HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 11, 1985 Citizens Advisory040233
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGEMIDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMNITz&
February 11, 1985, 1:38 P.H.
4th Floor Conference Room, Riverside City Hall
3988 !fain Street, Riverside 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of !linutes.
3. Transportation Issues.
4. Fare Revenue Requirements.
5. _. Ilse of Transportation Development Act Funds.
6. Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearings.
7. Adjournment.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 4-84
December 10, 1984
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order at 1:36 p.m., on Monday, December 10, 1984, at the Riverside
City Hall, Fourth Floor Conference Room, 3900 Main Street,
Riverside, by Chairman Richard L. Jandt.
Members present:
Harry Brinton.
Jordis Cameron
Marian Carpelan
Richard L. Jandt
Others present:
Herb Krauch
Rena Parker
Sheila Velez
Bertram Vinson
Susan Cornelison, Chairman - RCTC
Kay Van Sickel, Riverside Transit Agency
2. Approval of Minutes.
There being no changes, deletions or additions to the minutes of
the September 10, 1984 meeting, the minutes were approved as sub-
mitted.
3. Election of Officers.
(
Richard Jandt and Rena -Parker were unanimously elected as the
Citizens: Advisory Committee Chairman and Vice Chairman.
4.. Committee Activity Discussion.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, commented that during the
last year, the Committee has met less frequently than in previous
years. One of the reasons is that the Committee is primarily
transit oriented and transit is maturing with improvements aimed at
finetuning the system and minor service improvements in some of the
smaller rural areas of the County. The Committee has continually
provided the Commission with numerous and valuable recommendation
during the development of the current transit system. Paul
Blackwelder then introduced Susan Cornelison, Chairman of RCTC.
Commissioner Cornelison was invited to help the Committee with a
"brainstorming" session to identify transportation issues of con-
cern to Committee members that could be worked on over the next
year.
Susan Cornelison commneted on her position on the Commission being
a little bit different than the other members in that she is not an
elected official and is representing citizens of the County. She
noted the importance of the Committee's input to keep her and the
other Commissioners aware of the concerns of citizens throughout
the County.
The following transportation issues were raised by Committee
members:
Funding
o How are transportation funds spent on various modes statewide,
in Riverside County and in other areas.
• Fare revenue to operating expense ratios for TDA transit
funding.
a. What are the ratios and what ar.e they based on?
b. Are the ratio requirements an incentive?
c..• Should the ratio requirements be changed?
a Should 'toils` be collected for use of the freeway system.
a. Reduce freeway demand?
b. Fund freeway improvements?
Transit
Should there be a universal telephone number for transit,
vanpool, carpool and buspool information.
Should transit operators increase efforts to promote transit
subsidy programssuch as merchant discounts, employer pass
programs, etc.
o Should service be operated between Lake Elsinore and Corona.
a Should. service be operated between Norco and Riverside to
accommodate persons needing to be in Riverside for work by 8
a.m.
o Is there adequate information exchange within the transit
community to identify innovative transit programs designed in
other areas for possible implementation in Riverside County.
o Consider phasing out dial -a -ride, except for elderly and
handicapped service, unless dial -a -ride can be made more cost
effective.
o 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.
o Transit operators should provide more information on bus ser-
vices at bus stops (maps and schedules).
o Improve the interface of transit with carpools/vanpools
(Riverside Transit Agency to Commuter Computer services).
o Consider additional specialty/seasonal transit services like
those operated in Palm Springs and Palm Desert.
Highway
o Highway 79 (Lambs Canyon) - safety update on possible widening
or guard rail project.
o Highway 111 - safety and congestion.
o Highway 86 - safety.
a Highway 71 - safety, better markings on the asphalt.
o Highway 91 - safety and congestion.
o Highway 91 - Hamner Avenue reduction from 4 lanes to 2 lanes
at Highway 91 bridge..
o Highway 91 - diamondlane from Corona to Orange County.
o Study the -feasibility of building people movers for pedes-
trians to cross roadways.
OTHER AREAS
o Public/private partnership - should private developers parti-
cipate more in transportation projects.
a Local airline efforts - update.
o Rail service - update.
o How are Citizens Advisory Committees used by other Commissions
andwhat are the areas of activity
o Should the Citizens Advisory Committee begin to act more as an
advocacy group through the Commission?
o Staff should provide the CAC with a longer lead time for
transit hearing dates.
o Staff should mail a Commission agenda packet to the CAC Chair-
man.
At this time, a discussion was held on the composition and the
expansion of the Committee membership.
M/S/C (KRAIICH/VINSON) to expand the Committee
membership to include representatives from special
organizations such as Chamber of Commerce, real estate,
builders, special interest groups., etc.
Barry Beck pointed out that statewide, public works staff are
pushing for an increase in gas tax and he is wondering what the
average citizen feels about increasing the gas tax to provide funds
for local street and road maintenance. Since there are several
areas of the County represented on the Committee, he asked what
the Committee members' perception are on the conditions of local
streets and roads.
Chairman Jandt said that generally speaking in terms of the sur-
face, the condition of streets and roads in the Indio area is
adequate. He is not aware of many problems. The occasional wash-
out of roads is a problem.
Bertram Vinson stated that the. Route 60 in the Etiwanda area is in
bad shape.
Rena Parker noted that there is a need for a lot of repairs and
resurfacing in Corona.
Herb Krauch said that the conditions in the Pass area have been
pretty good.
Chairman Jandt said that perhaps.a measuring device could be placed
in RTA buses within a given area to give the Road Commissioner
informationon the condition of street and. road. surface.
5. Transit Operations Quarterly Report.
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that ridership for the
first quarter has increased 10% (86,911 passengers) over last year
and 20% (153,876 passengers) in the last two years. The highest
ridership gain was experienced by the SunLine Transit Agency.
Operating costs are 3% ($63,552) higher than last year and we are
operating basically the same system. There has been a decrease in
the subsidy per passenger in four of the systems (RTA, SunLine,
Lake Elsinore and Corona). There is still a problem with the high
cost in subsidies per passenger in SunLine's dial -a -ride services
which range from $3.82 on the intervalley handicapped service to
$22 on the Palm Springs E&H tel-a-ride service. In an attempt to
reduce the cost, SunLine has converted the La Quinta dial -a -ride
service to fixed route and they are requesting proposals from
private operators to operate the remaining tel-a-ride service. The
proposals are due in early January. He then reviewed service and
fare changes,. capital improvements and marketing efforts in the
RTA, SunLine, LETS, Banning and Riverside Special Services as
listed in the staff report.
In response to Herb Krauch on the status of transit service from
Hemet to Banning, Kay Van Sickel stated that they are currently
preparing a report on service from Banning/Beaumont to Hemet and
4
the report would be ready in the next 3-4 months.
Marian Carpelan asked if scheduling of the Riverside Special Ser-
vices has improved, Paul Blackwelder said that the Riverside Spe-
cial Services is now using a computer for scheduling and that he
has not heard of any complaints lately. In fact, Special Services'
ridership and passengers carried per hour has increased.
Chairman Jandt stated that perhaps the overall increase in rider-
ship is the result of population growth in the area and better
marketing of transit services by the operators.
Kay Van Sickel said that the ridership increase is due to growth in
population as well as a combination of things such as good weather
conditions, etc. With regards to marketing, RTA has allocated
funds for this purpose. Last year, they have expended $100,000 for
public information service and advertising.
Barry Beck said that he feels the increase may be mostly due to
the same people riding public transit more. He tends to downplay
population growth being the reason for the increase in ridership as
the type of people moving to Riverside County tend not to ride
public transportation.
Kay Van Sickel said that the RTA survey has shown that the average
rider is fairly young at 25 year of age with an income of $10,000
or less. The survey also indicated that a large number of people
are using public transportation to go to work.
6. Riverside Transit Agency Marketing Plan.
Paul Blackwelder explained to the Committee that the marketing plan
adopted by RTA was a three-part effort: 1) To increase awareness
of. RTA employees on the range of services that they offer and the
organization's goals and objectives; 2) To conduct telephone and
on-boardsurveys to identify improvements needed in RTA marketing
plan, determine the make-up of its current ridership, and gather
impressions of RTA's services by users as well as non -users; and,
3) Redesign of RTA's marketing plan and materials.
Kay Van Sickel said that the first part of the effort is to set up
a sensitivity program for RTA drivers and administrative staff
dealing with the public on how to provide public information and
get input. Meetings are being head periodically with drivers and
staff to discuss marketing techniques as well as gather input. The
findings of the telephone and on -board surveys conducted by RTA
indicated that: 1) Users are more aware than potential users of
RTA services and have a better perception of RTA services; 2)
Everyone (users, potential users and non -users) is generally very
supportive of bus service and approximately 80% have indicated that
they would support funding bus service with their tax dollars; 3)
A large percentage of users and potential users would like bus
shelters, bus information posted at bus shelters and other loca-
tions and more frequent bus service in the morning and evening
hours; 4) Most of those that responded that are employed said that
5
they are interested in purchasing a bus pass through their employer
especially if it was subsidized; 5) Dial -a -ride users, especially
in Hemet, San Jacinto and Perris dial -a -rides, are less satisfied
than users of the fixed route services; and, 6) Users rely on RTA's
information number more than any other major source of information
on bus service.
Kay Van Sickel continued that RTA hired the marketing firm of
Lenal, Waford and Stone, Inc. to assist in designing new marketing
tools and programs. The following are some of the firm's recommen-
dations: 1) That RTA clear up their logo and come up with another
logo; 2) To implement an all agressive awareness advertising cam-
paign, i.e. direct mail to introduce new services or for pushing
services having problems with ridership; 3) To target high school
students and college students as potential riders; 4) To develop a
system map with instructions on how to use the system on the back
of the map; and, 5) Use newspaper for advertisements as it is the
best possible source, itgets into 50% of household and can be
targeted to specific areas, and use direct mail. Also suggested
was the use of high school and college newspapers for advertising.
At this time, Kay Van Sickel showed the different ads that are
being run in newspapers.
Kay Van Sickel informed the Committee that they are in the process
of installing 25 bus shelters in Riverside. System maps will be
placed in each shelter. The RTA is developing new bus signs. They
are working in cooperation with local social service agencies on
the distribution of bus. schedule. An RTA toll free number giving
information. on RTA services is now in service.
Sheila Velez asked if RTA is working with shopping malls to have
bus service information.
Kay Van Sickelsaid that they are working with Tyler Mall and other
shopping malls for a place to set up the system map and for the
public to have a place to pick up schedules. Additionally, they
are working with area businesses and governmental agencies on the
idea of a subsidize bus pass program for their employees.
Marian Carpelan asked if RTA will try and obtain more funding for
additional shelters. Kay Van Sickel responded that RTA will not be
doing so at this time.. The criteria used for placing a shelter at
a location is 50 or more boardings. All stops meeting this
criteria will have shelters under the current program.
Chairman Jandt suggested that RTA work with the Chambers of
Commerce to have RTA and its telephone number on their maps.
7. RCTC and CAC Schedule.
Paul Blackwelder noted that the RCTC March meetings are tentative
dates and members of the Committee will be informed on any changes.
ITEM NO. 3
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Transportation Issues
At the last meeting,. the Committee participated in a "brain-
storming" session led by Commissioner Susan Cornelison to
identify transportation issues of concern to Committee mem-
bers. The session was both interesting and beneficial to
staff and those who participated. The 28 issues identified
at the meeting are listed below. The next step for the
Committee isto review and refine the list and establish
priorities for working on the various issues.
Committee members are requested to review the list of issues
prior to the meeting and to rate each issue as a high, mode-
rate or Iow priority. The consensus of the Committee will
guide staff in selectingthe issues and preparing reports for
future meetings... If there is an issue of concern to you that
is not on the list, it can be added at the meeting
and prioritized.
Funding
o How are transportation funds spent on various modes
statewide, in Riverside County and in other areas. ))---
• Fare revenue to operating expense ratios for TDA transit
funding. 2
a. What are the ratios and what are they based on?
b. Are the ratio requirements an incentive?
c. Should the ratiorequirements be changed?
o Should 'tolls" be collected for use of the freeway
system.
a. Reduce freeway demand?
b. Fund freeway improvements?
Transit
o /Should there be a universal telephone number for transit,
vanpool, carpool and buspool information. ?,
o Should transit operators increase efforts to promote
transit subsidy programs such as merchant discounts,
employer pass programs, etc.
Agenda Item No . , 3
Ti.k,„n,- 11 1 A0
o Should service be operated between Lake Elsinore and 'l/
Corona.
o Should service be operated between Norco and Riverside
to accommodate persons needing to be in Riverside for
work by 8 a.m..
o Is there adequate information exchange within the tran-
sit community to identify innovative transit programs'
designed in other areas for possible implementation inj
Riverside County.
o /Consider phasing out dial -a -ride, except for elderly and
handicapped service, unless dial -a -ride can be made more
cost effective. C
o /Should funding be made available for expanding service
and carrying oat 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. 5
o /Transit operators should provide more information on bus
services at bus stops (maps and schedules).
o Improve the interface oftransit with carpools/vanpools
(Riverside Transit Agency to Commuter Computer ser- -12
vices).
o Consider additional specialty/seasonal transit services
like those operated in Palm Springs and Palm Desert.
Highway
o Highway 79 (Lambs Canyon) safety„ update on possible
widening or guard rail project.
o Highway IIl - safety and congestion.
o Highway 86 safety.
o Highway 71 - safety, better markings on the asphalt.
o Highway 91 - safety and congestion.0
o 114-40e Hamner Avenue reduction from 4 lanes to 2
lanes at Highway-% bridge.
SiktokiN, is v.vil
o Highway 91 - diamond lane from Corona to Orange Countyd
o Study the feasibility of building people movers for
pedestrians to cross roadways.
OTHER AREAS
o Public/private partnership - should private developers
participate more in transportation projects.
o Local airline efforts - update.
o Rail service - update.
o How are Citizens Advisory Committees used by other Com-
missions and what are the areas of activity.
o, Should the Citizens Advisory Committee begin to act more,,
as an advocacy group through the Commission?
o Staff should provide the CAC with a longer lead time for
transit hearing dates.
a Staff should mail a Commission agenda packet to the CAC
Chairman.
PB:nk
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4-''
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Fare Revenue Requirements
The Committee was advised at the last meeting that the State
is reconsidering the issue of required minimum percentages of
operating expenses that must be covered by fare revenues for
public transit operators to be eligible to receive
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to support their
systems. The State is hiring a consultant to study this
issue. The questions to be considered are whether or not the
State should set the minimum fare revenue requirements, what
problems have the requirements caused, and whether the
requirements have been incentives for the operator to improve
productivity. Durand Rall, General Manager of the Riverside
Transit Agency, is a member of the consultant selection and
steering committee for the State. Durand will keep us
informed of the activities and_ findings of the study as it
progresses.
The minimum fare revenue requirements for Riverside County
public transit operators are as follows:
a. Operatorsserving only urbanized areas must fund 20% of
operating costs from fare revenues.
b. Operatorsserving only non -urbanized areas must fund 10%
of operating costs from fare revenues.
c. Operatorsproviding only elderly and handicapped
services must fund 10% of operating costs from fare
revenues.
d. Operators serving urbanized and non -urbanized areas must
fund a. percentageof operating costs fromfare revenues
using a formula based on 2016 -for urbanized area, 10% for
non -urbanized area, and 10% for elderly and handicapped
only service costs. This formula percentage is used for
the Riverside Transit Agency and the SunLine Transit
Agency and is calculated annually by the Commission.
The minimum fare revenue requirements apply to the total
system of the operator and not to inidividual routes or dial -
a -ride services.
Exemptions for new services and expansion of existing
services are provided in the law. Operating costs for new or
expanded services are exempted for a period of two full
fiscal years of operation. A new or expanded service started
Agenda Item No. 4
in the middle of a fiscal year could be operated for 2 1/2
years before the operating costs would be included in the
fare revenue requirement calculation.
The minimum fare revenue requirements are increased if not
met by the operator. For example, an operator with a 10%
requirement that covered only 8% of operating costs from
fares would be required to cover 12% of operating costs from
fares in the next and subsequent years. No operator in
Riverside County has had its requirement increased for
failing to meet the minimum fare revenue requirement. The
required and actual percentages for Riverside County transit
operators for the past two years are listed below.
1982/83 1983/84
REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED ACTUAL
Banning 10% 22% 10% 17.4%
Beaumont 10% 25.5% 10% 23.4%
Corona 20% 20% 20% 20%
LETS 10% 11.9% 10% 13%
PVVTA 10% 12.2% 10% 12.5%
Rive. Spec. Svcs. 10% 12.8% 10% 12%
RTA 17.3% 18.6% 18% 20.8%
SunLine . 15.2% 18.7% 15.7% 19.4%
PB:nk
2
Agenda Item No. 5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Use of Transportation Development Act Funds
Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds are the major
source of funds for supporting public transit operating and
capital expenses in the State of California. TDA funds are
derived from 1/4 of 1% of the sales tax collected by the
State. These funds are returned to the counties for the
primary purpose of funding public transit services. In
counties such as Riverside County, funds not needed for
transit services can be used for street and road
construction, maintenance and. repair.
Staff was requested at the last meeting to prepare
information showing how TDA. fundshave been used in the State
and in Riverside County. The attached table was prepared
using informationpublished by :.the State for the period of FY
1980/81 through FY 1982/83.. The table shows TDA allocations
by purpose on a statewide basis and for Article 8 counties
where funds can be used for street and road purposes. Also
shown are the uses of funds in. Riverside, San Bernardino and
Ventura Counties.
PB:nk.
Attachment
1
Agenda Item No. 5
February 11, 1985
USE OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) FUNDS FY 1980/81 TO FY 1982/83
STATEW IDE://///////////////
TRANSIT
OPERATING
CAPITAL
TOTAL
NON TRANSIT
PED $ BICYCLES
STREETS $ ROADS
$320,639,
$40,624,
$361,263,
1980/81
073
785
858
$6,920,955
$69,021,237
TOTAL TDA ALLOCATIONS $437,206,050
ARTICLE 8 COUNTIES * :///////
TRANSIT $48,829,885
NON TRANSIT $67,383,144
TOTAL TDA ALLOCATIONS $116,213,029
RIVERSIDE COUNTY://////////
TRANSIT $6,780,755
NON TRANSIT $3,881,776
TOTAL TDA ALLOCATIONS $10,662,531
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY://///
TRANSIT $7,208,772
NON TRANSIT $7,381,232
TOTAL TDA ALLOCATIONS $14,590,004
VENTURA COUNTY:////////////
TRANSIT $2,442,616
NON TRANSIT $5,258,145
TOTAL TDA ALLOCATIONS $7,700,761
82.6%
1.6%
15 .8%
100.0%
42.0%
58.0%
100%
63.6%
36. 4%
49.4%
50.6%
31. 7%
68.3%
1981/82
$344,150,078
$63,755,531
$407,905,609
$5,875,915
$62,970,644
$476,752,168
$55,999,716
$62,141,572
$118,141,288
$7,307,002
$5,645,802
$12,952,804
$7,861,055
$7,651,561
$15,512,616
$3,071,299
$6,435,735
$9,507,034
85 .6%
1962/83
$356,542,321
$64,811,835
$421,354,156
1.2% $8,729,508
13 .2% $67,289,881
100.0% $497,373,545
47.4%
52 .6%
100%
56.4%
43 .6%
50 .7%
49.3%
32.3%
67.7%
$61,912,184
$67,328,732
$129,240,916
$7,266,713
$5,410,307
$12,677,020
$8,076,320
$6,025,690
$14,102,010
$2,499,225
$5,241,779
$7,741,004
*Portions of Lo s An geles a nd Sacramento Cou nties a re eligible but were not i ncluded .
Most of the TDA funds in these two counties are restricted by law fo r transit use.
84.7%
1 .8%
13 .5%
100.0%
47.9%
52.1%
100%
57.3%
42.7%
57 .3%
42.7%
32.3%
67.7%
Agerida Item No.. 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director_
SUBJECT: Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearings
The annual public hearings required by State law for the
Commission to receive testimony on the need for new or
improved bus services in Riverside County have been scheduled
for March. Attached is a list of locations, dates and times
for the hearings. The Commission will review the schedule
and advertising materials attheir meeting on February 21.
We will notify youafter this Commission meeting if there are
any changes in the hearing schedule.
In an effort to increase public participation thisyear, a
number of changes have been made. The hearings will be held
at four locations rather than two locations as in past years.
The mailing list has been updated and expanded to include all
senior centers, colleges, high schools and junior high
schools. A list of agencies to be notified is attached. If
you have any additional agencies to be added, please call me.
Public service announcements will be sent to all cable
television, companies and radio stations serving Riverside
County. Flyers will be distributed using the mailing list
and will be provided to all public transit operators for
posting in their buses. Newspaper ads will be run in the
weekly as well as the four major papers used last year.
One ofthe problems with public hearings is that many persons
needing bus service cannot get to the hearings to testify.
The flyers and newspaper ads will include the Commission
address and telephone number and advise persons that they can
made ther needs known by writing or calling the Commission
office.
PB:nk
Attachments
Agenda Item No!_6
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE
RIVERSIDE
Wednesday, March 13, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Riverside County Administrative Center
Board Room, 14th Floor
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, California 92501
BANNING
Wednesday, March 13, 1985, 2:00 P.M.
Banning Community Center
789 N. San Gorgonio Avenue
Banning, California 92220
INDIO
Thursday, March 21, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Indio Public Library
200 Civic Center Drive
Indio, California 92201
PALM :SPRINGS
Thursday,. March. 21, 1985, 1:30 P.M.
Palm Springs City Council Chambers
3200 Tahquitz McCallum Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING
MAILING LIST
COLLEGES, HIGH SCHOOLS & JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS
SENIOR CENTERS (25)
CITY MANAGERS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY OFFICE ON AGING
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES PLANNING BOARD AREA 12
INLAND COUNTIES DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SERVICES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
PEPPERMINT RIDGE
FOUNDATION FOR THE RETARDED OF THE DESERT
DESERT BLIND ASSOCIATION
CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE -CITY OF RIVERSIDE
ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED' CITIZENS OF RIVERSIDE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION FOR. THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
MEDITRANS SERVICES
UCR, HANDICAPPED STUDENT SERVICES
CONGRESSMAN GEORGE BROWN
SENATOR ROBERT PRESLEY
ASSEMBLYMAN STEVE CLOTS
ASSEMBLYMAN DAVID KELLEY
RCTC MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 12-84
December 21, 1984
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, December 20, 1984, at the
Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street,
Riverside. The Chairman noted that a quorum was present.
At this time, Chairman.Cornelison welcomed Councilwoman
Carmen Cox of Perris, to the Commission.
Members present:.
Kay Ceniceros Roy Wilson
Susan Cornelison Norton Younglove
Carmen. Cos
Alternates present:
Pat Murphy Ed Shepard
2.. Public. Comments.
There were no public comments.
3. Consent Calendar.
M/S/C(W!L.SON/CENrCEROS) to approve the Consent
Calendar as presented.
A. Approval at Minutes To approve the October 18,
1984 minutes as submitted.
B. Fiscal Audits - To receive and file the, fiscal
audits of the Local Transportation Fund, State
Transit Assistance Fund and the Commission
accounts and authorize staff t.o send copies to
appropriate government agencies.
C. ffeaItt Benefits Resolution - To adopt Resolution
84-1 which indicates the Commission's maximum
contribution toward each employee's health
insurance premium.
1
RCTC Minutes
December 20, 1984
D. hid -Year Bydggt, Adjustment - To approve the
transfer of $9000 from the Contingency Reserve
account (current balance $48,400) to the
Professional and Specialized Services account in
order to provide sufficient funding for the Smith
and Egan agreement.
E. City Qt. Riverside State Transit assistance gund
Q1aim - To adopt Resolution No. 85-5-RIV
allocating $29,000 in State Transit Assistance
Funds to the City of Riverside to purchase five
replacement vans.
F. BunLine Transit Agency State Transit Assistance
gund Claim - To adopt Resolution No. 85-4-SUL
allocating $1088000 in State Transit Assistance
Funds to the SunLine Transit Agency to purchase
four replacement coaches.
Sji 821 Bicycle k pedestreian program Amendment -
To approve the transfer of $1107 of SB 821 funds
from the Cherry Valley Boulevard Bikeway project
to the Meridian Street Bikeway project.
K. Approval Qf, gunding fez Traffic Signal project is
Ludic) - For information purposes only.
SCAG'a Regional gigh plow, arterial Study - For
information purposes only.
�F Caltrans Highway System plan - For information
purposes only.
K. Status at Coachella, Valley Transportation Study -
For information purposes only.
L. Lake Elsinore Transit Agency, gat, Application for
Buses and Shelters:
1. To approve the bus replacement project
submitted by LETS and make the necessary
amendments to the Commission's Section 18
Program for FY 1985, the Short Range Transit
Plan and the Transportation Improvement
Program.
2. To approve the shelter project and necessary
amendments to the Section 18 Program, Short
Range Transit Plan and Transportation
Improvement Program only if additional
information showing the proposed shelter
G.
2
RCTC Minutes
December 20, 1984
locations and passenger activity levels
justifying the installations are submitted by
LETS.
M. Sun�,�nLY ne Tel -A -Ride Services.- For information
purposes only.
N. TS,AIISit Operations QuaLtgLlL
information purposes only.
4. Fund Estimate for 1985 STIP.
Rgp_4Lt. - F o r
Barry Beck, Executive Director, said that the same general
situation exists as two years ago. There are not enough
State funds to match federal funds and in order to complete
interstate projects, there will be a reduction in the avail-
ability in other fund types, thus, no new funds for primary
routes - no federal -aid primary funds or 85% funds. There
will only be a limited amount of Interstate 4R funds. This
means that RCTC will not even be able to submit a project
for Route 86. There will be a very limited amount of Inter-
state 4R funds such that we will only be able to submit a
project for a portion of Route 215 between Van Buren and
Perris. Our only hope for Route 86 is to get federal funding
from. Washington..
Commissioner Walt Ingalls, California Transportation Commis-
sion, said that personally he will put as the highest prior-
ity for Riverside County for this STIP cycle $6 million of
I -4R funds for Interstate 15 for interchanges in Bellgrave
and Yuma. He has come to this conclusion after discussing
it with Bill Edmonds, Caltrana.District 8 Director, who will
be requesting $6 million in Interstate 4R funds for the
project in 1989-90. The interchanges were originally pro-
posed by Caltrans in the original designs of I-15. His
other high priority project will be for $16 million for I-
215 between Perris and Van Buren.
With regards to Route 86, he will try to continue to have
the project on the long lead time list in order to keep
Caltrans working on the right-of-way design and environmen-
tal process.
Commissioner Ingalls said that projects in this year's STIP
will be on a two-tier basis. That is, instead of the STIP
document committing to construction of projects over a
five-year period, the second tier will be essentially a list
projects to be built if matching State funds are available.
Currently, there is an underfunding of approximately $800-
900 million to match federal funds within the five-year
period.
3
RCTC Minutes
December 20, 1984
5. Status of State Gas Tax /ncrease Efforts.
Barry Beck stated that various organizations within the
State are working to get the Legislature to enact a tax
increase for transportation next session. The Californians
for Better Transportation organization, first formed two -
three years ago in conjunction with SB 215,which is a con-
sortium of public agencies and private sector interests.
CBT is the "umbrella organization for all the various
efforts. The CBT has released a. draft program which they
hope to have introduced in, the Legislature in the coming
year. The prevalent feeling about CBT's program is that it
does not have any chance of passing. There is still some
hope to pass a small bill for local street and roads where
there is a dire need notwithstanding the shortfall that
Commissioner Ingalls talked about in the State highway
program.. The State claims thatthey could get by using
differentaccounting methods for the next two years before
they hit a crisis and start losing any federal funds. There
will probably be no pressure on the Governor for any State
highway increase until after the electionand before the
actualcrisis in State highway account hits. Meanwhile
counties- are in dire needofsome additional funds. On the
local front, th.e County has formed a Needs Assessment
Committee ands', study will_ be released in January.
Commissioner Ceniceros informed the Commission that a week
ago at the CSAC Executive Board meeting with a near unani-
mous vote, supported the CBT program only if there was 2
cents identified as to be allocated to counties. The main
reason for the 2 cents was that there have been a lot of
discussions at, CSAC on the allocation formula. Also, the
County Engineers Association and San Joaquin County working
with other central counties had each proposed a revision on
the allocation formula. The two versions were not that
differentfrom one another and both would setan allocation
of new dollars coming out of a new gas tax to reflect road
miles rather than source of generation. The CSAC Executive
Board with one dissenting vote from Alameda County, agreed
to support the San Joaquin formula.
Barry Beck said that the formula now is far from a return to
source formula. In fact, the large urban counties are
double-dipping at the expense of the rest of the counties.
For example, in San Francisco, the county receives funds
even though the county really has no roads to maintain.
Another example is Orange County, where the county has very
few maintained miles because most of the county is incorpo-
rated yet the county gets revenues essentially on the popu-
lation of the entire county. So, they are getting monies on
behalf of the cities that are within their jurisdiction even
4
RCTC Minutes
December 20, 1984
though they only have a very limited number of miles of road
to maintain. As a comparison, Orange County gets
approximately $41,000 per mile in State subventions while
Riverside County gets approximately $2-3,000 per mile. He
feels that the San Joaquin proposal does not go far enough.
There is a need for another formula that would give a real
return to source based on population.
Commissioner.Ceniceros said that the San Joaquin formula
would provide all counties with a minimum $2400/mile.
Barry Beck felt that a good compromise would be
funds would remain under the old formula and
funds would be treated more equitably.
Commissioner Ingalls said that to make a
contribution to the transportation problems in
15 cents gas tax increase is needed.
that current
that any new
significant
the State, a
It was determined that the Commission not take any action on
this item at this time.
6. SCAG Study on Alternative Fuels.
Judy Hammerslough and Millie Yamada, SCAG, gave a brief
update on the study prepared. by SCAG staff on the use of
alternative fuels for automobiles. Also included in their
presentation were: the benefits of alternative fuels; the
availability, manufacturers and sources offuels; various
programs by public agencies as well as the private sectors
who use alternative fuels; and, options to where future
efforts should be directed. The use of alternative fuels
was identified in the Air Quality Management Plan as one
measure to reduce vehicle emissions to attain federal air
quality standards.
Commissioner Ed Shepard noted that basic questions have been
raisedbut nowhere wasthe political change dealt with and
it is not even listed as a factor in the study.
Barry Beck said that this concept has to first be proven
that it is viable. There are still a lot of technological
and economic questionsto be answered before it can be
politically tested.
In response to Ed Studor's question if there is constraints
with regards to blends, Judy Hammerslough said that the
problem has to do with vapor pressure requirements of fuels.
Barry Beck stated that the problem with blends is that they
are more volatile and there are more emissions.
5
RCTC Minutes
December 20, 1984
7. Evaluation of Commuter Computer.
Barry Beck said that the Commission, at its meeting in
October, requested staff to compile criteria for evaluating
the effectiveness. of Commuter Computer. In reviewing the
issue, staff has found out that Caltrans is already setting
performance standards for Commuter Computer. Listed in the
staff report are the various categories being looked at by
Caltrans. Commuter Computer has exceeded four of the five
categories and will probably be meeting all of the standards
by the end of the year. Additionally, as pointed out at the
last meeting, surveys are periodically done on the
effectiveness of Commuter Computer to see how many people
are going into ridesharing as a result of Commuter
Computer's program. Such a survey was presented last month
with the results on a regionwide basis. He stated that the
survey should be done on a county by county basis in order
to assess the effectiveness of the program in specific
counties. He suggested that the next time that a survey is
taken that this be done.
M/S/C(CENICEROS/W/LSON) to accept the Caltrans
criteria and defer the the development of RCTC's
criteria applicable to Riverside County until such time
as the next survey on Commuter Computer is taken
8. SunLine Transit Agency Service Changes.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, informed the Commis-
sion that the SunLine Transit Agency Board of Directors has
approved two service changes at its meeting in. November: 1)
The La Quinta area service was changed from a fixed -route
service to a dial -a -ride service; and, 2) The implementation
of a limited service to the residents of Sky Valley area was
abandoned. Staff recommends that the Commission concur with
the La Quinta and Sky Valley service changes and authorize
appropriate changes to the Short Range Transit Plan.
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/SHEPARD) to concur with the La Quinta
and Sky Valley service changes and authorize
appropriate changes to the Short Range Transit Plan.
9. Request for Overall Work Program Funds From SCAG.
M/S/C (SBEPARD/YOUNGLOVE) to approve the projects
identified in the report and request inclusion of the
projects and funding by SCAG in the 1985-86 Overall
Work Program.
6
RCTC Minutes
December 20, 1984
10. Executive Director's Report.
A. Barry Beck stated that the Air Quality Management Plan
calls for the replacement of all pre -1976 buses as an
air quality measure. In 1976, the emission standards
changed on diesel engines. Recently, SCAG came forth
with a date to comply with the standard. RTA has a
modest problem as they have five buses that were
recently rehabilitated and will have useful life of
about 5-7 years. Having to replace them by 1987 could
be a problem particularly if IIMTA refuses to provide
funding for those replacements if the buses are still
usable. He has requested SCAG staff to delay adoption
of the proposal until such time as we've had a chance
to see what the emissions benefits would be and to
investigate other alternatives - what other things
could be done in. lieu of replacing the buses that would
be more cost effective. SCAG was scheduled to adopt
the proposal this month but action was deferred for a
couple of months. He said that Los Angeles (RTD) may
have a much larger problem with the proposal than we
do.
B.. Regarding I-215 improvements, Barry Beck informed the
Commission that there could be problems if the I-215
project in the Edgemont area is delayed. If there is
any slippage, it.could.fal l into the next county mini-
mum accounting period and inhibit our ability to get
additional monies and partly wipe out our local county
minimum capacity. ' Staff has been in contact with
Caltrans District 8 urging that the project not slip.
C. Barry Beck informed the Commission that Caltrans has
hired a consultant to do a statewide study on the
farebox ratio issue. Some people are hoping for
lowering of the ratio while some hope that the ratio
would be raised. He will keep an eye on the study as
the farebox ratio established for Riverside County is
where we want it. In a related issue, at the last
session of the Legislature, the State was sponsoring a
bill that would turn over the regulation -making for the
Administration of TDA funds from the State to regional
agencies. Subsequently, Caltrans held a couple of
workshops and it turns out that the regional agencies
do not want that responsibility and wishes that it.
continue to be centralized at the State level. Given
that there is unanimous response to keep it status quo,
he doubts that the State will go forward with the
proposal.
7
RCTC Minutes
December 20, 1984
D. Barry Beck stated that he and Chairman Cornelison
attended a rideshare workshop a couple of weeks ago.
The speaker of the workshop was Dr. Alan Altschuler, a
prominent transportation planning expert currently a
professor at New York University. He explained how
ridesharing could have a tremendous effect on a trans-
portation system and be a lot more effective than
transit. He also explained that it can work extremely
well when employers are working hard to make it work.
There are a number of examples where a companies have
gotten behind the program and ridesharing was up to 80-
98% levels. Two questions were how to get more
companies to react and how to get more rideshare faci-
lities built that would improve the incentive for
people to carpool and ride public transit.
Chairman Cornelison added that the workshop also
touched onto the psychological aspects. Also
discussed was the Olympics experience where there was a
momentum that caused employers to really look at ride -
sharing.
B. Barry Beck said that a discussion was held by the
Citizens Advisory Committee at its last meeting on the
its role and.. the composition of the Committee and they
suggested having some representation from the business,
commercial anddevelopment sectors.
Chairman Cornelison stated that she attended the
meeting and there was an interesting discussion on what
their interests and concerns are. Historically, they
have primarily been transit -oriented. They would like
to see their membership reflect a variety of concerns.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that she will be submitting
a name of a representative from the Hemet Chamber of
Commerce for one of the vacancies on the Committee.
11.. Route Designation Changes for Route 86.
Barry Beck explained to the Commission members that this is
a technical matter between Caltrans and the Federal Highway
Administration for the purposes of continuing funding flow
for Route 86. Caltrans will need to classify the new Route
86 allignment as a Rural Principal Arterial and an Urban
Arterial and designated on paper as Route 86. The existing
alignment will be classified as a Principal Arterial and
designated Route 195 on paper. The signs on the existing
alignment will be Route 86. As part of the State process,
Commission concurrence is needed on this matter.
8
RCTC Minutes
December 20, 1984
Commissioner Ceniceros asked if the dual route will be in
competition with other principal arterials in Riverside
County.
Barry Beck said that the new andexisting alignment of Route
86 will be in competition for funding with other primary
routes in Riverside County but Route 86 has always been the
Commission's highest priority. However, the approval of the
proposal does not affect priorities or make program commit-
ments. This is just a technical manuever to allow them to
work on the new alignment while maintaining the ability to
spend whatever funds are needed for rehabilitation work on
the existing alignment.
Ed Studor, Riverside County Road Department, told the
Commission that they have drafted a resolution from the
County supporting the proposal which will be before the Board
of Supervisors on January 3rd.
M/S/C (WILSON/CENICEROS) to: 1) To approve Caltrans'
proposal to designate the proposed alignment of Route
86. as a Principal and Urban Arterial designated as FAP
86; and, 2) the designation of the existing alignment
as PAP 195..
12. SR 759 Productivity Committees.
M'/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/SHEPARD.) to appoint the nominees to
the Western County and Desert Area Productivity
Committees.
13. Miscellaneous Item.
Chairman Cornelison announced to the Commission that Walt
Ingalls has applied to the Governor for reappointment to the
California Transportation Commission. She noted his
background and experience in transportation matters and
encouraged Commissionmembers who support him to write a
letter to the Governor's Appointment Secretary, Marvin
Baxter.
14. Adjournment.
The next scheduled RCTC meeting is January 17, 1985 at 1:30
P:M., Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor
Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
9
RCTC Minutes
December 20, 1984
M/S/C (CENICEROS/WILSON) to adjourn the meeting at 3:28
p.m.
ctfully su itt d,
ry Be
Executiv Director
nk