Loading...
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