HomeMy Public PortalAbout03 March 11, 1985 Citizens Advisory040234
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1:3A P.M., MARCH 11, 1985
5TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM, RIVERSIDE CITY HALL
3980 MAIN STREET, RIVERSIDE 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Quarterly Transit Operations Report. (INFO.)
4. Productivity Committee Recommendations. (ACTION)
5. Transit Funding - State & Local Proposals. (INFO.)
6. SunLine Transit. Agency Tel -A -Ride Contracting (INFO.)
Feasibility.
7. Transportation Issues.
8. Adjournment.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 1-85
February 11, 1985
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order at 1:42 p.m. on Monday, February 11, 1985, at the
Riverside City Hall, Fourth Floor Conference Room, 3900 Main
Street, Riverside, by Chairman Richard L. Jandt.
Members present:
Jordis Cameron
Richard L. Jandt
Herb Krauch
Rand Martin
Rena Parker
Sheila Velez
Bertram Vinson
Laurence M. Weinberg
Others present:
Kay Van Sickel, Riverside Transit Agency
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (VINSON/MARTIN) to approve the minutes of the
December 10, 1984 meeting as presented.
3. Transportation Issues.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, said that at the last
Committee meeting, a brainstorming session led by RCTC
Chairman Susan Cornelison was held to identify issues that
are of interest to the Committee for discussion at future
meetings. Issues identified at the meeting were listed in
the report. Staff requested that the Committee prioritize
each issue as high, moderate or low priority.
At this time, the Committee reviewed and prioritized the
transportation issues.
4. Fare Revenue Requirements.
Shiela Velez asked staff why it is so expensive to provide
bus service.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, said that it takes several
employees such as drivers, mechanics, supervisors, etc. to
run buses. In addition, two or three extra drivers come in
regularly to cover for drivers that call in sick. Labor is
70% of the cost.
5. Use of Transportation Development Act Funds.
Barry Beck informed the Committee that TDA is one of the
several source of funds available for transit. The table
included with the report shows how TDA funds are being spent
on a statewide basis, by Article 8 counties, and by
Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties.
Larry Weinberg asked if TDA funds could be used for all
modes of transit and whether the State provides funding for
rail transportation.
Barry Beck responded that TDA funds could be used for all
modes of transit. Article 8 counties could use remaining
funds after funding transit for street and road purposes
after a finding has been made that there are no unmet tran-
sit needs that could be reasonably met. Los Angeles County
and some Bay area counties are restricted from using TDA
funds for any other purpose than transit. He said that a
small amount of funds are available for capital improvements
at general aviation airports but no operating subsidies is
available.
In response to Chairman Jandt's question if TDA funds could
be used for operating subsidies for airlines, Barry Beck
said that TDA funds could not be used for this purpose.
Herb Krauch asked if part of Riverside County's TDA funds go
towards funding SCRTD. Barry Beck said that for the past
10-12 years, Riverside has contracted with SCRTD for inter-
city service to Orange and Los Angeles Counties using TDA
funds to pay for the service.
6. Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearings.
Chairman Jandt requested that staff include the Chambers of
Commerce in Riverside County to the mailing list.
Shiela Velez requested that staff send her copies of the
unmet transit needs public hearing notice to give to her
clients with unmet transit needs.
7. Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Com-
mittee, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman Jandt.
Respectfully submitted,
nk
2
aul BI ckwelder
Assistant Director
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Transit Operations Quarterly Report
The attached table and graphs show operations data for
public transit operators in Riverside County for the second
quarter of this year, October 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984.
Data for the Lake Elsinore Transit System and the Palo Verde
Valley Transit Agency was not available for this quarter but
will be included in the third quarter report. Staff com-
ments on overall trends and individual operators are pro-
vided below.
RIDERSHIP
Total ,ridership continued to increase in the second quarter
of the year. Ridership increased by 73,000 passengers from
973,000 last year to 1,045,000 or 7.4% this year. RTA's
ridership increased by 35,000 or 4.9% and SunLine's rider-
ship increased by 36,000 or 19.5%. RTA's second quarter
increase of 7.4% is lower than its first quarter increase of
9.4% because the RTA ridership seems, to be leveling off
based on November and December data. Ridership on the RTA
dial -a -ride services were lower again, probably as a result
of the elimination of student discount fares for these
services in May, 1984.
OPERATING COSTS SUBSIDIES
Total operating costs -during the second quarter increased by
$170,000 (8%) from the same period last year. Except for
SunLine, costs reported by the operators were close to the
amounts reported last year. The SunLine costs were 38%
above last year as a result of service expansion on Line 19
and the Desert Hot Springs tel-a-ride. Extraordinary costs
were also incurred for training and vehicle preparation for
the expanded services. Per vehicle hour costs are expected
to drop in the next quarter.
Total subsidies for all operators, except SunLine, were
reported at or slightly below last year. Increases in
ridership have decreased the subsidy per passenger for all
services except the SunLine fixed -route services. The ex-
ception for SunLine is again explained by the substantial
increase in service on Line 19 which has not as yet resulted
in a like increase in ridership. The minimum required fare
revenue ratios are being met or exceeded by all of the
transit operators.
PB:nk
CAC Agenda Item No. 3
1 March 11, 1985
TRANSIT OPERATIONS QUARTERLY REPORT
OCTOBER 1, TO DECEMBER 31, 1984
F.R. Passenge rs
DAR Passengers
To tal Passengers
F. R.Expen ses
DAR Expen ses
Total Expenses
Banni ng Beaumont Corona
LETS
Rin ere'de
AVVTA Sped.S vcg.
RTA
Sunli ne TOTAL
15,611
15,611
828,599
$28,599
NA
13,051 18,419
13,051 18,419 NA
NA
$27,913 $59,215
S27,913 859,215 NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31,603
31,603
106,912
39,325
747,237
01 120,7s5
1131,537 0212,546
137,537 81,341,361
208,217
10,507
210,724
$595,529
$91,759
8687,280
932,740
111,905
1,044,645
$1,752,803
$528,970
82,201,853
1►NAtokNANCi! iPbitAfoPA
c..tenbta.eavmma..mee6mr.immdm�l.V Yf iY �f��r1�.Yi.i k �itf� YEuiiriii Hf� iir%i/1�liiili iii ti�{ i Y���1f1r1iir iriiieitY�lir.rirm reat ee t reeba vftewew
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE 17.29 NA NA NA
DIAL -A -RIDE NA 6.45 1634 NA
COST PER VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
$31.67 . NA NA NA
NA $10.08 I43i58 NA
FARE REVENUE RATIO 13.7% 12.91 Z1/%1 NA
SUBSIDY/PASSENGER
FIXED ROUTE 81.58 NA NA NA
DIAL -A -RIDE ' NA $1.43 $2657 NA
NA
NA
OA
NA
#1A
NA
NA
NA 25,21 , 14.16
5656 5.41 4 .11
PiA 10.15 090.51
�44�21 30.03 $38.54
11444 22.51 10.26
NA $1.21 $0.29
03:85 04.77 $8.02
4t. i.rmmYbmm666,rrri.Laaemm ahakiliaafali ikiliaaaaakiiiliaam%I II+ii4Il6rr.iiiilG6irirYY krrriw aiii.nlet, ed
Data for LETS and PVVTA wad no t Hdbmitt4A.
i
MAR
VLF
c'6oftWOW
%V.404 "49
I I
I
161114, ,
aVIU
?11414
T8/m 161
t l e k
taya;t
11494
oe/6t61 Max'Iv3sld
t I E I Z I I I mama°
I-i
8
N
a
5
N
a
3
8
-080.0E
-ase•at
aIWsUafIU JNINNVB
BEAMONT 1) -A -R RIDFW:I,IP
40,000-
TOTAL
YEAR
15,32R
30,800-
A
S
S
N
G
R
S
20,000-
10,000-
0-
(nPArTFn
FISCAL YEAR
TOTAL
YEAR
20,685
1 2 I 3 '4-
I1979/Rn
1121314
'1980 1
/81
TOTAL
YEAR
30,891
1 1-3-1-5-1-1-
'1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
42,259
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
50,885
TOTAL
YEAR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1983/84
1 1 2( 3 4
(1984/851
CORONA D -A -R RIDERSHIP
48, 088 -
P 38,888-
A
8
8
B
N
G
B
R
8
20,888 -
16,860-I
TOTAL
YEAR
89,951
1
QUARTER 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 l 1 1 2 1 3 4
FISCAL YEARI 1979/86 i 1986/81
TOTAL
YEAR
83,126
i
TOTAL
YEAR
68,566
TOTAL
TEAR
65,511
1 12 13
1981/62
4
213
i962/$3
4
TOTAL
YEAR
72,872
A *
1 1 2 1 3
11983/8 4
1
•
i
I
I
I
4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I 1984/85
RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES RIDERSHIP
P
A
S
8
E
N
G
E
R
S
46,808-
28,606-
16,068 -
QUARTER
1—I
TOTAL
YEAR
107,668
1 1 2 1 3
FISCAL YEAR! 1979/80
I
TOTAL
YEAR
104,352
2 1 3
1981/e1
TOTAL
YEAR
165,285
11213=6.
1441/41
TOTAL
YEAR
118,982
213
1942/09
TOTAL
YEAR
126,816
1 2 1 3 1 8 1 1 2 1 3
11983/44 f) 1466/89
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIDERSHIP
900,000-
800,000-
700,000-
P 600,000-
A
8
S
B
N 500,0110-
G
B
R
S
400,000-E
I
300,000-1
200,000-I
1
100,000-1
0- 1
TOTAL I TOTAL
YEAR I YEAR
2,413,333 1 2,492,029
QUARTER 1 1 2 1 3 1
FISCAL YEARI 1979/80
4
s
1 11980 1
/81
4
1i
TOTAL
BAR
2,490,13
1
I.
sl
12 3
�19A1/A2
NOTBSI, Fares Mere incre eeed in Jen.,1992 And in hey,1984.
TOTAL 1 TOTAL
YBAtt TEAR
3,480,30, I 2,888,141
1,
1121314111213
1982/03 I 1493/04
411121314
i904 1
/05
i
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY RIDERSHIP
988,888-
888,888-
150,888-
P 688,008-
A
S
S
E
N 588,8A0 -
G
B
R
S
400, 09d-
300,000-
288,688-
100,050-
@ -
QUARTER
FISCAL YEAR
TOTAL
YEAR
792,840
1 1 2 1 3 1 6
1979/88
TOTAL
ISAR
684,364
16
1rbTAb
h AI!
.7 ,,7 t
1 2 1 3 1 6 1 1 1
1988/81
1 2 1 3 1
1981/92.
9o1'ki
VAN
112 3
NOTES*
1. Routes restrtictured an d reduced fro m 11 to 6 touteA in 8e13E.,1081
and substantially reduced tran sfers counted AS paesAngerA
2. Zone fares and transfer c harges were im plemen ted and youth
fares were eliminated in Sept.,1982.
4
�i'bTAt►
TSAR
156,93!
11213
1983/91
TOTAL
TSAR
2 1 3 1 4
198! 1
/85
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Productivity Committee Recommendations
Each year, the Commission is required to identify potential
productivity improvements which could lower the operating
costs of transit operators in the County. The improvements
are identified through committees comprised of managers,
employee organization representatives and users of the sys-
tem. Committees were appointed by the Commission in
December to develop recommendations for the services oper-
ated by the Riverside Transit Agency and the SunLine Transit
Agency. The small operators were not reviewed this year.
Their productivity indicators such as passengers per hour
and cost per passenger were improved over prior years.
Additionally, for a small operator with one or two buses,
there are generally not many ways to change the way service
is provided and make a significant improvement.
The Committees reviewed each of the services of the opera-
tors placing particular emphasis on passengers carried per
day and subsidies per passenger. Following that review,
efforts completed or underway by the operators to improve
productivity were reviewed. Attached is a list of efforts
by the operators to improve productivity this year.
The Western County Area Committee developedfive recommenda-
tions for the Commission to forward to the Riverside Transit
Agency for consideration. The five recommendations were as
follows:
1. Review services operated on holidays to identify low
ridership runs or days and eliminate non-productive
services.
2. Make printed route and schedule information available
in Spanish.
3. Improve information availability by placing system and
route maps in all shelters and in transit tube displays
at major transfer points. Place system maps inside
buses. Replace bus stop signs with new signs showing
the route(s) serving the stop. After accomplishing
these items, the availability of individual route
schedules on buses should be limited to the route being
served.
CAC Agenda Item No. 4
March 11, 1985
4. Consideration should be given to implementing a
transfer charge to increase fare revenue and to reduce
the need for a general fare increase in the future.
5. Implement a summer service to Lake Perris using one bus
operating between Moreno Valley, Lake Perris and
Perris. The schedule would be coordinated to allow for
transfers from Line 16 (Riverside -Moreno Valley) and
Line 18 (Moreno Valley local service).
Commission staff supports Recommendations 1 through 4. Re-
commendation 5, service to Lake Perris, should be consi-
dered in conjunction with considering regular service bet-
ween Moreno Valley and Perris. The regular service could be
rerouted for a limited number of trips on Saturday and/or
Sunday to Lake Perris during the summer months. The RTA
Board has already identified Moreno Valley to Perris as a
second stage implmentation of fixed -route service in the
Moreno Valley area. The RTA staff will be evaluating this
service in the next SRTP update.
The Desert Area Committee identified improvements in the
marketing program for the SunLine Transit Agency. One was a
poster constest for public schools which SunLine has already
planned and the other was to develop giveaway items to
promote the system. These are minor suggestions for a
specific program and should not be acted on by the Commis-
sion.
In addition to the Committee reviews, staff conducted a
review of the availability of boarding and alighting infor-
mation for the fixed -route systems. The information is
essential to identifying high and low use stops and route
segments and the passenger to vehicle capacity rates. With
this information, the operators can identify where route
changes should be considered, the stops where benches and/or
shelters should be placed, and whether larger vehicles or
improved frequency is needed to eliminate vehicle capacity
problems. The Riverside Transit Agency has collected this
information annually for the past three years. The SunLine
Transit Agency did not have this information available but
will collect it this month and update it annually.
RECOMMENDATION
Support the Western County Area Productivity Committee
Recommendations 1-4 for the Riverside Transit Agency.
PB:nk
Enclosures
2
EFFORTS TO IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY IN FY 1984-85
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
1. Converted the Moreno Valley dial -a -ride to a fixed -route
service in January, 1985.
2. Eliminated low ridership morning and evening runs and
Saturday service in the fixed -route system in June, 1984.
3. Awarded contracts for installation of 25 bus shelters and
100 benches to be installed by April, 1985.
4. Extended Line 29 Rubidoux (local) service to Downtown
Riverside for direct service to Riverside.
5. Reviewed and expanded marketing efforts.
SUNLINE_TRANSIT AGENCY
1. Converted the La Quinta dial -a -ride service back to fixed -
route service and provided direct service to the Palm Desert
shopping center in December, 1984.
2. Requested proposals to determine whether private operators
could operate tel-a-ride services under contract to SunLine
at a lower cost than direct operation by SunLine.
3. Expanded service on Line 19 Desert Hot Springs to Coachella
and service on the Desert Hot Spring tel-a-ride in December,
1984.
4. Scheduled boarding and alighting counts for the fixed -route
service in March,1985.
5. Hired a Marketing Manager and expanded its marketing
program.
6. Expanding the number of bus shelters and benches will be
programmed after the boarding and alighting survey.
7. Started monthly driver -management meetings to discuss
problems and solutions.
3
Agenda Item No. 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Transit Funding - State and Federal Proposals
There are two important funding proposals under
consideration by the State and federal governments that will
impact Riverside County. The State proposal, SB 290, would
increase funding for Riverside County. The federal proposal
by the Administration would reduce funding for Riverside
County.
SB 290, introduced by State Senator John Foran, would
increase general funds in the Transportation Planning and
Development (TP&D) Account from $110 million to $250 million
per year. The TP&D account funds would continue to be
allocated 40% for transit capital projects (primarily rail)
and 60% to regions and counties for transit, and where
eligible, for streets and roads. However, SB 290 would
change the formula for allocating the State Transit
Assistance Funds to regions and counties. Currently 70% of
these funds are allocated to each area based on population
and 30% are allocated based on relative fare revenue and
local funds generated for transit. SB 290 would nearly
reverse the percentages: only 33% would be allocated by
population and 67% by relative fare revenue.
An argument can be made that dense urban areas should
receive a disproportionate share of transit funds based on
greater need. However, the new proposed formula is just too
lopsided. Of the $250 million proposed for the TP&D
Account, 40% ($100 million) is distributed at the discretion
of the California Transportation Commission. Over 95% of
those discretionary funds goes to counties with rail
projects. The remaining 60% ($150 million) is distributed
by the formula Foran proposes to change. Los Angeles County
would benefit slightly (about +3%), but the Bay area would
be the clear winner. All other areas would be losers.
Under the current formula, Riverside County would receive
about $3.2 million in STA funds; under the proposed formula,
Riverside County would receive about $1.7 million - a
difference of $1.5 million.
The Commission and the Riverside Transit Agency have acted
to support SB 290 but to oppose the change in the formula
for allocating funds to regions and counties.
The federal proposal by the Administration would reduce
transit funding by eliminating federal operating assistance
and reducing capital assistance and would increase local
match requirements for capital assistance. The proposal
CAC Agenda Item No. 5
would reduce operating funds in Riverside County by $1.7
million in the following areas: Riverside -Corona -Norco
$1,224,000; Hemet $186,000; Palm Springs $173,000; and rural
areas $117,000. Local match funds for capital assistance
grants would increase by $256,000 if the transit operators
applied for all of the $2.56 million in capital grant
formula funds available.
This proposed loss of federal operating assistance would not
immediately impact the existing transit system in Riverside
County if TDA and STA funds remain at or above their current
levels. TDA funds currently used for streets and roads
would make up for the loss in federal operating assistance
funds lost and higher local match funds required for capital
assistance grants. This loss of funds would however limit
the ability of operators to expand services in the future
and would increase pressures to eliminate the high subsidy
per passenger services such as dial -a -ride services. The
immediate impact of the proposed reduction in federal tran-
sit assistance will be on the local street and road mainte-
nance and construction programs.
PB:nk
2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: SunLine Transit Agency Tel -A -Ride Contracting
Feasibility
The SunLine Transit Agency has requested and received
proposals from private contractors to operate its dial -a -
ride services. The contractor proposals were requested to
determine whether or not these high subsidy services could
be operated at a lower cost by private contractors. The
cost, annual riders, average daily riders and subsidy per
passenger for these services last year are shown below:
SERVICE
ANNUAL AVG DAILY SUBSIDY/
COST RIDERSHIP RIDERSHIP PASSENGER
Intervalley
Handicapped $93,937 16,079 63 $ 5.16
Desert Hot Spgs $93,342 13,334 52 $ 6.47
Palm Desert $40,548 2,083 8 $19.02
PS E&B $68,117 3,261 13 $20.26
A subcommittee approved by the SunLine Board is meeting on
March 4th to review the proposals for contracting these
services and to develop a recommendation to the SunLine
Board. Information on the proposals received and the
subcommittee recommendation will be provided at the
Committee meeting.
PB:nk
CAC Agenda Item No. 6
March 11, 1985
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
HIGH PRIORITY
A. Should there be a universal telephone number for transit, vanpool,
carpool and buspool information.
B. Consideration should be given phasing out dial -a -ride, except for
elderly and handicapped service, unless dial -a -ride can be made more
cost effective.
C. Should funding be made available for expanding service and carrying out
an aggressive marketing program in a selected area as a pilot program.
Example: fixed -route service in Moreno Valley with more than one route
and headways of no more than 30 minutes.
D. Transit operators should provide more information on bus services at
bus stops (maps and schedules).
E. Highway 79 (Lambs Canyon) - safety problems and update on possible
widening or guard rail project.
F. Highway 111 - safety and congestion problems.
G. Highway 86 - safety problem.
H. Highway 71 - safety problem, better markings on the asphalt.
I. Highway 91 - safety and congestion problems. Should a diamond lane be
constructed from Corona to Orange County.
J. How are Citizens Advisory Committees used by other Commissions, what
are the areas of activity, and should the Committee begin to act more
as an advocacy group through the Commission?
MODERATE PRIORITY
A. Transit operators should increase efforts to promote transit subsidy
programs such as merchant discounts, employer pass programs, etc.
B. Should transit service be operated between Lake Elsinore and Corona.
C. Should transit service be operated between Norco and Riverside to
accommodate persons needing to be in Riverside for work by 8 a.m.
D. Public/private partnerships - should private developers participate
more in transportation projects.
Is there adequate information exchange within the transit community to
identify innovative transit programs designed in other areas for possi-
ble implementation in Riverside County.
Provide an update report on efforts to establish local airline and rail
services in Riverside County.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 1-85
January 17, 1985
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison
at 1:38 p.m., on Thursday, January 17, 1985, at the
Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street,
Riverside. The Chairman noted that a quorum was present.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros
Susan Cornelison
Melba Dunlap
Bill Edmonds
Roy Wilson
Norton Younglove
Alternate present:
Ed Shepard
2. Approval of Minutes.
lei/S/C (SHEPARD/WILSON) to approve the minutes of the
December 20, 1984 meeting as submitted.
3.. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. Proposals to Increase Funding for Transportation Purposes.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, said that included in the
agenda packet is a copy of the position paper developed by
the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies (RTPA) group.
The. RTPA group, proposal is similar to the CBT proposal
except it is not as specific. The objective of the RTPA
proposal is to raise revenues for streets and roads, the
state highway shortfall and transit.
He then distributed copies of a table comparing the amount
of funding that counties would receive under the CEAC, San
Joaquin formula, and a formula using 30% registered
vehicles, 30% unincorporated population, and 40% maintained
mileage within the unincorporated area. Barry Beck said
that the new formula is the same as the CEAC formula except
it changes the 60% registered vehicles to 30% registered
vehicles and 30% unincorporated population. Both the San
Joaquin formula and the new formula include a minimum $2400
per mile of maintained road. He said that the new formula
would help counties such as Riverside, San Bernardino,
RCTC Minutes
January 17, 1985
Fresno, Kern, Tulare. Riverside County has four times as
many maintained miles as Orange County yet under the exist-
ing formula, Orange County would receive approximately $20
million while Riverside County would only receive $7
million. It will be difficult to enact any change that
will reduce the amount of funds to be received by the large
counties relative to the status quo. He reiterated that he
is not suggesting support of a new formula but only wants to
point out factors that treat counties such as Riverside more
equitably.
Commissioner Shepard asked if there are other variables that
could be added to make the formula more equitable. He noted
the need for more local street and road funds especially in
counties where it snows as streets and roads in those areas
deteriorate faster.
Ed Studor said that there is a separate pot of funds for
counties dealing with problems created by snow.
Commissioner Ceniceros•pointed out that counties are advan-
- taged differently depending on the level of increase in gas
tax The $2400 per mile in the proposal is tied to at least
am additional 2 cents being allocated to counties.
Barry -Beck informed the Commission that he has heard that
Senator Zahn Foram has requested Legislative Counsel to
draft. a transportation financing bill and that he is sche-
duled to meet with Governor Duekmejian to discuss the
matter..
Walt Ingalls, member of the California Transportation
Commission, said that he had talked with Senator Foran and
Kirk West, Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing
Agency, and neither one was optimistic before and after the
meeting. He stated that there is a desire by the Governor
toga to the 1986- election with a clean record without a tax
increase and straightening out State finances without an
increase in taxes.. Inanticipation of this and with the
highway program being underfunded, he has asked CTC staff to
prepare a list of non -interstate projects in Los Angeles
County that could be slipped. He noted that Los Angeles
County has two big interstate projects (Century and Harbor
Freeways) in addition to the Metrorail project. Another
factor that could reduce funds is that at some point gas
prices will fall. In order to getany form of gas tax
increase, 2/3 votes are neededwhich is unlikely to be
obtained since 11 counties have tried for a gas tax increase
last November bat failed. Unless there is a 10-15 cents gas
tax increase, an across the board increase in projects
cannot be granted. Without any new revenues, he is antici-
pating that projects in the STIP will be slipping.
RCTC Minutes
January 17, 1985
Barry Beck said that ACA 37 (Poran) allows a majority vote
to enact a gas tax increase in a county. At present, exist-
ing legislation requires a two-thirds vote.
Eric Haley, SCAG, stated that a small pot of funds could be
made available by manipulating the depreciation schedule for
vehicles which would result in approximately $100 million,
and by raising the tax on diesel fuel but this is kind of a
bandaid-type approach. He added that CAPOTS is starting to
push on their bill to protect TP&D, guideways, etc., pro-
jects.
Barry Beck said that he is recommending that the Commission
support, in concept, the CBT and RTPA proposal. In addi-
tion, he is recommending that the Commission support as a
condition thatthe number one priority for any increase in
funds be far local streets and roads. The reason for this
is that the State has indicated that they will be able to
get by for another year and not lose any federal funds but
in his discussions withpublic works staff, the local street
and road situation has already passed the crisis situation.
Commissioner Ceniceros expressed her concern with this con-
dition if additional wording is not added. She said that
from the local agency's perspective, she certainly sees
local streets and roads as the first priority but she also
recognizes that there is also a need in State highways.
Barry Beckstated that the second condition is to revise the
gas tax subvention formulafor counties in order that each
county receives a fair share. The third condition calls for
distribution of funds to all counties on any gas tax in-
crease earmarked for transit guideways and that those
counties not proposing guideway projects be allowed to ex-
pend fundsfor streets and highways. He pointed out that the
CB? proposal calls for a l cent gas tax increase for every-
body but funds would only be expended for rail/transit
projects. The fourth condition is to oppose the enactment
of a legislation which allow or encourage local option gas
taxes.
Walt Ingalls commented that the local
very well be the Governor's position.
Commissioner Shepard asked for reasons
opposition of the local option.
Barry Beck said that the local option would let the State
off the hook. It is an "out" for the State as they could
claim that local agencies have the mechanism to take care
option gas tax might
for recommending the
RCTC Minutes
January 17, 1985
of the problem locally. The strategy is to oppose local
option at this time but if it should come to a point where
that becomes a last resort, the Commission could again
discuss it and perhaps change its position.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/SHEPARD) that the Commission support,
in concept, the proposals of the Californians for
Better Transportation and the Regional Transportation
Planning Agency to increase transportation revenues
with the following conditions:
1. While recognizing the serious need for additional
revenue for State highways and while supporting
such an increase, increased funding for local
streets and roads should be the number one
priority this year.
2. The gas tax subvention formula for counties be
revised to insure that each county receives a fair
share.
3. That any gas tax increase earmarked for transit
guideways be distributed to all counties and
allowed to be used for streets and highways in
those counties notproposing guideway projects.
4. Oppose enactment of legislation allowing or encou-
raging local option gas taxes.
Walt Ingalls suggested that the Commission discuss and per-
haps consider some sort of resolution addressing the slip-
page of projects in the STIP and looking at the Los Angeles
County projectsas: they are slated to get the Harbor Freeway
($8O0 million), the Century Freeway ($1.700 million) and
$360 million is setaside at the State level for Metrorail
and that they shouldshare the consequencies of the shortage
of funds that is forthcoming.
At this time, Chairman Cornelison presented Phil Jones a
plaque recognizing his efforts as a member of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission from June 1980 to November
1984.
5. Local Streets and Highway Maintenance Needs Assessments.
Ed Studor, Riverside County Road Department, stated that
last May, the County Board of Supervisors authorized the
Road Department to form a local street and road needs
assessment committee to prepare an assessment of countywide
local street and road funds. The Committee comprised of
representatives of cities and private sector first met in
ROTC Minutes
January 17, 1985
July, 1984. The study has been completed and indicates that
the problem locally is worse than what was thought of origi-
nally. He said that countywide the road program receives
$41 million; of that $29 million is allocated for
maintenance and rehabilitation, $5 million for new construc-
tion. Every year they have had to defer more and more
maintenance due to lack of funds. At the County level, they
have only funded 1/3 of the total projects needed. County-
wide there is a $200 million backlog of projects. To keep
up with maintenance and avoid further backlog of projects,
an additional $17 million per year is needed.
6. Uu et Transit Needs Process.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that the annual unmet
needs process is coming up. Last year, staff was requested
to explore things that could be done to make sure that
everyone who has needs is aware of the hearings and that
there is a way for them to provide input to the Commission.
Staff is suggesting that& I) the number of hearings be
expanded to two hearings in the Coachella. Valley area and
two hearings in the Western County area; 2) advertising be
expanded to include newspapers,. radio spots, cable TV
coverage; 3) mailing Lists be expanded to include senior
citizens centers,. social. service agencies, etc.; 4) all
advertising would encourage people to write letters or tele-
phone if they are unable to attend the hearings; and, 6)
review information that may come from a series of community
hearings held by the Office oa Aging.
Chairman Cornelison suggested that the Commission should
also encourage feedback from other organizations and the
education community as well.
Commissioner. Wilson askedif there are funds available in
the Commission's budget to hire a consultant to design an ad
for the unmet needs hearings. He pointed out that previous
notices contained language that are unclear and not under-
standable to some people.
Barry Beck said that this process is a joint effort with
SCAG. SCAG has budgeted funds for this purpose and SCAG has
staff with expertise in this area.
Commissioner Wilson said that in Coachella Valley, it is
very easy to get the media to set up a press conference if
there is a legitimate need. Perhaps something like that
could be set up with either a Commission member or SCAG/RCTC
staff ata central location and get television, radio and
newspapers to get some free news coverage in addition to the
ad. It might also be possible to cablecast the first hear-
RCTC Minutes
January 17, 1985
ing in the area to attact others to attend the second hear-
ing and present their testimony.
Barry Beck said staff will work with SCAG staff on the ads
and he will come back to the Commission if additional funds
or if a consultant are needed.
Commissioner Wilson volunteered Palm Desert's Public Infor-
mation Officer to assist SCAG and RCTC staff in the flow of
information in the Coachella Valley area.
M/S/C (DIIRLAP/SHEPARD) to direct staff to proceed with
the aggressive publicity on the unmet transit. needs
process as outlined in the report and as discussed at
the meeting.
T. Proposal. to Alloy Agencies to Trade Federal Aid Funds.
Barry Beck. said that Caltrans had suggested a program to
allow cities and Counties to buy and sell federal funds. In
theory,. larger and more sophisticated cities/counties would
buy„ at..a discount, federal funds that would normally go to
small: cities and put together one or two projects and quick-
ly- expend federal funds.. This item was discussed by the
Technical Advisory Committee and there are a few local
agencies that are interested in. the program. He is
recommending that the Commission approve the trading of PAU
funds subject to some guidelinesthat are consistent with
Commission policy that ensure that each local agency re-
ceives a fair share of federal -aid funds.
Commissioner Shepard asked if the reason for doing this is
to: keep the funding around even though it may not be serving
its function versus trying, to modify it to meet the needs
more appropriately. Be said that he has a problem with
keeping the money around even though it is not being used.
Barry Beck explained that funds are being used but the
smaller cities that experience turnover in staff or have
very limited staff that are unfamiliar with the federal -aid
program just are not able get the projects out. On the
other hand, we have the large agencies that are very good in
getting the projects out. The little cities might gladly
sell a dollar of federal funds for eighty cents of
straight gas tax funds and use it for maintenance, etc.
CommissionerShepard suggested that perhaps it would be
appropriate to provide assistance to those cities to move
their projects forward. He asked why those cities that are
spending their allocation be penalized by discounting their
money and get even less. If the money is there to be used
RCTC Minutes
January 17, 1985
for a specific purpose, they shouldn't have to take less
just because they need some technical assistance.
Barry Beck explained that it is probably worth it to them
because no matter what the expertise is, they have to go
through all the hoops and red tape involved with the federal
government and it is going to cost them that much more to
produce the project. So getting the equivalent of 80 cents
on a $1 still letslocal agencies put the same amount of
asphalt down on the road or fill the same amount of potholes
because they don't have to go through as much red tape.
Commissioner Shepard said that he would support the program
on the basis that it would give local agencies more options
to deal with their needs.
fil/S/C CSHBPARD/DUNLAPj to approve the trading of
Federal Aid funds subject to the guidelines enumerated
in the staff report.
S. Highway Electrification and Automation.
Al Dowser,r Highway Program Manager of SCAG, briefed the
Commission on the concept of: highway electrification and
automation. He said that- the City of Santa Barbara has
embarked on a project and its midway to completion. IIMTA,
DOT, PHWA and Caltrans have pledged approximately $5 million
for the project. The project consists of 10 small buses
which will be running ona system extending along State
Street. for 5 1/2 miles to serve the Mall and beach areas.
It willoperate on a 5 -minute headway at a maximum speed at
30 mph.. Be said that the idea of automatic or electronic
freeway to smooth traffic flow is coming gradually. SCAG's
Transportation and Communications Committee at their meeting
this morning, supported further study of this concept under
an umbrella of an oversight committee which would include
representatives from localtransportation commissions, Cal -
trans,. automobile club, etc.
Commissioner Younglove said that it is undoubtedly a valid
concept for this area but it may have some very serious
implications. Unfortunately, to the extent that fossil
fuelsare used for generation of electricity, this area may
be downwind of generation plant emissions. An easy answer
may be to use non-fossilfuels sources. Be said that he had
done a study on electricalcapabilities years ago and the
problems he had found were not only the capability of the
vehicle and cost of converting freeways, etc., but how to
generate electricity and what the affects are on not only
air pollution but also the oil transit via pipelines or off-
shore or potential off -shore spills, etc. He would certainly
RCTC Minutes
January 17, 1985
encourage that this alternative continue to be investigated
because in the long term, it has potential not only in terms
of both mass transit and individualized transit capability
but also air pollution.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that questions were asked of the
Mag-Lev train in terms of the energy cost production as well
as output. Regarding emissions associated with production,
the AQMP certainly looked at this as a preferred alternative
in terms of vehicular operational emissions. She said that
SCAG should include in their assessment net increases and if
indeed it would be any greater than any other alternative
modes of transit.
-AL Bowser said that this was included and that unfortunate-
ly there will be 5% net increase in the peak electrical
demand. There was a 10-15% reduction overall.
Commissioner Younglove said that one of the real advantages
of an electrical energy is that youcan recharge batteries
off peak.
Commissioner Edmonds pointed out that there has been an
operating track and vehicle for several years in the
Lawrence-L:ijrermore Lab and that is where the initial DOE
research was done. Se said that if funds were available,
any problems could be identified within 10` years at most.
Barry Beck stated that there is- still a lot of research that
needs to be done. There maybe sometest track somewhere but
he hasnot seen any documentation of test results. Bill
Edmonds said that this has been done and it is nothing new.
Barry Beck stated that if in fact there is already an
operating track, why are they now going back to static
testing again.
Commissioner Tounglove directed staff to generate for the
Commission's next agenda a statement that basically
encourages continuation of study inthis area and volunteer
a logical place within Riverside County for the next study.
-Like Santa Barbara, the location will have to be comparably
a small scale, self contained where the experiment could be
conducted without spending a lot of money.
On behalf of the Commission, Chairman Cornelison thanked Al
Bowser for the presentation.
a
ROTC Minutes
January 17, 1985
9. Miscellaneous Items.
1. Barry Beck said that he was informed by Caltrans
District 8 that their proposal for the 1985 State
Highway Program will include $14 million for continued
work on I-215.
2. Chairman Cornelison announced that an election of
officers will be held at the Commission's February
meeting.
3. Chairman Cornelison informed Commission members that
UCLA Extension is sponsoring a seminar entitled "The
Olympics Transportation Experience: Lessons Learned
and Applications for the Future" on February 1st. This
is a.continuation of the rideshare seminar held last
month. - She will not be available to attend the seminar
and asked if any member of the Commission would like to
attend.
Commissioner Younglove announced that his alternate to
the. Commission, Mayor Louis R. Boettcher of Perris, has
resigned as he felt that the City of Perris is over
represented on the. - Commission with another
representative front -Perris, being a member of the
Commission. He felt that another city representative
shoaid. be_ appointed .as the alternate. Commissioner
Yoanglove said that his new alternate will be
Councilman Steve -Webb from the City of Moreno Valley
rhea will also bean. alternate on the RTA Board.
IR. Adjournment.
There being no other items for discussion, Chairman
Cornelison adjourned. the meeting at 3:39 P.M.
Respectfully submitted.
nk
arry Bec
Executive Director
9