Loading...
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