HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 10, 1984 Citizens Advisory040231
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 1:0, 1984,' 12:30 P..M.*
Riverside City Hall
Fourth Floor Conference Room
3900 Main Street, Riverside 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Election of Officers. (ACTION)
4. Transit Operations Report. (INFO.)
5. RTA Fixed -Route Wheelchair Lift Use (INFO.)
Report.
6. Route 91 Congestion. (DISC.)
7. Committee Meeting Dates.
8. Adjournment.
(ACTION)
*PLEASE NOTE THAT THE TIME OF THE MEETING WAS CHANGED
TO 12:30 P.M. AS THIS WILL BE A LUNCHEON MEETING.
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE CALL
THE RCTC OFFICE AT (714) 787-7141.
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 2-84
June 11, 1984
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by Chairman Richard L. Jandt at 1:36 p.m., on Monday,
June 11, 1984, at the Riverside City Hall, Fourth Floor
Conference Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside.
Members present:
Harry Brinton
Jordis Cameron
Marian Carpelan
Richard L. Jandt
Herb Krauch
Others present:
Doug Marini, RTA
2. Approval of Minutes.
Rand Martin
Joanne Moore
Rena Parker
Laurence M. Weinberg
Kay Van Sickel, RTA
Larry Weinberg recommended that the sixth paragraph and the
first sentence of the seventh paragraph on Page 2 be deleted
from the minutes.
M/S/C (KRAUCH/WEINBERG) to approve the minutes of the
April 24, 1984 meeting as amended.
3. Transit Operations Report.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, reported that rider-
ship for the period of July 1, 1983 through March 31, 1984
is the highest recorded in Riverside County. In the third
quarter of this year (January -March), there were 1,107,997
passengers. The RTA ridership has increased 14.5% over last
year. Fare revenues have increased by 12.1% and the average
subsidy per passenger decreased 9.4%. Fare revenue to oper-
ating expense ratios increased for most operators and
countywide from 18% to 19.4%. The average number of
passengers carried per hour for each vehicle in service in
both fixed -route and dial -a -ride services has increased from
13.61 last year to 15.33 this year. RTA has attempted to
reduce its dial -a -ride service levels to accommodate lower
levels of demand without decreasing productivity. While RTA
dial -a -ride ridership decreased by approximately 21%, the
1
average number of passengers carried per vehicle hour de-
creased only slightly from 5.15 last year to 5.09 this year.
By maintaining this productivity level, RTA has reduced the
cost of providing dial -a -ride service and the subsidy per
dial -a -ride passenger from $4.86 last year to $4.83 this
year. Additional improvements in productivity in RTA ser-
vices are expected next year. The RTA Board has recently
approved the deletion of a number of very low ridership runs
on its fixed route services in the early morning and late
afternoons and deletion of Rubidoux (Route 29) Saturday
fixed route service.
Kay Van Sickel added that the RTA Board has also approved
the deletion of the Saturday local fixed route service in
Hemet (Route 30) .
Larry Weinberg requested if it is possible to obtain a
breakdown of the ratio of operating expenses to fare
revenues separated for fixed route and dial -a -ride services.
He said that; this information would be helpful in their
efforts toward the formation of a social service agency in
Coachella Valley similar to Meditrans in the Western County.
They are concerned about a differentiation between dial -a -
ride and fixed route because they will have to take this
into account when they develop an overall specialized
transportation program.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, noted that this information
is in the quarterly report attached to the staff report.
In response to Chairman Jandt's question on the status of
the specialized transportation program in Coachella Valley,
Larry Weinberg said that at present, a general meeting
attended by representatives of participating agencies was
held and a Committee was appointed to develop a specific
program and recommendations. They are currently assembling
detailed information from all agencies to determine the
number of clients served by each agency, the scope of their
transportation coverage, their transit needs, and the facil-
ities or equipment that each agency could possibly contri-
bute to the program. This information will be needed to
formulate some kind of a projection and program for presen-
tation to the general group. Right now, questionnaires are
being sent out to the various agencies.
Barry Beck informed the Committee that the Commission is
gettting some pressure from SCAG on the level of transit
ridership in our area as it does not meet the goals set by
SCAG. SCAG has adopted goals of getting 6% of all trips to
use transit. He asked if Committee members have suggestions
to attract ridership.
Marian Carpelan said that she has always felt that we needed
more and better marketing program, and that RTA is moving in
that direction.
2
Barry Beck agreed that there are ways to better our
marketing program and improve ridership. But there are not
a lot of things that we can do to get a significant amount
of new riders.
Chairman Jandt said that what we are faced with in this area
is that there are such widely dispersed origins and destina-
tions as compared to Los Angeles County.
Rena Parker said that in terms of numbers of passengers, the
increase in Riverside County over the past ten years has
been significant. She does not think that we will be able
to get 6% transit use as some of the other counties might
just because we are rural and people are locked into using
their cars. We need to educate our younger generation to
use public transportation and, maybe that will increase our
percentage in the future.
Marian CarpeIlan stated that we also have to remember that
the western end of Riverside County is rapidly becoming
urbanized and there will be a lot of people who will need
transit.
Kay Van Sickel told the Committee that RTA had recently
completed an extensive telephone survey. The results indi-
cated that there is a potential for increasing commuter
services from Moreno Valley to Orange County and Los Angeles
Counties. Local commuter trips are difficult to attract
because most people have access to a car.
4. Moreno Valley Alternatives Study.
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that the Riverside
Transit Agency has been studying the feasibility of convert-
ing the Moreno Valley dial -a -ride service to a fixed -route
system. One of the problems that led to the study was the
high subsidies and decreases in ridership on the dial -a -ride
service. Population growth in Moreno Valley has increased
50% but ridership has declined. The decline in ridership
resulted from two fare increases and the elimination of
student discounts. RTA staff has developed a fixed route
proposal for the area. The RTA Board has directed its staff
to hold public hearings in the area. The hearings are
scheduled for July llth at 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The only
staff comment to the RTA study was that it was not expanded
to include a second fixed route service providing additional
local service and possible service between Perris, March Air
Force Base and the commercial areas in the Moreno Valley.
At this time, using a map, Kay Van Sickel reviewed the
proposed fixed -route alignment with the Committee.
Barry Beck reiterated that staff is not recommending that
the two routes be implemented but rather that RTA staff
3
determine the cost, ridership and better coverage two routes
could provide and compare it with the one route option.
A considerable discussion followed on the proposed fixed
route alignment.
It was requested by the Committee that a study of a second
route for the Moreno Valley area be done within the next
year.
M/S/C (CARPELAN/WEINBERG) to approve the proposed Route
18 route alignment as presented.
5. Unmet Transit Needs/Short Range Transit Plan.
For information only.
6. Status of RIV/SAN Transportation Study.
Barry Beck }nformed the Committee that this study was
started two years ago and, at that time, SCAG had indicated
that it would be completed in 18 months. SCAG is behind
schedule and it will be another 15 months before the study
is completed.
7. Proposed Coachella Valley Transportation Study.
Barry Beck explained to the Committee that the same type of
study that is currently being done in the western end of the
County will be done for the Coachella Valley. The first
step of the study will be to conduct a travel survey. He
hopes to get the study underway at the beginning of the
fiscal year and SCAG has indicated that it will take two
years to complete the study.
Herbert Krauch asked as to the status of the widening
project in Bannning/Beaumont on Route 79.
Barry Beck said that the Commission has traded off on this
project on the basis that Caltrans has already mitigated the
safety problems.
8. Review of Recent Commission Actions.
Barry Beck informed the Committee that the Commission is
becoming more concern with the congestion problems on Route
91 between Riverside and Orange Counties. The Commission
has requested that Caltrans do a study on the congestion
problem at Tyler Avenue and Route 91, and at Van Buren
Boulevard and Route 91. In addition, Caltrans will review
the congestion problem on Route 60/91/I-215.
Barry Beck stated that the transportation bill that passed
the House on June 6th includes $9 million for Route 86. He
4
noted that with the Senate not amenable to demonstration
projects, the bill is still faced with some major hurdles
ahead.
Marian Carpelan asked what has happened with Line 17 since
the public hearing, Ray Van Sickel responded that Line 17
will remain in service and they have deleted a couple of
non-productive runs.
9. Adjournment.
There being no other items to come before the Committee,
Chairman Jandt adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Blackwelder
Assistant Director
nk
5
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Transit Operations Report
The attached table and graphs containing ridership and other operations data
were prepared by staff using information supplied by the public transit oper-
ators. Staff comments on general trends and individual operators are provides
below.
RIDERSHIP
Countywide transit ridership continued to increase in the fourth quarter
(April 1 -June 30`) of FY 1983/84. The countywide ridership of 1,022,878
reported by the operators was 10% (93,091 passengers) higher than fourth
quarter ridership reported last year. Increased ridership on the RTA and
the SunLine Transit Agency services accounted for the bulk of the increase.
Compared to fourth quarter ridership last year, the SunLine ridership increase
was 17.7% (30,387 passengers) and the RTA ridership increase was 10`; (54,022
passengers). The only significant ridership decrease was the continued
decrease in the RTA dial -a -ride systems.
Transit ridership reported for the full year FY 1983/84 is 3.983,639 pas-
sengers. This is the highest annual ridership level recorded for Riverside
County and is 12.4% (440,688 passengers) higher than last year. The RTA
dial -a -ride system was the only service where ridership declined. Among
the factors attributed to reduced ridership in RTA dial -a -ride services were:
a fare increase; elimination of student discount fares; and, problems en-
countered when dispatching of the dial -a -ride services were consolidated into
a single facility.
OPERATING EXPENSES AND FARE REVENUES
Countywide transit service levels this year were generally the same as last
year. Total operating costs reported at 58,794,000 were 5.7% (5476,000)
higher than operating costs reported last year. Reported fare revenues of
51,690,000 werel2al% (5182,000) higher than last year and covered 19.2% of
the operating costs compared to 18.1% last year.
OPERATING SUBSIDIES
Countywide operating subsidies in FY 1983/84 were S7,104,000 or 4.3 (52g4,000)
higher than last year. Increased ridership and fare revenues and cost
containment actions by some operators reduced the average subsidy per
passenger for the RTA, SunLine, Beaumont, Corona and LETS systems,
Agenda Item No. 4
Transit Operations Report
The highest subsidies per passenger continued to occur in the SunLine Transit
Agency tel-a-ride services. While the average subsidy per passenger was 53.08,
the average subsidy per passenger was 520.26 for the Palm Springs E & H ser-
vice and 519.04 for the Palm Desert general public service. The SunLine staff
is investigating the feasibility of establishing a non-profit agency and/or
contracting with private operators (taxi cabs) to provide some of the tel-a-
ride services if it will reduce the cost. A report on the outcome of their
study is scheduled to be submitted to the Commission by January 1st.
PB:nk
Attachments
TRANSIT OPERATIONS REPORT 7/01/83 to 6/30/84
Banning Beaumont Coron a LETS PVVTA
Riv er side
Sp ec.S✓c s.
RTA
Sunlin e
TOTAL
F.R. Passe ngers 63,903
DAR Passengers
Tota l Pa ssen ge rs 63,903
F. R.Expenses $91,217
DAR Expe nses
Total Expen ses $91,217
50,885
50,885
$118,477
$118,477
72,872
72,872
92,246
92,246
$158,041
$255,977
$255,977 $158,041
3,331
3,331
$26,291
$26,291
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE 17.46
DIAL -A -RIDE NA
COST PER VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
FARE REVENUE RATIO
SUBSIDY/PASSENGER
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL-A-R1DE
NA NA 11.99 NA
8.48 6.76 NA 2 .57
$24.93 NA NA $20 .54 NA
NA $19.75 $23 .74 NA $20 .30
18.2% 25.5% 28.0% 13.9% 12.6%
$1. 17 NA NA $1 .48 NA
NA $1.74 $2. 81 NA $6.90
_
_----___====
126,816
126,816
$559,400
$559,400
NA
5 .54
NA
$24.42
2,639,407
168,640
2,808,047
$4,406,645
$916 .121
$5,322,766
726,088
39,451
765,539
$1,919,420
$342,580
$2,262,000
3,521,644
461,995
3,983,639
$6,575,323
$2,218,846
$8,794,169
23.13
5 .16
$38 .61
$28 .02
20.3%
$1.30
$4 .77
14 .50
4.40
$38 .33
$38 .18
18.6%
$2.10
$8.08
20.06
5 .59
$37.46
$26.84
19.2%
$1.47
$4.19
T O'1'AI, COUNTY RIDERSHIP
1,200,000-
1,100,000-
1,000,000-
900,000-
A
s
s
N 800,000-
700,000-
600,000-
500,000-
400,000-
300,000
QUARTER
FISCAL YEAR
TOTAL
YEAR
3,536,895
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1979/80
TOTAL
YEAR
3,716,764
r
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1980/81
TOTAL
YEAR•
3,578,238
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
3,542,951
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
3,983,639
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1983/84
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIDERSHIP
900,000-
800,000-
700,000-
P 600,000-
A
S
S
E
N 500,000-
G
E
R
S
400,000-
300,000-
200,000-
100,000-
0 -
QUARTER
FISCAL YEAR
3 14
TOTAL
YEAR
2,496,172
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 I
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
2,488,300
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 I
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
2,808,047
1 12 13 1 4
1 1 I
1983/84
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY RIDERSHIP
900,000-
800,000-
700,000-
P 600,000-
A
S
S
E
N 500,000-
G
E
R
S
400,000-
300,000-
200,000-
100,000-
0 -
QUARTER
FISCAL YEAR
s
3 1 4
1
TOTAL
YEAR
750,726
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 I
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
687,454
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
756,539
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 I
1983/84
BANNING RIDERSHIP
40,000-
ORM
P 30,000-
A
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
S
20,000-
10,000-
0 -
QUARTER
FISCAL YEAR
3 1 4
1
TOTAL
YEAR
47,659
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 I
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
59,923
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
63,903
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1983/84
CORONA D -A -R RIDERSHIP
40,000-
.110
P 30,000-
A
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
S
20,000-
10,000-
0 -
QUARTER
FISCAL YEAR
3 14
TOTAL
YEAR
68,506
1 1 2 13 14
I 1 I
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
65,511
1 12 13 14
I I
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
72,872
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I
1983/84
LAKE ELSINORE TRANSIT SYSTEM RIDERSHIP
40,000-
P 30,000-
A
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
S
20,000-
10,000-
0 -
QUARTER
FISCAL YEAR
3 1 4
1
TOTAL
YEAR
75,093
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 I
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
74,053
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 I
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
92,246
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1
1983/84
RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES RIDERSHIP
40,000-
P 30,000-
A
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
S
20,000-
10,000 -
IMO
0 -
QUARTER
FISCAL YEAR
3 1 4
1
TOTAL
YEAR
105,285
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
118,902
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 I
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
126,816
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1983/84
Agenda Item No. 5
:i)VE,IS DE COUNTY 7R i\S?v..','T'ON �O
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: RTA Fixed -Route Wheelchair Lift Use
The Riverside Transit Agency received its first 18 lift -
equipped buses for fixed -route service in 1980. Since that
time, the peak hour fleet has grown from 24 buses to 33
buses. The total fleet including spare buses is 42 of which
37 are lift equipped. The RTA fixed -route system has an
accessibility level of 90-100% throughout the day.
The RTA has provided us with wheelchair lift use and
maintenance, repair and inspection costs since July, 1981.
This data, which will continue to be collected, will allow
us to evaluate the merits of accessible fixed -route service.
The attached graph shows total lift use for the past three
years. The table shows lift use by line and
maintenance/repair costs for the past year.
Keeping in mind that we are dealing with small numbers to
begin with, the trend in lift use is positive. Annual use
has increased from 306 in 1981/82 to 1,415 in 1983/84. On a
use per weekday basis, the increase is from 1 per day in
1981/82 to 4.7 per day in 1983/84. The average cost per
passenger for maintenance and repair of the lifts on the
buses has decreased from $19.87 in 1981/82 to $10.26 in
1982/83 and $6.00 in 1983/84. As ridership continues to
grow, this average cost will be reduced further. How high
the lift use rate will increase is difficult to estimate.
The July 1984 report from RTA indicated the lifts were used
153 times. This is a significant increase over July of last
year when the lifts were used 76 times.
The use of RTA accessible fixed -route service has not
reduced the demand for the City of Riverside Special
Services Program services. The city program ridership
increased by approximately 7%, an average of 340-380 per day
to 360-400 per day. Wheelchair lift use on that system
ranges from 8-10% or 29-40 per day. The cost per passenger
for the special services program averaged $4.41 in 1983/84.
Agenda Item No. 5
CAC Meeting 9/10/84
1
We will continue to monitor the lift use rate and costs for
the RTA large buses and provide update reports to the
Committee. Our present assessment is that dial -a -ride is
and will continue to be the preferred and most effective way
to meet the needs of handicapped persons. Fixed -route lift
use will continue to increase and may eventually reduce the
overall cost of providing accessible service for the
handicapped.
PB:nk
lg
2
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
P.R . WHEELCHL11. LIFT USE
F.Y. 1SY3/84
JULY AUG SEPT OCT NO V DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE TOTAL
LINE 1 46 52 50 56 32 25 44 54 52 53 67 77 608
LINE 12 3 20 13 14 6 17 8 14 28 24 30 13 190
L1taE 13 2 2 2 0 1 0 1 22 28 29 34 32 153
LINE 14 * * * * * * * * * * * * 0
LINE 15 10 8 13 10 8 8 5 9 6 5 12 10 104
LINE 16 7 13 7 18 9 6 5 7 16 5 24 34 151
LINE 17 2 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 15
LINE 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
LIVE 22 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 2 18
L1 5I; 24 0 2 7 2 2 1 0 1 3 0 4 8 30
Li5I 25 0 13 13 14 8 4 3 8 11 2 5 4 65
LIhE: 27 5 6 5 4 6 2 4 5 3 3 7 3 53
LINE 29 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 7
TOTAL 76 119 115 124 73 63 71. 124 149 123 193 185 1415
PRIOR YEAR 53 55 30 76 56 81 101 120 107 81 107 85 952
INCREFSI (DECREASE) 23 64 85 48 17 -18 -30 4 42 42 86 100 463
LIFT MAIN T COST $8,485
AVG MAINT COST/PASS $6 .00
* 1. r.c 4 included w ith Lire 12
"
4 t i V : i S i L D = ` . , O ? . N . f s u e t @ : ��^ ~ S . A ��
T O : C i t i z e n s A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e
F R O M : P a u l B l a c k w e l d e r , A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T : R o u t e 9 1 C o n g e s t i o n
D e v e l o p m e n t o f W e s t e r n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y a n d t h e C h i n o B a s i n
o f S a n B e r n a r d i n o C o u n t y t o p r o v i d e r e a s o n a b l y p r i c e d
h o u s i n g f o r O r a n g e C o u n t y w o r k e r s i s c a u s i n g c o n g e s t i o n o n
R o u t e 9 1 t o w o r s e n . C o n t i n u e d r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t i n
t h e s e a r e a s i s e x p e c t e d t o o c c u r f o r t h e f o r e s e e a b l e f u t u r e
a n d w i l l a d d t o t h e R o u t e 9 1 c o n g e s t i o n p r o b l e m . A s t h e
p r o b l e m w o r s e n s , t h e c o m m u t i n g p u b l i c w i l l l o o k t o t h e
C o m m i s s i o n f a r s o l u t i o n s .
A t t a c h e d i s a g r a p h s h o w i n g t h e a v e r a g e s p e e d s o n R o u t e 9 1
i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f R o u t e 7 1 . T h e g r a p h i s b a s e d o n d a t a
c o l l e c t e d b y C a l t r a n s i n a r e c e n t s u r v e y o f p e a k h o u r s p e e d s
o n R o u t e 9 1 f r o m C o r o n a w e s t t o C o a l C a n y o n R o a d . T h e w o r s t
c o n g e s t i o n i s o c c u r i n g o n t h e s e g m e n t n e a r R o u t e 7 1 . T h e
a v e r a g e s p e e d s f a l l b e l o w 3 5 m i l e s p e r h o u r f o r a p e r i o d o f
o v e r o n e h o u r - f r o m b e f o r e 6 : 0 0 a . m . t o a f t e r 7 : 1 5 a . m .
T h e l o w e s t s p e e d r e c o r d e d w a s 1 5 m i l e s p e r h o u r . T h i s g r a p h
c e r t a i n l y s u b s t a n t i a t e s t h e w o r s e n i n g c o n g e s t i o n o f R o u t e
9 1 .
C o n t i n u e d r e s i d e n t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e w e s t e n d o f R i v e r -
s i d e C o u n t y a n d t h e C h i n o a r e a w i l l i n c r e a s e c o n g e s t i o n o n
R o u t e 9 1 a n d t h e c o n g e s t e d s e g m e n t w i l l e x p a n d t o w a r d C o r o n a
a n d R i v e r s i d e . T h e C o m m i t t e e s h o u l d b e g i n d i s c u s s i n g b o t h
t h e p r o b l e m a n d p o t e n t i a l a c t i o n s t o s l o w t h e r a t e o f i n -
c r e a s e d c o n g e s t i o n . F u n d i n g f o r f r e e w a y w i d e n i n g a n d o t h e r
c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s w i l l n o t b e a v a i l a b l e i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e .
S o m e o f t h e s h o r t t e r m l o w c o s t a c t i o n s w h i c h c a n b e i m p l e -
m e n t e d a r e i n c r e a s e d c a r p o o l i n g , v a n p o o l i n g , b u s p o o l i n g a n d
i n s t a l l i n g r a m p m e t e r i n g d e v i c e s a t o n - r a m p s .
T o h e l p t h e C o m m i t t e e t o b e g i n d i s c u s s i o n o f p o s s i b l e
a c t i o n s , w e h a v e i n v i t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m C a l t r a n s a n d
t h e R T A t o d i s c u s s t h e P a r k ' N R i d e a n d B u s p o o l P r o g r a m s .
T h e y w i l l p r o v i d e a n o v e r v i e w o f e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s a n d
s e r v i c e s , p l a n s f o r e x p a n s i o n o f t h e i r p r o g r a m s , a n d w i l l
i d e n t i f y p r o b l e m s e n c o u n t e r e d b y t h e s e p r o g r a m s . T h e i r
p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l b e f o l l o w e d b y a r o u n d t a b l e d i s c u s s i o n b y
t h e C o m m i t t e e o n w a y s t o i m p r o v e t h e s e t w o p r o g r a m s a n d
o t h e r p o s s i b l e a c t i o n s o r p r o g r a m s w h i c h s h o u l d b e c o n s i -
d e r e d a n d d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r b y t h e C o m m i t t e e .
P B : n k
A t t a c h m e n t
A g e n d a I t e m N o . 6
C A C M e e t i n g 9 / 1 0 / 8 4
AVERAGE SPEED ON ROUTE 91
VICINITY OF ROUTE 71
MORNING PEAK HOUR
JUNE, 1983
5:30 5:45 6:00 6:15 6:30 6:45 7:00 7:15 7:30 7:45
70
65-
60-
55-
50-
MILES PER HOUR
45-
40-
35
30-
25-
20-
15-
10-
Agenda Item No. 7
F-INERSIDE. CO.`.'NTY .RANSPi.daRTM7O\
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Committee Meeting Dates
In April, the Committee changed its meeting dates from the
fourth Monday of the month to the second Monday of the month
to allow for a smoother flow of information from the
Committee to the Commission. The Commission meets on the
third Thursday of the month. I should have checked the
resulting schedules of the Commission and the Committee
closer before that meeting. During some months, Committee
meetings will be scheduled only three days prior to the
Commission meeting. The Commission agenda will already have
been mailed and the Committee recommendations would not have
been included.
In order to overcome this problem, we recommend that the
Committee meetings be scheduled ten days prior to the
Commission meeting. The meeting day would be either the
first or second Monday of the month depending upon the
Commission meeting date. This schedule would allow
recommendations by the Committee to be included in the
reports to the Commission. This schedule is used by the
Commission's Technical Advisory Committee and has worked
well.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings be scheduled
ten days prior to the Commission meetings.
PB:nk
Agenda Item No. 7
CAC Meeting 9/10/84
"
M i n u t e s o f M e e t i n g N o . 7 - 8 4
J u n e 2 1 , 1 9 8 4
1 . C a l l t o O r d e r .
T h e m e e t i n g o f t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
C o m m i s s i o n w a s c a l l e d t o o r d e r b y C h a i r m a n S u s a n C o r n e l i s o n
a t 1 : 4 0 p . m . , o n T h u r s d a y , J u n e 2 1 , 1 9 8 4 , a t t h e R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C e n t e r , 1 2 t h F l o o r C o n f e r e n c e R o o m ,
4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t r e e t , R i v e r s i d e . T h e C h a i r m a n n o t e d t h a t a
q u o r u m w a s p r e s e n t .
M e m b e r s p r e s e n t :
S u s a n C o r n e l i s o n B i l l E d m o n d s
M e l b a D u n l a p R o y W i l s o n
A l t e r n a t e s p r e s e n t :
L e w i s H u l l E d S h e p a r d
P a t M u r p h y
A t t h i s t i m e , o n b e h a l f o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n , C h a i r m a n
C o r n e l i s o n p r e s e n t e d a p l a q u e t o J i m A d a m s w h o h a s b e e n
S u p e r v i s o r N o r t o n Y o u n g l o v e ' s a l t e r n a t e t o R C T C f r o m
N o v e m b e r , 1 9 7 9 t o A p r i l , 1 9 8 4 .
2 . A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s .
M / S / C ( W I L S O N / D U N L A P ) t o a p p r o v e t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e M a y
1 7 , 1 9 8 4 m e e t i n g a s s u b m i t t e d .
3 . P u b l i c C o m m e n t s .
M i l a n M i l k o v i t c h , A s s i s t a n t t o t h e C i t y M a n a g e r o f I n d i a n
W e l l s , r e q u e s t e d t h a t h e b e c a l l e d t o s p e a k w h e n A g e n d a I t e m
N o . 9 i s b e f o r e t h e C o m m i s s i o n .
4 . U p d a t e o n R o u t e 8 6 A c t i v i t i e s .
B a r r y B e c k , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , s a i d t h a t i t w a s a l m o s t a
y e a r a g o w h e n t h e C a l i f o r n i a T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n
a d o p t e d t h e 1 9 8 3 S t a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m
i n w h i c h C a l t r a n s w a s r e q u e s t e d t o u p d a t e t h e E I S o n R o u t e
8 6 . A t t h a t t i m e , w e w e r e i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e E I S u p d a t e
w o u l d b e c o m p l e t e d i n o n e y e a r . A l s o a t t h a t t i m e , i t w a s
e s t i m a t e d t h a t t h e c o s t o f R o u t e 8 6 w a s g o i n g t o b e a p p r o x i -
m a t e l y $ 5 0 m i l l i o n . S t a f f h a s j u s t r e c e i v e d n e w i n f o r m a t i o n
o n b o t h t h e s e i t e m s , a s f o l l o w s : ( 1 ) T h e c o s t t o b u i l d
R o u t e 8 6 o n t h e n e w a l i g n m e n t h a s n o w e s c a l a t e d t o $ 8 1 - 8 2
1
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
million; and, (2) It is going to take another 2 1/2 years to
complete the update of the EIS. Caltrans claims that the
delay to complete the EIS is due to archaelogical work to be
done because of Indian artifacts that may be present along
the new route. Both new developments will hurt the Commis-
sion's efforts to obtain federal funding for Route 86. The
cost estimate will hurt because the high price will scare
some people off especially since there are not a lot of
primary funds or 85% funds available. He told the Commis-
sion that HR 5504 which includes $9 million for Route 86 has
now passed the House but is still faced with some major
hurdles ahead such as: (1) Administration's opposition to
the bill because of the so-called "demonstration projects"
that are included in it; and, (2) Opposition of the bill in
the Senate to the demonstration projects. He then asked Tim
Egan, Commission's advocate, to discuss further details and
future strategy at the federal and state level.
Tim Egan, Smith and Egan Associates, informed the Commission
that HR 5504 which was passed by the House on June 6th
includes $324 million for demonstration projects for 1985
of which $9 million is for Route 86. He said that as Barry
Beck has indicated, the bill, because it includes demonstra-
tion projects, is opposed by the Administration as communi-
cated through a letter from Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of
Department of Transportation to Jim Howard, Chairman of the
House's Public Works Committee. She also stated that she
will recommend a veto of the bill if this bill or a similar
bill comes out of the conference committee. The Congress
has scheduled adjournment on October 4th which does not
leave a lot of time to work on Route 86. The Senate Commit-
tee has approved a highway bill and it is currently on the
Senate floor. The bill will not be considered until after
recess. As far as future strategy, the Senate is not amena-
ble to demonstration projects although the Senate highway
bill left the Committee with approximately $94-96 million
worth of demonstration projects. The Chairman of the
Committee is having difficulty maintaining the Senate's
policy not to include any demonstration projects on the
bill.
Tim Egan continued that he anticipates that if we were to
add Route 86 at any level, it will probably have to be done
on the Senate floor. He does not hold a lot of optimism in
having that included in the Senate floor as Senators Pete
Wilson and Alan Cranston are involved with other party
activities. In addition, it has been Senator Wilson's
policy not to include special line items for his own State.
Unless it is recommended from another part of the country,
an increase in the demonstration level beyond $96 million
will not come about. Efforts are being made to work with
2
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
other parts of the country to increase funding of demonstra-
tion projects on the Senate bill and to include some funding
for Route 86. If this does not occur, both bills will
probably be reported out and go to a conference committee.
Right now, with the inclusion of $9 million in the House
bill and 0 in the Senate bill for Route 86, what usually
happens, if they follow past practice, is that Route 86 will
be allotted the difference between $9 million and zero which
is $4.5 million.
Bill Edmonds stated that he recalls that the Senate Commit-
tee's bill had a criteria requiring a 50% match by the
recipient. In addition, he understands that there is a
strategy in the House to force the White House out of a
veto.
Tim Egan stated that if in fact the California Transporta-
tion Commission does not include Route 86 in the STIP, it
will hurt their efforts to obtain federal funds as it will
be difficult to maintain that the project has State's sup-
port if it is not in the STIP. Also, the new estimated
cost will also hurt their efforts in addition to the timing.
From their perspective, they hope that the Commission is
successful in convincing the CTC next week to identify, at a
minimum, the project on the SB 283 list which is outside the
five-year TIP but it will give them the opportunity to say
that the State is committed to this project. If the project
is just on the study list for the State of California, he is
afraid that they may run into some difficulties especially
when they start paring down projects from the House and
Senate bills. If Route 86 is not looking like it is getting
a lot of support within the State, it is going to be very
easy for them to eliminate it from the bill that is going to
pass. He noted that Congressman Al McCandless had done a
tremendous job to get Route 86 in the House bill.
Chairman Cornelison asked if California projects are parti-
cularly vulnerable because we have a longer period of
programming than other States.
Bill Edmonds said that California projects do extremely well
in the House but not in the Senate because Montana, South
Dakota, etc., have equal power (votes) to California.
Chairman Cornelison asked if they are bluelining on some
criteria such as whether funds are programmed for the pro-
jects or not.
3
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
Barry Beck commented that this is the argument against
demonstration projects. It is something that we recognized
would be an argument against us. They say that they give
out billions of dollars every year. If it is such a needed
project, why isn't it being taken care of with the normal
formula allocation. It is a logical question. The point
that we tried to make is the California county minimum and
the earmarking of a lot of federal funds for certain type of
projects, i.e. interstate. We have county minimums in which
money has to be spread around the State and we're getting
federal funds in Riverside County that could only be spent
on interstate. That's our excuse why we can't get Route 86
done with our normal allocation of funds and this is pointed
out in Congressman Al McCandless' letters. But again the
federal government could say that just because there is some
quirk in the State law, it is not their problem to solve it.
5. Status of 1984 State Transportation Improvement Program.
Barry Beck reiterated that things at the State level do not
look good. The Caltrans proposal to the CTC and the CTC
staff recommendation to the State Commission does not recom-
mend anything for Route 86 or any other additional projects
beyond what Caltrans is proposing in the County. Included
in the agenda packet is Caltrans' response to each of the
County's additional proposals. The CTC will be adopting the
1984 STIP next week. Be will meet with Commissioner Walt
Ingalls and Mike Evanhoe, CTC Executive Director, tomorrow
to discuss what possibility Riverside has in getting
something on Route 86. SB 283, which is a bill passed
earlier this year, allows the State Commission to adopt an
additional add-on program that would cover years 6, 7 and 8.
It identifies projects that Caltrans would get ready for
construction in the 3 years following the 5 -year STIP.
Again, the CTC staff recommendation does not include
anything for Route 86 in that list.
Chairman Cornelison asked the status of the AB 1176 list.
Barry Beck said that AB 1176 list would be superseded by the
SB 283 list. They are similar in nature but SB 283 firms it
up a little bit more and puts some more guidelines on what
would be in that list. It makes the list more of a
commitment for funding in those out years. It is not a 100%
commitment but it gives those projects priority over other
projects.
In response to Barry Beck's question if there was a
recommendation from Caltrans on the SB 283 list of projects,
Bill Edmonds said that they have no input into it and as far
as he knows, the list was totally compiled by CTC staff.
4
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
Barry Beck said that one of the strange things about the
list is that all of the projects are from Northern
California and he does not know how that is going to fit
with the north/south split.
6. State's Freeway Interchange and Crossing Funding Policy.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that the CTC finally
adopted a policy which requires local funding for all new
interchanges unless it can be shown that a new interchange
can relieve a problem at an adjacent interchange. Most of
the new interchanges that we're considering in the County
would have to be locally funded unless they were built in
conjunction with new freeway construction such as those that
will be built on I-15 through Norco and Corona and on I-215
when it is -upgraded to a freeway. Any additional
interchanges will have to be funded locally either through a
benefit assessment district or some combination of local and
private funds. Listed in the staff report are a number of
interchanges that are being proposed in the County and how
the new policy would apply to those interchanges. He men-
tioned that with regard to the Kubic Road interchange in
Coachella Valley, he has been approached by Senator Robert
Presley on getting some State funds for it. In fact,
Senator Presley has gone to the State, as part of his
testimony before the CTC two weeks ago, requesting the
State's assistance on the interchange. It is shown on the
staff report that it is 100% locally funded because it has
apparently been agreed upon by the property owners but they
have approached Senator Presley and asked for his help.
Staff has asked the CTC to consider it within the parameters
of the new policy. It may qualify for State funding under
the policy.
Bill Edmonds said that they have checked with Caltrans
headquarters and that that Kubic Road project falls under
the prior agreement category. They feel that they have
prior commitment in that all the work would be 100% local.
In fact, headquarters recommended that the District not
calculate it on any other basis.
Barry Beck stated that he is not sure that it should be
interpreted that way as when Caltrans was approached for
funding, they were told that it had to be funded locally,
thus, he would not call that an agreement since they were
coerced into it.
5
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
7. Unmet Transit Needs/Short Range Transit Plan.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that subsequent to the
last Commission meeting, the SunLine Transit Agency Board
has approved the expansion of the Palm Desert dial -a -ride to
include the Palm Desert Greens residential complex. They
also approved the initiation of service to North Palm
Springs. Both of these changes would be effective in July.
Last month, the Commission adopted the Short Range Transit
Plan and found that there were no unmet transit needs in the
Coachella Valley, subject to the expansion of the Palm
Desert dial -a -ride and subject to a finding that the service
expansion to North Palm Springs was an acceptable level of
service. Staff does feel that it is an acceptable level of
service based on the community meeting held in May and
recommends that the Commission find that it is acceptable
and approve it for inclusion in the Short Range Transit
Plan.
M/S/C (HULL/WILSON) to find that the level of service
proposed by Sunline for the North Palm Springs area is
acceptable and approve the inclusion of the service in
the Short Range Transit Plan.
8. UMTA Section 9 FY 1984-85 Program of Projects.
Barry Beck said that the programs are consistent with the
approved short range transit plan.
At this time, Chairman Cornelison opened the public hearing.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP) to approve the proposed UMTA
Section 9 Programs of Projects for Riverside County
urbanized areas.
9. Allocation of TDA Funds to Transit Operators.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that this year, there is
a total of 26% more funds available than last year based on
increased sales activity and a fairly large carryover from
last year. The total proposed allocations to the transit
operators is $5,033,000 which is substantially higher than
the $3,235,000 allocated in FY 83-84. The reason for the
increase is that both SunLine and RTA had a fairly large
carryover of unexpended funds into the current year's bud-
get. Also, there is a modest increase service in the Sun -
Line area that will require additional funds. There will be
$6,341,000 remaining after allocating funds to transit oper-
ators for streets and roads. This represents about a 10%
increase over the current year. Staff will come back to the
6
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
Commission next month with a recommended distribution of the
remaining funds. It is the intention of staff, unless
instructed differently by the Commission, to use the same
formula that was adopted for the current year for the
Coachella Valley. A letter was submitted by the City of
Indian Wells speaking against the population formula and
Milan Milkovitch is here today to address the Commission.
Milan Milkovitch stated that the Indian Wells City Council
at this morning's budget hearing requested him to ask the
Commission what their reason was for an agency such as RCTC
having the authority to allocate funds and deal with the
California Transportation Commission to give as much leeway
to an organization such the SunLine Board to come up with
the formula to distribute the remaining TDA funds after
funding transiit. Indian Wells, which has a fairly limited
use of transit services, started out receiving approximately
$25,000 in TDA funds for streets and roads in the past and
was reduced to $5,000. This year, they may not receive any
funds for streets and roads. Palm Springs with heavy usage
of transit services receives $116,000 for streets and roads,
and Desert Hot Springs with equally heavy use of transit
services gets $22,000. Thus, they feel that equity and
justice are not served. To go a step further, Indian Wells'
next move will not include the SunLine Board or RCTC. They
feel that they just have to bypass the Commission to get
answers because they are not satisfied with the answers that
the Commission has given. In addition, he commented that
street and road funds should not be used by SunLine in
addition to the funding that they receive up front. In the
process of allocating transportation funds, the Commission
also used street and road funds and proportionately cut back
the allocation to cities and the County in Coachella Valley.
Barry Beck, with regards to Milan Milkovitch's last state-
ment, explained that funds are not being taken away from the
cities and county. SunLine was going to have a cash flow
shortage and so the Commission reserved some of the funds
for SunLine because they were going to be slow in getting
their federal transit money. But all those funds will be
returned to the local agencies, part of them by action today
because SunLine didn't need all of the reserve, and the rest
will be reallocated to the local agencies as soon as SunLine
receives its federal funds. While the funds are being
delayed, they are not being taken away from the cities and
the county.
Barry Beck continued that the problem here is what equity
is. Obviously Indian Wells' sense of equity is different
from the majority of the remaining entities in the Coachella
Valley. The Commission requested SunLine to suggest a for -
7
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
mula to allocate the remaining TDA funds. It is up to the
Commission to decide on what formula to use. The Commission
went to SunLine because that body is composed of most of the
cities in the Coachella Valley and they were aware of the
transit situation, etc. They indicated that after funding
transit services off the top, it is their recommendation
that the remaining funds be allocated by population. This
is not the same formula used in the Western Riverside County
but this is not to say that one is more equitable than the
other. It is a matter of opinion.
Chairman Cornelison asked if the same formula used by the
Western Riverside County was used in the Coachella Valley,
would the cities and the County's allocation change.
Barry Beck said that an approximation was done last year.
Indian Wells and the County would probably receive some more
money, Palm Springs would get less money and the other
cities would probably receive about the same amount.
Commissioner Roy Wilson commented that it has been the
Commission's position to let those closest to the decision
to make a recommendation and if the Commission thought it
was reasonable that it will go along with it. SunLine was
asked to reconsider the formula a year ago to review the
Western Riverside County formula to see if it might not be
more equitable. The decision that came down from that Board
is that they are satisfied with the population formula. Mr.
Milkovitch has asked where would they go from here if they
are not satisfied with the Commission's action.
Barry Beck said that any recourse above the Commission would
be SCAG.
Commissioner Hull added that perhaps Indian Wells could
lobby other local agencies in the Coachella Valley area.
Milan Milkovitch reiterated that if there is another avenue,
be it legal or be it the California Transportation Commis-
sion or the political process, this is what is being ex-
plored because the feeling is that it is not equitable under
the direction of the Commission. He said that when they
held the meeting at SunLine in which the Indian Wells City
Manager and he attended, they debated after the meeting how
much of a vote they had. It was SunLine's contention that
they had a 6-3 vote in favor of the population formula. He
said that they did not mind this but with the audible votes
or show of hands, they only saw 3-3, so they thought that
the other cities abstained. In addition, the SunLine Board
had a study session prior to the meeting in where they
somewhat agreed to their decision.
8
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
Commissioner Murphy corrected Mr. Milkovitch and said that
the vote was not 3-3 and that a study session was not held
prior to the meeting.
Commissioner Wilson asked if it would be appropriate for
staff to send a letter to each local agency asking them if
they would like to use the same formula.
Barry Beck said that this should not be done in the Western
Riverside County area as there is a specific arrangement in
the west end in conjunction with legislation authored by
Walt Ingalls whereby under the agreement there was a solemn
promise to follow out the formula that was adopted. In the
Coachella Valley, because there is a complaint from Indian
Wells, perhaps a letter should be sent to each City Manager
and the County indicating that the Commission intends to use
the population formula and seeing if there is any other
opposition.
Milan Milkovitch said that there may be a change in the
composition of CVAG as well as SunLine since members who may
not be members of CVAG also belong to the SunLine Board.
Because of this, he recommends that the Commission follow
through with a letter whether or not the lobbying effort is
worthwhile because his immediate impression is that the
Commission is putting Indian Wells in the same relative
position that they were in last year with no action on the
part of RCTC trying to work it out with those people who
represents SunLine with whom they haven't any influence in
as far as a vote is concerned or any input about the same
problems that faced other cities that use transportation.
This seems to him not to be a matter of inequity as far as a
small community is concerned, it seems to him simply. a
matter a non -user of transit services simply not participa-
ting and yet having funds that are allocated. The basic
question is does RCTC have the jurisdiction regarding the
funding and can they make a decision as to the allocation of
funds.
Chairman Cornelison said that staff will contact the various
entities in Coachella Valley that would receive TDA street
and road funds. Each entity will indicate whether or not
they prefer the population formula or the use of another
formula. We are not talking about SunLine or CVAG, but the
individual entities. If Indian Wells wishes to influence
any of the local entities, any lobbying efforts that Indian
Welts might want to do, by all means do it.
9
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
M/S/C (DUNLAP/HULL) to approve the allocation of
Transportation Development Act Funds to transit
operators as shown in the staff report.
At this time, Walt Ingalls, California Transportation
Commission member, was briefed on the concerns of the
Commission that Route 86 was not included in CTC staff
recommendation of projects for the STIP nor on the SB 283
list which might harm the chances of obtaining any federal
funding for the project.
10. Minimum Fare Revenue Ratios for RTA and SunLine.
Barry Beck said that the ratios have been calculated for
both SunLine ,and RTA at 16.2% and 18.2% respectively. Both
agencies are expected to meet the minimum fare revenue
ratios and staff recommendation is to approve the ratios for
both agencies and request SCAG concurrence.
M/S/C (WILSON/SHEPARD) to approve the minimum fare
revenue to operating cost ratios of 18.2% for RTA and
16.2% for SunLine and request SCAG concurrence.
11. Transit Operations Report.
Barry Beck told the Commission that ridership is running 13-
14% higher than a year ago.
In response to Commissioner Shepard's question as what the
increase of ridership is attributed to, Barry Beck said that
it is probably because the transit dependents have more
money and they have been able to ride it more. The systems
have been fairly static, there has not been any new lines
added to any degree. He thinks that it is because of better
economy and people have a little more money and they are
able to take more trips. It is not due to population in-
crease because most of the population increase that we're
getting are middle class people coming from Orange County
into the Moreno Valley area and they are 2-3 car families
that are not riding transit.
Commissioner Shepard said that we are at a static stage on a
lot of our lines and that has bred familiarity which means
that they can depend on them. They are not constantly
changing and there is that regularity that people can depend
on.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/DUNLAP) to accept and file the transit
operations report.
10
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
12. Release of Reserved TDA Funds in the Coachella Valley.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/SHEPARD) to allocate:
1. $365,407 that had been reserved for SunLine to
local agencies for street and road purposes.
2. $277,497 to local agencies for street and road
purposes upon SunLine's loan repayment.
13. Regional Aviation Plan.
Barry Beck said that this report was requested by Supervisor
Norton Younglove. He requested a status of the regional
aviation plan and, in particular,he was concerned about the
situation in Orange County, which is not agreeing to imple-
ment the plan and the implication that might have on Ontario
Airport and LAX. He introduced Larry Goldman, SCAG's
Regional Aviation Program Manager, to the Commission.
Larry Goldman briefed the Commission on the status of the
Regional Aviation Plan which was adopted approximately two
years ago. At that point what was recommended after a four-
year study in which RCTC was represented on the SCAG Avia-
tion Work Program Committee by Riverside's Airport Director,
Murray Bywater, the SCAG Executive Committee adopted and
recommended further study of and implementation of sites at
El Toro and possibly Camp Pendleton as well as the maintain-
ing of the current constraints of 40 million annual
passengers at LAX and 12 million annual passengers at
Ontario Airport. Also, it was recommended that each of the
individual airports go back and reexamine their own policies
with respect to the limitations they placed on the airport
to see whether or not those numbers could not be replaced
with some sort of performance based constraints. That is,
if noise situation or ground transportation are improved,
can service be increased. The last recommendation was the
formation of a four -county regional airport authority. This
was formed and was brought into being last month with the
signature of three parties (Counties of San Bernardino,
Riverside and Los Angeles). It is expected that the City of
Los Angeles will also become a party to the regional airport
authority within the next two or three months. Orange
County has, unfortunately, at this point decided not to
participate. There has been for some time a promise of an
agreement between the County of Orange and City of Newport
Beach over the ultimate expansion of the John Wayne Airport
and with a clause in the agreement that the County would in
essence explore further the development of a new site (El
Toro or Santiago Canyon or Camp Pendleton or another site in
Orange County). Unfortunately, as a result of litigation
11
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
and some hard feelings between the Board of Supervisors in
Orange County and the City of Newport Beach, that agreement
never came into being and it is at an impasse today.
Larry Goldman continued and said that there was also a
feeling in the Board of Supervisors in Orange County that
perhaps they would send more of the Orange County people to
Ontario Airport as an interim solution and perhaps even a
long term solution to their problem. As the Commission is
probably aware, each airport is required to file a quarterly
statement of improvement of the conditions of noise. At the
last hearing before the Administrative Judge for the annual
variance which Ontario Airport attempted to get, the judge
ruled that the airport had not met the conditions of the
variance and that the airport would not be allowed to expand
beyond its current operating level until such time as the
noise problems were resolved or improved. There was debate
between the City of Los Angeles and Caltrans, at which Mr.
Leo Trombatorre said that the State did not necessarily
support the position of the administrative court judge and
that they were willing to negotiate with the City of Los
Angeles over the operation and expansion of Ontario Airport.
The Cities of Los Angeles and Ontario have recently filed
for application of a $600,000 airport noise control land use
compatibility study which will set the course for resolving
any noise problems that the airport has with the participa-
tion of the surrounding communities. This will somehow
alleviate the problem at Ontario Airport but it still does
not answer or address the problem of Orange County.
Larry Goldman said that SCAG still sees the solution lying
primarily in the El Toro facility with Camp Pendleton as
rather a long range kind of solution. In some discussions
that they have had with the Department of Defense, an issue
was raised regarding the protection of sites in the desert,
primarily relating to the development of the proposed
Palmdale Airport and growth that would be seen to occur in
the high desert. -The Air Force and Navy are quite concerned
about the degradation of visibility in the high desert and
how that is contrary to its mission for testing advance
weapon systems since they use visual tracking methods and
they found no suitable substitute for visual tracking
methods. There is some hope and there have been some
discussions that for a possible trade for perhaps a Marine
Corps facility in the Palmdale area that might be placed in
Orange County which would then open the issue of the El Toro
Airport. Those discussions have not gone very far and at
least at this point are somewhat private.
Barry Beck asked if Orange County had come right out and
said that they don't want an airport at El Toro.
12
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
Larry Goldman said that the current Board of Supervisors is
not going to be very prone to move very far in the direction
of El Toro. He thinks that there has been a perception of
Orange County that they are reacting somewhat negative to
any kind of facility in the County. They have had some
problems with citing hazardous waste sites and with a number
of kinds of issues as well. They're tending to be very
protective. They are not prone to move right now.
Barry Beck asked at what point would SCAG and the other
counties give up and come up with something different.
Larry Goldman said that they are always rethinking of
possible solutions as indicated earlier, in terms of the
mandate of the plan whether or not there are trade offs
between resolving the environmental issues, noise and ground
transportation issues, and accepting more demand at some of
the airports. As far as the question of additional site
goes, he thinks. that there is always that dynamic that's
going to be there. The City of Newport Beach will always
want to close John Wayne Airport.
Commissioner Shepard asked if John Wayne Airport has signi-
ficant pressure to be shut down rather than expand its
facilities and capacity.
Larry Goldman said that the dynamic within the County is
that the City of Newport Beach would at least like to limit
the growth of the airport and not allow it to grow very much
at all. There are forces within Newport Beach that would
like to see the airport shut down altogether or at least
have commercial aviation not be a factor at the airport:
Tim Egan asked what the capacity of the system overall in
the region.
Larry Goldman said that the FAA has a policy of saying that
capacity is no problem and they can find ways to make it
work. There are not going to be any problems at Ontario or
LAX because the FAA has already preserved the airspace and
there really are not capacity problems beyond doubling what
LAX is talking about.
Murray Bywater addressed the Commission and said that he has
been attending the Aviation Work Program Committee for the
past five years. It is a comfort to know the caliber of
expertise that has been studying this problem is real high.
With regards to what point in time we would give up with El
Toro and rethink this matter, at the present time the AWPC
is not too active in this agenda. But in his opinion, it is
a problem that is not going to go away and he thinks that it
13
RCTC Minutes
June 21, 1984
should be pursued until it is solved. He said that he
personally voted against Camp Pendleton because he felt that
it did not solve the problem having about 25% usability for
the LAX/Orange County problem. He also thinks that regard-
ing the military aspect, that has been explored to a great
extent and maybe it might be explored some more as time goes
on. The study should accelerate until it is solved.
The Commission expressed their appreciation to Larry Goldman
for briefing them on this matter.
14. SB 821 (Bicycle & Pedestrian) Program Amendment.
Commissioner Dunlap proposed that the remaining $23,984 SB
821 funds be allocated to the Santa Ana River Bikeway to
link it with Drange and San Bernardino Counties.
Barry Beck said that the funds could be added to SB 821
funds for next year and be distributed in the normal manner
or it could be used to fund the next project down the
priority list.
Commissioner Wilson stated that if the Commission was to go
ahead and use the funds for the Santa Ana River Bikeway, he
is afraid of the precedence that the Commission would be
setting as there is a very sophisticated procedure whereby
the Commission's committee reviews and ranks all the pro-
jects. He would hate to see the Commission deviate from
that process and start bringing in individual projects.
M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP) to approve the request of Palm
Springs to use $10,000 of unexpended SB 821 funds for
reconstruction of the Tahquitz Wash Bikeway at Gene
Autry Trail provided that the remaining $23,984 of
unexpended funds are returned to the Commission.
15. Audits for FY 83-84.
M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP) to approve the retention of
Thomas, Byrne and Smith to perform fiscal audits of the
LTF and STA funds and an audit of the Commission at a
cost not to exceed $9450.
16. Additional Items.
Barry Beck said that the Commission, at its meeting last
month, requested Caltrans to study Route 91 in the vicinity
of Tyler Mall. Caltrans has agreed to do the study. Joe
Sanchez, Caltrans 8, has brought up some problems at the
Route 91/I-215 interchange. He pointed out that there is a
significant congestion as well as accident problems on the
14
"
w e s t b o u n d I - 2 1 5 t o s o u t h b o u n d R o u t e 9 1 m o v e m e n t .
B i l l E d m o n d s s a i d t h a t C a l t r a n s w i l l p r e s e n t t h e s t u d y t o
t h e C o m m i s s i o n a t i t s c o m p l e t i o n .
1 6 . A d j o u r n m e n t .
T h e n e x t R C T C m e e t i n g w i l l b e h e l d o n J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 8 4 a t 1 : 3 0
p . m . , R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C e n t e r , 1 4 t h F l o o r
C o n f e r e n c e R o o m , 4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t r e e t , R i v e r s i d e .
M / S / C ( D U N L A P / W I L S O N ) t o a d j o u r n t h e m e e t i n g a t 3 : 2 4
p . m .
R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,
B a r r y B e c k
E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
n k
1 5
"
M i n u t e s o f M e e t i n g N o . 8 - 8 4
J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 8 4
1 . C a l l t o O r d e r .
T h e m e e t i n g o f t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
C o m m i s s i o n w a s c a l l e d t o o r d e r b y C h a i r m a n S u s a n C o r n e l i s o n
a t 1 : 3 6 p . m . , o n T h u r s d a y , J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 8 4 , a t t h e R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C e n t e r , 1 4 t h F l o o r C o n f e r e n c e R o o m ,
4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t r e e t , R i v e r s i d e . T h e C h a i r m a n n o t e d t h a t a
q u o r u m w a s p r e s e n t .
M e m b e r s p r e s e n t :
K a y C e n i c e r o s
S u s a n C o r n e l i s o n
M e l b a D u n l a p
2 . A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s .
P h i l J o n e s
R o y W i l s o n
N o r t o n Y o u n g l o v e
M / S / C ( W I L S O N / D U N L A P ) t o a p p r o v e t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e
J u n e 2 1 , 1 9 8 4 m e e t i n g a s s u b m i t t e d .
3 . P u b l i c C o m m e n t s .
B a r r y B e c k , E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r , i n f o r m e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n t h a t
h e w a s c o n t a c t e d b y a c i t i z e n w h o r e s i d e s i n C o r o n a w h o s e
h u s b a n d w o r k s i n O r a n g e C o u n t y c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n g e s t i o n
p r o b l e m o n R o u t e 9 1 . S h e a s k e d w h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n i s g o i n g
t o d o a b o u t t h e p r o b l e m . S h e h a d i n d i c a t e d t h a t s h e w a s
g o i n g t o a t t e n d t h e m e e t i n g t o d a y . B a r r y B e c k s a i d t h a t h e
t r i e d t o e x p l a i n t o h e r t h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n , a t p r e s e n t , h a s
i t s e x i s t i n g p r i o r i t i e s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e C o u n t y a n d c i t i e s
a r e t r y i n g t o a t t r a c t i n d u s t r i e s t o R i v e r s i d e . N e v e r t h e -
l e s s , t h e c o n g e s t i o n p r o b l e m , e v e n i f R o u t e 9 1 i s w i d e n e d ,
i s b o u n d t o g e t w o r s e .
C o m m i s s i o n e r C e n i c e r o s s a i d t h a t i n a p r e s e n t a t i o n b y B i l l
E d m o n d s , C a l t r a n s D i s t r i c t 8 D i r e c t o r , a t t h e M o n d a y M o r n i n g
G r o u p , h e s a i d t h a t t h i s i s t h e o n e s t r e t c h i n R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y t h a t i s p r o j e c t e d t o b e a " r e d " s e c t i o n ( t r a v e l s p e e d
w o u l d b e l e s s t h a n 3 5 m p h ) b y t h e y e a r 2 0 0 0 .
C o m m i s s i o n e r J o n e s s t a t e d t h a t i t i s l e s s t h a n t h a t n o w
b e c a u s e h e t r a v e l s 2 7 m i l e s t o w o r k f r o m C o r o n a a n d i t t a k e s
h i m 1 h o u r t o 1 h o u r a n d 1 5 m i n u t e s .
RCTC Minutes
July 19, 1984
4. Allocation of TDA Funds for Streets and Roads.
A. Western County Area.
Barry Beck said that the TDA funds available for
streets and roads in the Western County area is up 22%
to nearly $5.6 million. The allocations shown in that
attachment were calculated by staff in conformance with
the methodology that the Commission adopted three years
ago.
M/S/C (JONES/CENICEROS) to approve the allocation
of TDA funds to agencies in the Western County
area for street and road purposes as shown on the
table.
B. Coachella Valley Area.
Barry Beck stated that the amount of TDA funds availa-
ble ($695,267) for streets and roads is significantly
down from last year even though sales activity is up.
The main cause is due to SunLine taking an
extraordinary low amount of TDA funds off the top last
year because they had a large carryover. This year the
carryover is more modest and, therefore, they need more
TDA funds. In addition, SunLine is planning some
modest service expansions.
Concerning the allocation of funds, the Commission, at
its last meeting directed staff to send a letter to
each city in the Coachella Valley stating that the
Commission intends to use the population formula to
allocate the funds, as it has done for the past two
years. Staff has not received any communications in
opposition to using the population formula except from
the City of Indian Wells.
Barry Beck explained that actually the Western County
area formula is more of a population formula than the
formula used in Coachella Valley. In the west end, all
TDA funds are allocated by population including transit
and road funds, thus, if a city receives little transit
service, they get more street and road funds. In that
respect, it is more of a population formula than the
Coachella Valley formula which takes transit funds off
the top on a needs basis and only allocates the
remaining funds on the basis of population ignoring
what happened on the transit side. Also, at the last
meeting he was asked what the difference would be
between using the Western County formula versus the so-
called population formula in the Coachella Valley. He
2
RCTC Minutes
July 19, 1984
may have understated what the effect would be. This
was roughly calculated last year and the County of
Riverside and the Cities of Coachella, Cathedral City,
Indian Wells, Indio, Rancho Mirage would receive signi-
ficantly more funds percentage -wise under the Western
County formula. The Cities of Desert Hot Springs, La
Quinta and Palm Springs would receive less funds under
the Western County formula. These are the areas that
have proportionately more transit service. The City of
Palm Desert would come out about the same but this
could change once the cost of the dial -a -ride service
is brought under control. Actually, the Western County
formula would result closer to the allocations being
made in the Coachella Valley up until two -three years
ago.
He said that staff recommends that the remaining TDA
funds be distributed in proportion to population since
no other objections were received from cities in
the Coachella Valley.
Copies of a letter from Indian Wells were distributed
to Commission members.
Prince Pierson, City Manager of Indian Wells, said that
they feel that the funding formula used in Coachella
Valley is inequitable. In addition, they are not repre-
sented by either SunLine or CVAG. As Barry Beck ex-
plained earlier, the Western County area formula is
more of a true population formula because they take
into consideration the transit service value and this
is what they are requesting to be used in Coachella
Valley. Basically, they are aware that the backbone
system from Desert Hot Springs to Coachella is benefi-
cial to Coachella Valley but there are cities that
desire and demand more transit services. He does not
think that this is necessarily a decision collectively
as more independently. They are appealing to the Com-
mission as they have no one else to appeal to. They
think that the Commission is the body that should
adjudicate this.
Chairman Cornelison said that staff, as the Commission
has directed at its last meeting, has polled each
entity in the Coachella Valley as to whether they
object to the formula now in use. No communication was
received from entities other than Indian Wells.
3
RCTC Minutes
July 19, 1984
Commissioner Ceniceros stated that TDA funds are speci-
fically to be used to try to develop a transit system
and this is the first criteria. With regards to being
represented by CVAG or SunLine, Indian Wells opted not
to be represented at CVAG or SunLine and as far as she
knows they are welcome to join.
Commissioner Wilson said that when Palm Desert received
the Commission's letter, it was referred to their Sun -
Line representative noting that if there was a concern
that he should take it up to the SunLine Board. He had
chosen not to raise the issue himself and, in addition,
he has spoken with a member of a neighboring city and
they have also decided not to bring it up. The city
would in fact gain more funds if the formula was
changed, Commissioner Wilson said that there are
trade- offs and they have worked out a system. The
majority are happy and he does not feel that this
matter should be continued. The basic question that is
raised is the city has basically no transit service
other than the backbone service, they feel that the
SunLine formula is not very equitable to them and they
have no representation on SunLine to try to change
that. It comes down to the same question that perhaps
Indian Wells needs to belong to SunLine.
Chairman Cornelison said that before the meeting began,
Mr. Pierson stated that the City of Indian Wells did
not feel that it is appropriate for them to lobby other
entities that might feel the way they do. All the
Commission has is an indication that no other entity at
this point would agree with Indian Wells' position.
Regardless of whether we are considering the formula as
being proposed by SunLine, CVAG or any transit
operator, it sounds like the Commission has given the
other entities, independently, a chance to respond
outside of the SunLine structure and it has received no
response.
Barry Beck pointed out that there certainly are
minority rights and if he thought that the population
formula was totally inequitable even though one city
having only 1800 people was getting the bad end of it
then he would recommend that the formula be changed.
But he has not seen any thread of evidence that indi-
cates that the formula is inequitable or morally wrong.
It is a subjective decision of which formula is used;
there is no equity issue involved. Since by far the
vast majority of the entities wants the population
formula even several that could gain monetarily if
using the Western County formula, he can't see any
4
RCTC Minutes
July 19, 1984
other way to go.
M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to:
1. Retain the existing formula until the
Commission receives additional requests from
entities to review the formula for change
during the next fiscal year.
2. Approve the allocation of TDA funds for
street and road purposes to agencies in the
Coachella Valley as shown on the table.
C. Palo Verde Valley Area.
Barry Beck said that staff is recommending that the
allocation of funds be on the same basis as been used
in past years.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/JONES) to approve the allocation of
$94,738 to the City of Blythe and $85,105 to the
County of Riverside for street and road purposes.
5. 1984 State Transportation Improvement Program.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that Riverside County
fared better than expected even though Caltrans, as well as
CTC staff, did not recommend any funding but with State
Commissioner Walt Ingalls' assistance, everything came into
place. It surprised him that as a last minute, there was
indication from Leo Trombatore, Director of Caltrans, in
support of putting Route 86, on the SB 283 list.
Walt Ingalls stated that he made the State Commission aware
of the tremendous importance of Route 86 to the State's
economy because of its extraordinary vital link in the
agricultural market and also of its high accident rates.
Also, after the I-215 projects are built, the County will
below its county minimum. He also received commitment to
look at the whole question of funding the Rubio/Monterey
Road Interchange in relation to the newly adopted State
Commission policy. He continued that the CTC will be dis-
cussing at a meeting tomorrow a subject matter that has the
potential of incredible amount of inequity for our area.
There is a situation now where if the CTC follows the pro-
gram that Caltrans has set up, we will not be getting any
primary or 85% funds in Southern California over the next
decade. The reason is that it is going to be all interstate
funds for the Century Freeway and Harbor Freeway busway in
Los Angeles County. This means that in order to keep the
north/south split, we are going to take all the primary
5
}
RCTC Minutes
July 19, 1984
monies (funds that could be used for I-215, Route 86, Route
74, Kubic Road Interchange) and it will go to Northern
California. It is a very important issue. For the members
of RCTC that are also members of the SCAG Executive Commit-
tee, he requested that they bring this up for discussion of
how the other non -interstate projects would be built, what
would happen if we put all the monies into metrorail, light
rail system, LA busway, Century Freeway, and what happens to
the rest of the transportation needs of the rest of Southern
California. He hopes that SCAG and the Commissions address
the issue and formulate some recommendations that the CTC
might incorporate in their deliberations.
Commissioner Ceniceros said that at a discussion at SCAG, it
was really hard to find somebody enthusiastic with the
Harbor Freeway project.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked if staff could prepare a
summary of the highway funding process. It used to be that
when there was ample transportation funds available we
weren't in competition with other jurisdictions.
Walt Ingalls noted that things are going to get worse until
there is an increase in the gas tax.
Barry Beck said that according to CTC staff's calculation
there is a $550 million shortfall in State funds to match
federal funds. The STIP was put together assuming that
somehow the monies will be found either by cancelling pro-
jects, reducing maintenance or a gas tax increase.
6. Highway Systems Plan Update.
Barry Beck said that Caltrans has previously briefed the
Commission on the capacity adequacy of the present system
today and based on projections of traffic growth, in the
year 2000 and 2010. Caltrans has now prioritized the
improvements needed to increase the capacity on the segments
that were deficient and determined what segments could be
improved based on four funding scenarios: no gas tax in-
crease, five -cent gas tax increase, ten -cent gas tax in-
crease, and fifteen -cent gas tax increase.
Joe Sanchez, Caltrans District 8 Deputy Director, said that
the district area has 1600 miles and 32 routes. The study
was started a year ago to study each route in depth and
determine what the deficiencies were. Joe Sanchez then
pointed out those segments that were found deficient now and
those that would be deficient in 1985 - 1995. He then showed
which segments could be funded under each of the revenue
6
RCTC Minutes
July 19, 1984
scenarios. At the staff level, they feel that the only
thing that is halfway realistic is a 5 -10 cents gas tax
increase.
Commissioner Ceniceros asked if their assumption is that all
the gas tax revenue would go to the State system and Joe
Sanchez said yes.
Chairman Cornelison thanked Joe Sanchez for the
presentation.
Commissioner Ceniceros commented that March Air Force Base
is asking for a redesign of the 1-215 off -ramp at Cactus
Base.
Commissioner Younglove said that it is his understanding
that the alternative that was approved did not incorporate
the changes that the Base was requesting.
Joe Sanchez noted that the Base came up with the recommenda-
tion after the adoption of the final alignment.
Commissioner Dunlap asked if on the Green River/Serfas Club
Drive problem, Caltrans is anywhere near proposing a solu-
tion. Also, she asked that Caltrans recommend that a stop
sign be placed on Serfas Club at Monterey and Pinecrest.
Joe Sanchez said that the person that was assigned to study
the problem has been on vacation. A recommendation will be
forthcoming shortly.
7. SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program.
In response to Commissioner Dunlap as to who are members of
the ad hoc committee to review SB 821 applications, Barry
Beck said that the committee is composed of three members
each from the Citizens and Technical Advisory Committees.
Chairman Cornelison asked when the deadline for filing ap-
plications was and Barry Beck said that local agencies are
given a month from the date that the applications are
mailed.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/JONES) to authorize staff to solicit
applications for SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Funds
and direct the SB 821 Project Selection Committee to
review and rank projects in accordance with the
Commission's adopted criteria and submits its
recommendations to the Commission at its September
meeting.
7
"
R C T C M i n u t e s
J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 8 4
9 . A d j o u r n m e n t .
T h e n e x t R C T C m e e t i n g w i l l b e h e l d o n A u g u s t 1 6 , 1 9 8 4 a t
1 : 3 0 p . m . , R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C e n t e r , 1 4 t h
F l o o r C o n f e r e n c e R o o m , 4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t r e e t , R i v e r s i d e .
M / S / C ( D U N L A P / W I L S O N ) t o a d j o u r n t h e m e e t i n g a t 3 : 0 8
p . m .
n k
R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,
1 ,
B a r r y B e c k
E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
8