocation of TDA funds for
street and road purposes as shown on the
amended Attachment C.
2. Direct staff to review the formulas used to
allocate transit service costs and to report
to the Commission with any recommended
changes prior to the allocation of funds for
FY 86/87.
B. Coachella Valley.
Barry Beck said that the formula for the Coachella
Valley area is to take transit off the top with the re-
maining funds simply allocated by population. Again,
the table was modified to include a reserve in the
event of a 25% federal cutback.
7
RCTC Minutes
July 18, 1985
Staff was directed to forward a letter explaining the
allocation of TDA funds in the Coachella Valley and the
amended table to Commissioners Wilson and Murphy.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/CENICEROS) to approve the allo-
cation of TDA funds for street and road purposes
to agencies in the Coachella Valley as shown on
the amended table.
C. Palo Verde Valley Area.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/CENICEROS) to approve the allo-
cation of $146,954 to the City of Blythe and
$132,954 to the County of Riverside for street and
road purposes.
7. Transit Fare Revenue Ratio Study.
Durand R`al commented that -from this Commission's stand-
point, the recommendation is fair. The Commission may want
to give consideration to other concerns around the State.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that Durand Rall is a
member of the Steering Committee that is overseeing the
consultant that is doing the study. He told the Commission
that the legislation in some counties requires that the
minimum farebox revenue to operating cost ratios be 20% for
urbanized areas and 10% in rural areas unless in FY 1978/79,
the farebox revenue to operating cost ratio was higher in
which case the higher figure is the minimum ratio. This
affects areas like the City of Barstow which had a high
farebox revenue to operating cost ratio during FY 1978/79.
Staff's recommendation is to support the existing minimum
farebox to operating costs ratio requirements as they per-
tain to Riverside County and let other counties argue their
cases.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked whether the Commission if the
Commission should take a position on the base year pro-
vision. Barry Beck said that it is best for the Riverside
Commission stay out of the issue. While Barstow may be
unfairly treated, the base year provision may be appropriate
in other cases such as in Los Angeles.
Durand Rall added that the place to address the issue is
through the consultant report that is being done for
Caltrans.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/DUNLAP) to go on record as supporting
the existing minimum farebox to operating costs ratio
requirements as they pertain to Riverside County.
8
RCTC Minutes
July 18, 1985
8. SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Fund Program - FY 85-86.
In response to Commissioner Ceniceros if there is a deadline
for filing SB 821 applications, Barry Beck said that staff
proposed to bring the have the item on the Commission's
September agenda for approval.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/DUNLAP) to authorize staff to solicit
applications for SB 821 and establish a September 1,
1985 deadline for submitting applications.
9. Transit Operator Performance Audits.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that the proposed amount,
$26,000, for this task is less than when it was done three
years ago ($35,000).
M/S/C (COX/DUNLAP) to authorize staff to distribute the
RFP'-s• for the Transit 'Operator Performance Audit.
10. Performance Audit of Commission Activities.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/CENICEROS) to authorize staff to distri-
bute the RFP's for the Commission's performance audit.
11. Miscellaneous Items.
A. Barry Beck informed the Commission that SB 300 passed
the Assembly Transportation Committee. The provision
concerning local match has been removed from the bill.
There will be a maintenance of effort clause but it
supposedly will not cause a problem for anybody. The
new formula for allocating State Transit Assistance
Funds has been removed from the bill. The bill is
scheduled to go before the Assembly Ways and Means
Committee very soon.
B. Barry Beck said that SCAG has tentatively adopted new
rules that would allow county transportation commis-
sions a voting seat on SCAG's Transportation and Commu-
nications Committee.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that the new rule states
that the representative be an elected or appointed
member and not a staff member . This will be adopted
at the next SCAG meeting.
9
RCTC Minutes
July 18, 1985
12. Adjournment.
There being no further business, Chairman Cornelison
adjourned the meeting at 3:08 p.m. The next RCTC meeting
will be held at 1:30 p.m., Thursday, August 15, 1985, at the
Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor
Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
Respectfully submitted,
nk
Y BECK'
Executive birector
10
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COwINSS;ON
Minutes of Meeting No. 8-85
August 15, 1985
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison
at 1:35 p.m., on Thursday, August 15, 1985, at the Riverside
County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. The Chairman noted that a
quorum was present.
Members present:
Susan Cornelison Roy Wilson
Carmen Cox Norton Younglove
Alternates present:
Ed Shepard
Pat Murphy
2. Approval of Minutes.
Steve Webb
Chairman Cornelison noted that the word "deadline" was
omitted from the recommendation on Page 9, Agenda Item No.
8.
M/S/C (COX/SHEPARD) to approve the minutes of the July
18, 1985 meeting as corrected.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
Commissioner Younglove informed the Commission of the
County's intention to change its parking arrangement which
will be effective in September.
4. Caltrans' Proposed State Highway Project Deferrals.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, stated that Caltrans sub-
mitted their recommended list of projects to be delayed in
conjunction with the identified $650 million highway fund
shortfall. Two Riverside County projects are affected: (1)
the I-215 project between Nuevo Road and Van Buren Boulevard
would be delayed from 1989/90 to 1990/91; and, (2) the I-15
project between Parkridge Road and Sixth Street scheduled to
be advertised in April, 1986 would be delayed to the Fall of
1986. Neither of the projects is being taken out of STIP;
they are simply being deferred one year. The Commission can
appeal the Caltrans recommendations at the California
Agenda Item No. 3A
RCTC Minutes
August 15, 1985
Transportation Commission's meeting in September but staff
recommends that the Commission not appeal as it is felt that
the way that Riverside County's projects have been dealt
with has been fair.
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/WILSON):
1) That the Commission not appeal the State highway
project deferrals recommended by Caltrans.
2) That the Chairman send a letter to appropriate
authorities noting that: a) The Commission will
not appeal; 2) There is a legally binding commit-
ment which is already past due; and, 3) The Com-
mission recognizes the extremely difficult finan-
cial situation that the State is facing but in -
spite of the Commission's lack of appeal, the
State should remember the obligation.
5. CTC Federal Funding Action Plan.
Barry Beck said that the CTC, in an attempt to avert the
shortfall of federal funds, put together a five -point action
plan. A workshop was held by CTC for regional agencies and
county transportation commissions earlier this month to
coordinate an statewide effort. Following the meeting, CTC
Chairman Bruce Nestande was to meet with Congressman Glenn
Anderson to discuss specifics of the plan. The meeting was
held but an agreement was not achieved. The major items of
the action plan dealt with increasing the yearly obli-
gational authority. Congressman Anderson has indicated that
the an increase of the obligational authority and an exemp-
tion on the carry -in from the obligational authority limits
are not possible. As explained by Congressman Anderson,
there are two reasons why this cannot be done: 1) the
obligational authority limit is part of the federal budget
reduction plan and that the obligational authority is in-
cluded in the budget resolution; and, 2) the authorizations
for transportation have actually been exceeding the revenues
in the federal highway trust fund and so the obligational
authority is more in line with the incoming revenues.
Barry Beck added that Congressman Anderson is looking for
some provision in his bill that will guarantee the comple-
tion of the Harbor Freeway Transitway project which may be
in conflict with the aims of the overall objectives of the
State. In conclusion, it appears that there will not be a
comprehensive and unified effort.
2
RCTC Minutes
August 15, 1985
Chairman Cornelison noted that it was unfortunate that the
meeting between Congressman Anderson and Bruce Nestande had
not taken place prior to the CTC workshop. Agencies were
requested to hold off contacting their respective represen-
tatives until such time as the meeting had taken place.
6. State Highway Improvements To Be Included in Regional
Transporation Plan.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that SCAG has made two
projections on the amount of State highway construction
funds that might be available between now and the year 2010.
Under the low scenario, SCAG assumed that the State gas tax
would be increased just to keep pace with inflation and the
federal gas tax would be kept constant at 9 cents. Under
the high scenario, the State gas tax would not only be
increased with inflation but there would be two points in
time where there would be an additional 5 cents gas tax
increase. The federal gas tax would be increased just to
keep pace with inflation.-'SCAG has asked each county to
identify those highway improvements that they would like to
be implemented under each funding scenario. Using the
recent list of projects compiled by Caltrans in developing
their highway systems plan, staff developed a list of all
the Caltrans projects and added the proposed Route 79
(Sanderson Avenue) which includes a bridge and widening the
route to four lanes to Florida Avenue. The total cost of
the projects on the list is $242 million and is only half of
the amount of funds available under the low scenario. In
two or three months, the Commission will have the oppor-
tunity to review the first SCAG modeling effort which may
identify further capacity deficiencies and at that time
offer additional projects to help mitigate those capacity
problems.
Commissioner Younglove urged the Commission to conduct its
own research with local agencies and with community involve-
ment to identify capacity deficiencies and answers to the
problems to the year 2010 and that this process be done
within a six-month timeframe.
Alan Manee, Riverside County Road Department, said that he
was asked by the Road Commissioner to inform the Commission
that he feels that it is not consistent with the efforts of
the Road Department to switch Route 79 to Sanderson Avenue.
They are involved in negotiations now which they feel might
be thwarted, if not destroyed, by the approval of State
funding to make the improvement as suggested. Therefore,
the County Road Commissioner is suggesting the removal of
the Route 79 project, Gilman Hot Springs Road to Route 74,
from the list.
3
RCTC Minutes
August 15, 1985
Commissioner Younglove stated that since the list of
projects is for highway improvements to the year 2010, he is
confident that the County would have reached an agreement on
Route 79 (along Sanderson Avenue) by that time.
Commissioner Shepard said that with SCAG coming up with a
modeling process, the Commission should first look at the
modeling runs and start from there rather than have staff
design something. He noted that the Commission has a small
staff and that he is unsure as to what the direction to
staff is. It is a commendable idea in terms of long range
planning. It would make sense to first review the result of
SCAG's modeling and of their projections, set- up a review
panel and then get input from the cities, county, and the
public as Commissioner Younglove has suggested.
Commissioner Younglove said.that the Commission should not
sit back and wait for the result of SCAG's modeling runs but
take the initiative in terms of local needs and interests.
Commissioner Cox agreed with Commissioners Shepard and
Younglove's comments. She stated that the Commission is
closer and is more knowledgeable to the problems of the
County. The Commission could make a listing of the defi-
ciencies and suggestions to the problems and compare those
with SCAG's list.
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/WILSON) to submit the project list
developed by staff to SCAG with the understanding that
additional projects may be submitted pending
preliminary results of SCAG's computer modeling effort.
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/COX) to direct staff to present at the
Commission's next meeting a plan which will involve
cities and the County as well as the involvement of the
public and the local business community in the refine-
ment of the plan and that the Chairman be authorized
to direct a letter to SCAG indicating the Commission's
intent to revise and update the list in approximately
six months.
At this time, Chairman Cornelison left the meeting.
Commissioner Wilson was appointed as Chairman Pro Tempore.
7. Employee Salary Adjustments.
Recommendations on employee salary adjustments for FY 85/86
developed by the Personnel Committee were distributed to the
Commission.
4
RCTC Minutes
August 15, 1985
Commissioner Younglove stated that the Personnel Committee
met and reviewed the salaries of comparable positions at
other agencies and recommends that the FY 85/86 salaries of
the Commission's staff be as follows: Executive Director
$4430 (10% increase); Assistant Director $3650 (6.2% in-
crease); and, Secretary $2112 (6.5% increase).
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/SHEPARD) to approve the Personnel
Committee's recommendation that salaries be established
for the three positions as follows: Executive Director
$4430; Assistant Director $3650; and, Secretary $2112.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/COX) that the effective date of the
salary adjustments be the first pay period of July,
1985.
8. Executive Director's Report.
A. Status of Federal Funding for Route 86.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that Congressman
Glenn M. Anderson has included $9 million for Route 86
in his new four-year highway bill. Unfortunately, also
included in the bill, are a number of demonstration
projects totalling to $1 billion. Congressman Anderson
assured us that Route 86 has priority on the list but
staff is unsure about the possibilities of the Route 86
funds being approved because of the volume of demons-
tration projects. He will keep the Commission apprised
of this matter.
B. SCAG Dinner Honoring Congressman Glenn Anderson.
Four members of the Commission (Commissioners
Cornelison, Cox, Dunlap and Younglove) have indicated
that they will attend the SCAG dinner honoring
Congressman Anderson on August 22nd. Also attending
from Riverside County are CVAG's Vice Chairman Judith
Cox and CVAG staff member, Dwight Smith.
C. Status of Yuma Street Interchange Proposal.
This item is on the California Transportation
Commission's agenda for August 22nd. CTC staff is
recommending against the proposal but it is a weak
negative recommendation and that the CTC will probably
approve the proposal.
5
RCTC Minutes
August 15, 1985
9. Quarterly Financial Report.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/WEBB) to receive and file the quarterly
financial report.
10. Adjournment.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/COX) to adjourn the meeting at 2:51 P.M.
Respectfully submitted',
nk
EtAnY BECK
Executive Director
6
Date October 7., 1985
Citizens Advisory C.aranittcc
SIGN IN SHEET
NAME
1.O -p_026-/„.
r
I7 REPRESENTI$
i p"�' ✓ f' L�L
/41". fr
aC, . Y r L¢,.I;L
r)
TEL. NO
his Jy7--09 41
£.5'237
�s 7- L.). - 1-/y
.�J
/M>
n
7/,/f 4i