HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 11, 1984 Citizens Advisory040230
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
June 11, 1984, 1:30 P.M.
Riverside City Hall
4th Floor Conference Room
3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Transit Operations Report.
4. Moreno Valley Alternatives Study.
5. Unmet Transit Needs/Short Range Transit Plan.
6. Status of RIV/SAN Transportation Study.
7. Proposed Coachella Valley Transportation Study.
8. Review of Recent Commission Actions.
9. Adjournment.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION O! ISSiON
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 2-84
April 24, 1984
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by Vice Chairman Ben Minnich at 1:33 p.m., on Tuesday,
April 24, 1984, at the Riverside City Hall, Fourth Floor
Conference Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside.
Self introductions of those present followed.
Members present:
Harry Brinton
Jordis Cameron
Marian Carpelan
Herb Krauch
Rand Martin
Ben Minnich
Joanne Moore
Rena Parker
Sheila Velez
Laurence M. Weinberg
Ran Wyder
Others present:
Kay Van Sickel, Riverside Transit Agency
2. Approval of Minutes.
M/S/C (KRAUCH/PARKER) to approve the minutes of the
February 28, 1984 meeting as submitted.
3. Unmet Transit Needs.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, informed the Committee
that each year as part of the process to adopt the Short
Range Transit Plan, the Commission is required to hold
public hearings to determine if there are unmet transit
needs that can be reasonably met in Riverside County. This
year, the public hearings were held on March 8th in Palm
Desert and March 15 in Riverside. Staff had hoped to bring
both the Western County and Coachella Valley area needs and
staff responses to the Committee at its meeting scheduled on
March 27. Unfortunately, the Western County area hearing
was held on March 15th and staff did not have sufficient
time to prepare the responses in time for the meeting.
Instead, copies of the Short Range Transit Plans and a list
of service requests received at the public hearings were
mailed to Committee members. The report to the Commission
on unmet transit needs for the Western County and Palo Verde
Valley areas, included in the agenda packet, was presented
1
f
and approved by the Commission at its meeting on April 19th.
Due to time constraints, this report had not been reviewed
by the Committee. In order for the Committee to review the
report, a special meeting would have had to be called. A
special meeting was not scheduled for two reasons: 1) There
were no unmet transit needs identified in th Palo Verde
Valley area; and, 2) The needs identified in the Western
County area were minor in nature. In addition, no comments
on unmet needs were received from any Committee members
except Herb Krauch. Herb Krauch commented on the need for a
feasibility study of service between the Banning/Beaumont
area and Hemet, and between the Banning/Beaumont area and
Redlands/Loma Linda/ Riverside. RTA sent a letter to Mr.
Krauch indicating that a feasibility study of service to
Hemet will be done by November, 1984. The RTA staff subse-
quently informed Commission staff that they will expand the
feasibility study to include Banning/Beaumont to
Redlands/Loma Linda/Riverside. Paul Blackwelder then re-
viewed the requests for services received at the unmet needs
hearings and staff's response presented to the Commission.
A brief discussion on the proposed changes on Line 17
followed.
Marian Carpelan stated that she would be very upset to see
the Line 17 service cut off at this point without the RTA
Board giving it at least another year's trial.
Kay Van Sickle said that it is her feeling that Line 17 has
a lot of good components. It is performing as expected and
should continue to improve. Part of the problem with the
line is the misconception on the type of riders it carries
and their trip purposes.
Barry Beck commented, as a personal observation, that if
Line 17 is to be called the Canyon Crest route, it should
travel through the Canyon Crest area all of the time, other-
wise, it should be given another name. He explained that
two or three of the trips travel through Country Club Drive
and the other trips do not because RTA was afraid that it
might upset the residents of Canyon Crest if the bus ran
through the neighborhood too often. The majority of the
trips on Line 17 use Central Avenue which is mostly undeve-
loped. He is not so sure that RTA ought not consider run-
ning Line 17 through the Canyon Crest area more often.
Chairman Minnich said that sociologically in this society,
public transit is for undesirable poor people. The Canyon
Crest residents do not want the buses running in their
neighborhood as they might bring the wrong kinds of people.
Rena Parker stated that this was the argument that was used
at the RTA Board and it was pointed out that there are a lot
of other people coming through that area. She felt it would
be logical to run this service for another year.
2
RandMartin pointed out that as stated in RTA's Short Range
Transit Plan, one of its policies is that a line will be
reviewed after six months on any route extension and after
one year on any new route. He asked if the 90% of expected
productivity reached by Line 17 after only six months of
operation might influence members of the RTA Board to go
ahead and continue the line.
Kay Van Sickle said that Rand was correct that after the six
months review, Line 17 fell within 90% of a range of accept-
able productivity that RTA has established as a standard for
the route. With a few minor adjustments, Line 17 should be
up to 100% of expected productivity.
Paul Blackwelder reviewed the unmet needs identified at the
Palm Desert hearing on March 8th. He commented that staff
has requested SunLine to provide information to help assess
the needs and develop alternatives for providing services.
The unmet transit needs identified were: 1) Transit service
between Western Village Mobilehome Park and Palm Springs; 2)
Transit service to the Mountain View Seniors Complex on 34th
Avenue in Cathedral City; 3) Extended dial -a -ride service
hours in Palm Desert; 4) Service from North Palm Springs to
Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs. SunLine has an exist-
ing service that runs once in the morning to Palm Springs
and once in the afternoon from Palm Springs to serve the
Casa Colina development and the community of Thousand Palms.
They are proposing to meet the needs of Western Village and
the Mountain View Seniors Complex by revising this route.
The revised route would travel from Thousand Palms to the
Mt. View Seniors Complex, to the shopping area on Highway
111 and Date Palm, to Casa Colina and into the Palm Springs
Mall. The bus would then go up to Western Village Mobile -
Home Park and bring people into the Palm Springs Mall.
Rena Parker asked why service would only be provided three
times a week and whether other service is provided to Casa
Colina.
Barry Beck said that a SunLine survey of residents in the Mt.
View Complex and Western Village Mobilehome Ranch showed
that a number of senior citizens want to get out two or
three times a week. They are only interested in doing a
little shopping and perhaps going to doctors apppointments.
Most of the residents of Western Village own automobiles.
The same level of service is currently provided to Casa
Colina and they are basically satisfied with the service.
Sheila Velez noted that she doubts that they are satisfied
with the service but rather they are saying "if this is the
service they are going to get they will have to work around
it". She said that basically when the State Department of
Rehabilitation refers clients to these types of facilities,
clients use them continuously five to ten days. She asked
3
if the service was ever run daily to determine that it would
only be needed three times a week. She said that if it was
not run on a daily basis, people could not have taken advan-
tage of it. Also, workers could not make work schedules
because it only runs for three days. This service can only
attract certain people who have the flexibility to use it in
the first place.
Barry Beck said that the problem is that even now the rider-
ship is extremely low. The comments that Sheila Velez made
may be right and if this is the case, he suggests that the
people at Casa Colina develop some kind of a petition or a
letter indicating what their needs are and how many people
would use the service on a daily basis. He suggested that
if there is a latent demand, then RCTC or SunLine staff
should be notified.
Sheila Velez replied that she will inform the persons in
charge at the Casa Colina facility to get a petition or
send a letter on their needs and the number of possible
users.
Paul Blackwelder advised the Committee that two transit
needs were identified that have not been fully addressed.
The two transit needs are service from North Palm Springs to
Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs and expanded dial -a -ride
hours in Palm Desert. SunLine requested the Desert Stage
Lines (a private company that operates a service between
Thousand Palms, Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs) to run
a service from Desert Hot Springs to Palm Springs via North
Palm Springs. About a month ago, Desert Stage Lines re-
routed its service through North Palm Springs. The one-way
fare is $1.90 and to date there has been no ridership. The
operator has not advertised this service. Supervisor Kay
Ceniceros has requested RCTC staff to hold a community
meeting in North Palm Springs to discuss the needs. He said
that recommendation for North Palm Springs should be
withheld until after the community meeting. Sunline
conducted a survey at the Seniors Association in Palm Desert
regarding the need to expand the Palm Desert tel-a-ride
hours. Residents could also call in and participate in the
survey. Fourteen persons responded and of the fourteen,
only one said that they would use the expanded dial -a -ride
service if the hours were extended. In addition, an ad was
placed in the Desert Post. Another related issue which
Supervisor Corky Larson is concerned about which was not
brought up at the unmet needs hearing, is a service to Palm
Desert Greens on Country Club Drive . Staff will be
discussing this matter with Supervisor Larson and no recom-
mendation should be made at this time on this matter.
Barry Beck pointed out that the item on unmet transit needs
in the Western County and Palo Verde Valley areas have
already gone to the Commission. The issuesin Coachella
Valley are still open. Four needs were identified and two
4
of the needs would be taken care of as previously discussed.
The other two issues, North Palm Springs and Palm Desert
Greens,are undecided. The Committee could either hold a
special meeting of the full Committee or a meeting of the
members from the Desert area to discuss this further.
Vice Chairman Minnich said that perhaps Committee members
from the Desert area could be notified when the meetings
will be held and thus they could attend if they so desire.
M/S/C (PARKER/CARPELAN) to support SunLine's proposed
solutions to the unmet transit needs identified: 1)
Service between Western Village Mobilehome Park and
Palm Springs; and, 2) Service to the Mt. View Seniors
Complex on 34th Avenue.
Sheila Velez voted no.
Marian Carpelan questioned why SunLine will not implement a
tel-a-ride service such as the one in Desert Hot Springs.
Barry Beck said that RCTC staff has encouraged SunLine to
look into it. In addition to this, SunLine is also looking
into forming a non-profit agency like Meditrans that would
operate in the Coachella Valley. This maybe the vehicle to
both improve the level of service and to reduce the current
cost per passenger trip.
Larry Weinberg suggested that the Committee table considera-
tion of the projects. SunLine is exploring the development
of a non-profit agency to be controlled by SunLine, County
Office on Aging, and the various agencies concerned. He
would like to wait and see what they can develop along these
lines.
M/S/C (WEINBERG/KRAUCH) to table consideration for a
subsidized taxi tel-a-ride service in Palm Desert.
In response to Sheila Velez' question where people coming
from Perris are let off for March Air Force Base, Kay Van
Sickel said that Line 16 from Riverside serves March Air
Force Base and it goes into the Main Gate on the north
side of the Base. RTA is looking at additional service in
Moreno Valley area and are considering some extended fixed
route service. Line 27 from Perris is an express and she is
not sure if it stops in an area where they could transfer to
Line 16. She will get in touch with Sheila Velez when she
gets the information.
4. FY 1985-89 Short Range Transit Plan.
Paul Blackwelder noted that copies of the draft Short Range
Transit Plans were mailed to members of the Committee last
month. With the exception of Herb Krauch's comments, no
other comments were received. The plans provide minor ser-
5
vice improvements and continuation of all existing
services. Next year, RTA will increase Line 16 service on
weekdays from 60 minute headways to 30 minute headways,
convert the Moreno Valley dial -a -ride to a fixed -route ser-
vice pending completion of the study and study
Banning/Beaumont transit service feasibility. SunLine
Transit Agency has proposed increasing Line 19 service from
60 minute headways to 30 minute headways, implementing Line
19 Sunday service on a two-hour headway, and implementing
Saturday service in the Desert Hot Spring tel-a-ride.
Banning proposes adding a second route to serve the city
area south of I-10. In FY 1986, the only proposed improve-
ment is for the RTA to implement a Norco -Corona fixed -route
service pending completion of further study. Staff
recommended that the Committee approve all the transit
operator plans.
A discussion followed whether the Committee should approve
all the plans.
M/S/C (KRAUCH/WEINBERG) to approve the Short Range
Transit Plans for Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Lake
Elsinore, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside
Special Services, Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine
Transit Agency including the SunLine's proposal to meet
the need for service between Western Village Mobile
Home Park and Palm Springs and for service to the Mt.
View Seniors Complex on 34th Avenue.
5. Route 86.
Barry Beck informed the Committee that the Commission hired
a lobbyist in Washington to seek funding for Route 86. The
status, as of now, is that the House bill by the
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation will include $9
million for Route 86. This will be sufficient for
engineering and right-of-way acquisition on the new
alignment.
In response to Sheila Velez' question if there is any way
that her department could help in this matter, Barry Beck
said that letters to Senators Alan Cranston and Pete Wilson
will be helpful.
Marian Carpelan asked if there is any effort going on to
change the county minimum provision.
Barry Beck answered that this was pursued for a couple years
with no success. Now that Riverside County's interstate
project CI -15) will be completed within three or four
years, the county minimum provision will begin to work in
our favor and there will be no longer any reason for us to
pursue changes in the law.
6
Ran Wyder commented on the difficulty of obtaining funding for
a road (Route 86) that has four times the amount of fatali-
ties than the State average.
6. Legislation.
This item is for information only.
7. Meeting Dates.
A discussion followed when the Committee meetings should be
scheduled.
M/S/C (VELEZ/MOORE) to change the Committee meeting
days to the second Monday of the month.
8. Adjournment.
The next meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee is
scheduled for Monday, June 12, 1984 at 1:30 p.m.
M/S/C (CARPELAN/PARKER) to adjourn the meeting at 2:53
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
nk
2j
..(4,42,„/„. -
-Paul Blackwelder
Assistant Director
7
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Transit Operations Report
The attached tables and graphs showing ridership and other operations data
were prepared by staff using information supplied by the public transit
operators in the County. Staff comments on general trends and individual
operators are provided below.
RIDERSHIP
Countywide transit ridership for the period July 1, 1983 through March
31, 1984 is the highest recorded in Riverside County. Ridership in-
creased 13.3% (347,597 passengers) over last year and 7.2% (198,287
passengers) over the same period in FY 1980-81, the second highest
year. During the third quarter of this year, total ridership was
1,107,997 passengers. The RTA and SunLine systems accounted for the
bulk of the increased riders. The RTA ridership has increased by
14.5% over last year despite a continued decrease in dial -a -ride
ridership.
OPERATING EXPENSES AND FARE REVENUES
The transit system operated in FY 1984 has generally the same level
of service operated in FY 1983. Operating costs reported to date
show that total costs have increased 3.9% ($242,000) over last year.
Fare revenues have increased 12.1% ($133,956). The average subsidy
per passenger decreased 9.4% ($0.18). Fare revenue to operating
expense ratios increased for most operators. Countywide, the in-
crease was from 18% to 19.4%. The fare increase implemented by the
RTA in May, 1984 is expected to further increase the fare revenue
to operating expense ratio. None of the transit operators is ex-
pected to have difficulty meeting the minimum required ratio this
year or next year.
PRODUCTIVITY
The average number of passengers carried per hour each vehicle is in
service increased from 13.61 last year to 15.33 this year. This in-
crease occurred in both fixed -route and dial -a -ride services. The
RTA has attempted to decrease the dial -a -ride service levels provided
to accommodate lower levels of demand without decreasing productivity.
c enda Item No. 3
e ii, 196
Transit Operations Report (Contd)
The result has been that while ridership decreased by approximately
21%, the average number of passengers carried per vehicle hour de-
creased only slightly from 5.15 last year to 5.09 this year. Main-
taining this productivity level has reduced the cost of providing
service and has reduced the subsidy per passenger from $4.86 last
year to $4.83 this year. The RTA expects additional improvements
in productivity next year. The RTA Board 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 the deletion
of Saturday service in Rubidoux.
PB:nk
Attachments
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 1 4
TOTAL
YEAR
2,496,172
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
2,488,300
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 I 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
3 1 4
1
TOTAL
YEAR
750,726
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
687,454
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I
1983/84
BEAUMONT D -A -R RIDERSHIP
40,000-
P 30,000-
A
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
S
20,000-
10,000-
0 -
QUARTER
FISCAL YEAR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I
1981/82
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I I
1982/83
3 1 4
TOTAL
YEAR
30,891
TOTAL
YEAR
42,259
TOTAL
YEAR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I 1
1983/84
CORONA D -A -R RIDERSHIP
40,000-
P 30,000-
A
S
S
E
N
G
E
R
S
20,000-
10,000-
0 -
QUARTER
FISCAL YEAR
3 14
1
TOTAL
YEAR
68,506
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
65,511
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I 1
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
TOTAL
YEAR
75,093
1 1 2 1 3( 4
I I
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
74,053
1( 2 1 3 1 4
I I i
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I I
1983/84
RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES 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
I
TOTAL
YEAR
105,285
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
118,902
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I I
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I 1
1983/84
TRANSIT OPERATIONS QUARTERLY REPORT 7/01/83 to 3/31/84
E.R. Pas sengers
DAR Passen gers
Total Passengers
F.R. Expense s
DAR Expenses
Tota l Expe nses
F. R. Fare Rev enue
D -A -R Fare Revenue
TOTAL FARE REVENUE
F. R. Ve hicle Ho urs
D -A -R Ve hic le Ho urs
TOTAL VEHICLE HOURS
Banning Be aumont Coro na
LETS PVVTA
River side
Spec.Svcs.
ETA
S unline
TOTAL
48,264
48,264 38,192
$57,284
$88,545
$57,284 $88,545
$12,987
$22,566
$12,987 $22,566
2,743
2,743 4,440
38,192
4,440
67,124
54,583 2,499
54,583 67,124 2,499
$119,163
$201,757 18,811
$201,757 $119,163 $18,811
$16,408
$40,443 2,474
$40,443 $16,408 $2,474
5,723
8,268 965
8,268 5,723 965
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
94,490
94,490
$392,977
$392,977
$47,172
$47,172
17,085
17,085
1,964,897
127,530
2,092,427
$3,254,150
$695,022
$3,949,172
$707,434
$79,537
$786,971
85,439
25,040
110,479
535,186
27,996
563,182
1,320,774
226,254
$1,547,028
290,844
16,777
$307,621
37,063
6,393
43,456
2,615,471
345,290
2,960,761
$4,751,371
$1,623,366
$6,374,737
$1,027,673
$208,969
$1,236,642
130,968
62,191
193,159
FARE REVENUE RATIO
SUBSIDY/PASSENGER
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
COST/VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
F.R. PASS./V EH. HR.
D -A -R PASS./VEH. HR
AVG. PASS. /VEH. HR.
22. 7% 25.5% 20.0% 13.8% 13.2%
$0.92 $1.73 $2.96 $1 .53 $6.54
$0.92 NA NA $1.53 NA
NA $1. 73 $2.96 NA $6 .54
$20.88 $19. 94 $24.40 $20.82 $19 .49
$20.88 NA NA $20. 82 NA
NA $19.94 $24. 40 NA $19.49
17.60 NA NA 11.73 NA
NA 8. 60 6.60 NA 2.59
17. 60 8.60 6.60 11.73 2. 59
12 .0%
$3.66
NA
$3.66
$23.00
NA
$23.00
NA
5.53
5.53
19.9%
$1 .51
$1 .30
$4.83
$35.75
$38.09
$27.76
23 .00
5.09
18.94
19.9%
$2.20
$1.92
$7 .48
$35.60
$35.64
$35 .39
14.44
4 .38
12.96
19.4%
$1 .74
$1 .42
$4.10
$33.00
$36.28
$26.10
19.97
5 .55
15.33
T RANSIT OPERATIONS QUARTERLY REPORT 7/01/82 to 3/31/83
F.R. Passenge rs
DAR Passengers
To ta l Passen gers
F.R.Expenses
DAR Expenses
Total Expens es
F. R. Fa re Rev enue
D -A -R Fare Rev enue
TOTAL FARE REVENUE
F.R. Vehicle Ho urs
D -A -R Ve hicle Hours
TOTAL V EHICLE HOURS
Ba nni ng Be aumont Corona
LETS PVVTA
Riv erside
Spec.Svc s.
RTA
Sunline
TOTAL
44,337
33,310
44,337 33,310
$57,308
$78,202
$57,308 $78,202
$12,503
$20,985
$12,503 $20,985
2,742
0 4,173
2,742 4,173
54,437
48,157 54,437 2,590
$107,762
$207,313 $20,793
$207,313 $107,762 $20,793
$12,629
$40,982 $2,461
$40,982 $12,629 $2,461
5,732
5,732 973
48,157
8,486
8,486
2,590
973
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
88,147
88,147
$342,599
$342,599
$43,456
$43,456
16,322
16,322
1,665,970
160,732
1,826,702
$2,993,627
$883,616
$3,877,243
$598,842
$103,118
$701,960
80,550
31,236
111,786
FARE REV ENUE RATIO
SUBSIDY/PASSENGER
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
COST/VEHICLE HR.
FIXED ROUTE
DIAL -A -RIDE
F. R. PASS./VEH. HR.
D -A -R PASS./VEH. HR.
AVG. PASS./VEH. HR.
21.8% 26.8% 19.8% 11.7%
$1.01 $1.72 $3.45 $1.75
$1.01 NA NA $1.75
NA $1. 72 $3.45 NA
$20.90 $18. 74 $24. 43 $18.80
$20. 90 NA NA $18.80
NA $18.74 $24. 43 NA
16.17 NA NA 9.50
NA 7.98 5.67 NA
16. 17 7. 98 5.67 9.50
11.8%
$7.08
NA
$7 .08
$21.37
NA
$21.37
NA
2.66
2.66
12.7%
$3 .39
NA
$3 .39
$20.99
NA
$20 .99
NA
5.40
5.40
18.1%
$1 .74
$1 .44
$4.86
$34.68
$37.16
$28.29
20.68
5 .15
16.34
491,243
24,241
515,484
$1,241,773
$199,756
$1,441,529
$255,362
$12,708
$268,070
35,952
5,811
41,763
2,255,987
357,177
2,613,164
$4,400,469
$1,732,279
$6,132,748
$879,336
$223,710
$1,103,046
124,976
67,001
191,977
18.6%
$2 .28
$2 .01
$7.72
$34 .52
$34.54
$34 .38
13 .66
4 .17
12 .34
18.0%
$1.92
$1.56
$4.22
$31.95
$35.21
$25 .85
18 .05
5.33
13.61
COMPARISON OF TRANSIT OPERA TIONS FY 1984 TO FY 1983 ( JULY THROUGH MARCH)
F. R. PASSENGERS
%CHANGE
D -A -R PASSENGERS
%CHANGE
TOTAL PASSENGERS
% CHANGE
F.R. EXPENSES
%CHANGE
D -A -R EXPENSES
%CHANGE
TOTAL EXPENSES
%CHANGE
F.R. VEHICLE HOURS
%CHANGE
D -A -R VEHICLE HOURS
%CHANGE
TOTAL VEHICLE HOURS
%CHANGE
F.R. COST/VEH. HR.
%CHANGE
D -A -R COST/VEH. HR.
%CHANGE
AVG.COST /VEH. HR.
%CHANGE
Banni ng
B eaumo nt
Cor ona LETS PVVTA
Ri verside
Spec .Svcs.
RTA
Sunli ne
TOTAL
3,927
8.9%
NA
NA
3,927
8.9%
($24)
.0%
NA
NA
($24)
.0%
NA
NA
4882
14.7%
4,882
14.7%
NA
NA
$10,343
13.2%
$10,343
13.2%
1 NA
.0% NA
NA 267
NA 6. 4%
1 267
.0% 6.4%
($0.02)
-0. 1%
NA
NA
($0.02)
-0.1%
NA
NA
$1.20
6.4%
$1. 20
6. 4%
NA
NA
6426
13 .3%
6,426
13.3%
NA
NA
($5,556)
- 2 .7%
($5,556)
- 2 .7%
12,687
23 .3%
NA
NA
12,687
23.3%
$11,401
10.6%
NA
NA
$11,401
10.6%
NA
NA
-91
-3.5%
(91)
-3.5%
NA
NA
($1,982)
-9.5%
($1,982)
-9.5%
NA (9) NA
NA -0 .2% NA
(218) NA (8)
-2.6% NA -0 .8%
(218) (9) (8)
-2.6% -0.2% -0.8%
NA $2.02 NA
NA 10.8% NA
($0.03) NA ($1.88)
-0. 1% NA -8.8%
($0.03) $2.02 ($1 .88)
-0.1% 10. 8% -8.8%
NA 298,927 43,943
NA 17.9% 8 .9%
6343 -33202 3755
7.2% -20 .7% 15 .5%
6,343 265,725 47,698
7 .2% 14 .5% 9 .3%
NA $260,523 $79,001
NA 8.7% 6.4%
$50,378 ($188,594) $26,498
14.7% -21 .3% 13.3%
$50,378 $71,929 $105,499
14 .7% 1.9% 7 .3%
NA 4,889 1,111
NA 6.1% 3 .1%
763 (6,196) 582
4.7% -19 .8% 10 .0%
763 (1,307) 1,693
4.7% -1.2% 4 .1%
NA $0 .92 $1 .10
NA 2.5% 3.2%
$2.01 ($0 .53) $1.02
9 .6% -1.9% 3.0%
$2 .01 $1.06 $1 .08
9.6% 3.1% 3.1%
359,484
15 .9%
-11887
- 3 .3%
347,597
13.3%
$350,902
8.0%
($108,913)
- 6.3%
$241,989
3.9%
5,992
4.8%
(4,810)
- 7 .2%
1,182
0 .6%
$1 .07
3 .0%
$0.25
1.0%
$1.06
3.3%
r
•
IVERSIDE COUNT`-! "TRANSPORTATION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Moreno Valley Alternatives Study
The Riverside Transit Agency staff has been conducting a study on the feasibility
of converting the Moreno Valley dial -a -ride to a fixed -route system early next
year. Enclosed is a copy of the report presented by the RTA staff to their Board
of Directors at a meeting on May 23rd. The RTA Board directed staff to review
the study and route alignments with Supervisor Norton Younglove, who represents
the area, and to schedule public hearings on July 11th in the Moreno Valley. Two
public hearings have been set for July 11, 1984 at the Moreno Valley School
District offices on Perris Boulevard. The first hearing will be at 10:00 a.m.
The second hearing will be at 7:00 p.m.
The report recommends that the Moreno Valley dial -a -ride service be replaced by
a fixed -route service. Since 1980-81, ridership on the Moreno Valley dial -a -ride
has been continually decreasing. Average daily ridership has decreased from 162
per day to 94 per day. During the same period, population in the area has in-
creased from an estimated 30,300 to 47,300 persons. Two fare increases which
brought dial -a -ride fares from $0.50 to $1.00 have caused the ridership decline
in the Moreno Valley as in other similar systems. In May, the dial -a -ride fares
were again increased to $1.25 and student discounts were eliminated. This fare
increase will further reduce demand. Students, no longer eligible for discounts,
comprised approximately 23% of the ridership.
The proposed fixed -route service is expected to attract an average of 170 pas-
sengers on weekdays. This is about the same level of demand for dial -a -ride in
1980/81 before fares were increased. The route connects residential areas with
schools, commercial areas, and March Air Force Base. There will be two portions
of the route in which riders will be able to transfer to Line 16 (Sunnymead-
Riverside).
Elderly and handicapped ridership i•s low in the Moreno Valley dial -a -ride com-
pared to other dial -a -ride systems. Of the 64 average daily passengers, only
18% (11-12) are elderly or handicapped. The proposed fixed -route service will
be accessible to the handicapped and Meditrans provides service 5 days/week for
handicapped persons attending workshop or adult education classes in Riverside.
The only concern staff has regarding the study is that a two route system in
which the second route would provide additional local service and a direct ser-
vice to Perris was not evaluated. There is presently no direct service between
Perris and the Moreno Valley. A route connecting the Moreno Valley to Perris
would provide service to. March Air Force Base and shopping areas to residents of
Hemet, Sun City, Perris and Lake Elsinore.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee recommend that the Moreno Valley study be expanded to study
the feasibility of a two route system providing direct service between Perris,
March Air Force Base, and the commercial areas in the Moreno Valley.
Agenda Item No. 4
June 11, 1984
PB:nk
ITEM 9
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
1825 Third Street
Riverside, California
MAY 24, 1984
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Durand L. Rall, General Manager
SUBJECT: MORENO VALLEY FIXED ROUTE STUDY
Fea D(rL
Summary: Moreno Valley Growth
The Moreno Valley area is currently undergoing rapid growth
and development. Numerous housing tracts and commercial
developments have recently been built, and more are under
construction. The population of the Moreno Valley, as
determined by the 1980 census, was 30,318, which represented
a 37.7 percent increase over the special 1978 census popu-
lation of 22,016. The Public Facilities Plan for the Moreno
Valleyl projects a 1990 population of 84,755. Es imates of
current population of the Moreno Valley is 47,348. This rep
resents a significant increase of 56% over the 1980 census.
In the early stages of Moreno Valley's changeover from a
low density semi -rural area to a medium density urbanized
area, demand responsive service (Dial -A -Ride) was considered
the prefered transit mode. The recent density increase
associated with Moreno Valley's expansion makes conversion
of this demand responsive service to a local fixed route, a
logical alternative and one that may now be justifiable in
terms of reducing operating expense per passenger, and preparing
for future growth.
History of Transit Service to Moreno Valley
Riverside Transit Agency began service to Moreno Valley in
March, 1977 with fixed Route 6 (later renumbered to Route 16).
Prior to the startup of RTA service, Moreno Valley was served
by the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD) and
before that by Hemet Bus Lines, a private operator. Dial -A -Ride
service within Moreno Valley was implemented by RTA in January
of 1977 and is currently provided by CTS.
Ridership of Current Moreno Valley Services
Table 1 lists the ridership on Route 16 for fiscal years 1978
through 1984.
11978 Special Census Report, County of Riverside, Planning Department
2A Report Analyzing the Feasibility of the Incorporation of the Moreno Valley
by Christensen & Wallace, Inc.
Moreno Valley Fixed
Route Study
May 24, 1984
TABLE 1
Page two
FY 1978 RIDERSHIP YEARLY % OF CHANGE
1978 289,156*
1979 172,285 -40.4%
1980 207,439 +20.4%
1981 234,350 +13.0%
1982 204,908 -12.5%
1983 288,266 +40.7%
1984 365,175 (estimated) +26.7%
Ridership on Route 16 has been steadily growing each year with
the exception of FY 82. During FY 82 Route 16 was taken off
University Avenue and rerouted on to Pennsylvania/14th Street.
This change resulted in a ridership shift to Route 13. In
early FY 83, Route 16 service was re-established on University
Avenue.
Ridership demographics on Route 16 are listed in Table 2 based
on year-to-date ridership through March, 1984:
CATEGORY
TABLE 2
NO OF PASSENGERS % OF TOTAL RIDERSHIP
Regular 155,713 55%
Elderly/Handicapped 17,268 6%
Student 3,890 1%
Child -Cash 2,432 1%
Child -Free 17,332 6%
Monthly Passes 35,249 12.5%
Transfers 51,079 18%
Promo 113 .5%
TOTAL 00%
Table 3 lists the ridership on the Moreno Valley Dial -A -Ride
service.
TABLE 3
FISCAL YEAR RIDERSHIP YEARLY % OF CHANGE
(Service started in
1978 8,817 - January, 1978)
1979 26,459 +200%
1980 35,778 +35.2%
1981 49,737 +39.0%
1982 42,606 -14.3%
1983 30,846 -27.6%
1984 28,844 (estimated) -25.9%
*During FY 78 Route 6 operated between Sunnymead, downtown Riverside, and Tyler
Mall. In 1979 Route 16 was terminated in downtown Riverside with service bet-
ween downtown Riverside and Tyler Mall operated by another route.
Moreno Valley Fixed
Route Study
May 24, 1984
Page three
Moreno Valley DAR ridership achieved a maximum of 49,737 riders
in FY 81; since then ridership has steadily declined. On
April 1, 1984, the DAR adult fare was raised from $1.00 to $1.25.
At this time student fares of $.75 were discontinued. This fare
increase will likely result in further ridership declines of at
least 10%.
Ridership demographics on the Moreno Valley DAR are listed in
Table 4 based on year-to-date ridership through March, 1984:
CATEGORY
TABLE 4
PASSENGERS
% OF
TOTAL RIDERSHIP
Regular 8,222 43.3%
Elderly/Handicapped 3,486 18.3%
Student 4,359 23.0%
Child -Cash 571 3.0%
Child -Free 1,797 9.4%
Monthly Passes 378 2.0%
Transfers 196 1.0%
TOTAL 100.0%
The largest single group of riders on the Moreno Valley DAR ser-
vice is full fare paying adults at 43.3%. Student ridership
accounts for 23.0% of ridership, and elderly and handicapped make
up 18.3%. Students in the Moreno Valley school district are
provided with free school bus transportation.providing they live at
least a prescribed distance from the school (kindergarden through
3rd grade - residence at least 3/4 mile from school, 4th through
5th grade - residence at least 1 mile from school, 6th through
12th grade - residence at least 2 miles from school).
Moreno Valley DAR Survey Results
A survey of the Moreno Valley Dial -A -Ride was conducted in August
of 1983. The primary purpose of this survey was to gather infor-
mation to develop rider profiles. Of the 54 riders surveyed, 47
were female and 7 were male. Three employment groups (homemaker,
unemployed, and full-time student) comprised the bulk (52.8%) of
the ridership. Homemakers or housewives are the largest group
accounting for 24.5% of the ridership. Fifty percent of the riders
had family incomes of less than $10,000. As family income increased,
the propensity to use Dial -A -Ride decreased. Over 90% of the riders
said that they did not have a car available for that particular
trip, although most indicated the presence of a car within their
household. When asked if they would use fixed route service, 35%
answered they would use the service; 33% said they possibly would
use the service; and 28% answered they would not use fixed route
service.
Staff originally considered four alternative route alignments for
proposed Route 18. From these first four alternatives, alternative 1
Moreno Valley Fixed
Route Study
May 24, 1984
Page four
illustrated on Map 1, page 5, was developed. This route aliqn-_
ment was designed to cover the_ma1_ority of the servi,ce,.,a,rea_that
the firsT four alternatives -covered. After driving this route
and surveying recent construction activity in Sunnymead, the
route was further refined. Map 2, page 6 illustrates Alternative
2 and represents the recommended alignment for Route 18.
,Route 18_waschanged,_from..Heacock.,Street to Graham -Street bet-
ween Cottonwood Avenue and Sunnymead Boulevard. This change was
made to provide service to the numerous housing developments that
have been built along Graham Street. Housing density along
Heacock Street is considerably greater than that along Heacock
Street, which has numerous vacant lots awaiting commercial develop.:-
ment.
The other revisions made on Alternative 2 include the_ex .ens.i_nn_.of
yr i_ce-west on _S.u.nnyin d Boulevard., _north_.o.n. Pj_geOn_Passd Raad,
and then east on Ironwood Avenue. This change in alignment pro-
vides service to several hundred new homes recently constructed on
the north side of Ironwood Avenue and also provides service to a
227 space mobile home park near the intersection of Ironwood Ave.
and Heacock. The final revision on Alternative 2 involved exten-
sion of service north of Ironwood on Davis Street, Manzanita Ave.,
and back south on Indian Avenue to Ironwood. This extension will
serve new homes recently constructed along Davis and Indian and a
very large housing development currently under construction north
of Manzanita Avenue.
Map 3, on page 7 of this report illustrates the current. Route 16
alignment in the Moreno Valley. The wide band overlaying the route
and extending 1/4 of a mile to each side of the route describes the
service area of Route 16. It is expected that potential riders will
be willing to walk up to a quarter of a mile to reach fixed route
service.
The other fixed route service illustrated on Map 3 is proposed
Route 18 (Alternative 2) This route, if implemented, would
replace the Moreno Valley DAR service. Staff conducted an ori-
gin and destination study of Moreno Valley DAR services for a 5
day period in late September, 1983 which indicated that approxi-
mately 76% of the DAR trips now taken have origins and destina-
tions whithin the two fixed route service area.
The proposed Route 18 is 13.3 miles in length one way and the
travel time (one way) is 25 minutes. Round trips would be 26.6 miles
in length with a travel time of one hour including driver layover
time. Assuming service on Route 18 would be provided daily between
7AM and 6PM, and on Saturday from 9AM to 5PM, the total in service
vehicle miles and hours for a full year would be:
Weekdays - 26.6 revenue miles/hr x 11 service hrs = 292.6
revenue miles
Saturdays- 26.6 revenue miles/hour x 8 service hrs = 212.8
revenue miles
P
,.11,4,1
iSIDE
:I
� M I
UCM I
r -r ,
I
Ai Foredo
°or
Sn.
Alf
•
'��/111•'
—+--
Arnold
Heigt
"hErr
,Alts!"°134.
d1.
4i forgo
Sae
— MANIPO A iAV `\
PAGE FIVE
COM
• -i1
L
!tjie,,o4
`<a1
a.gry.ASS O.
••n1•.1s �» t
MARE( 1V
r
r M
r
3 `
ISO IR
x
MAP 1
ALTERNATIVE
ROUTE 18
MIA
.01
1
P
4,
I 4
;SIDE
001,
---_—_�_j
Ai Foredo
•
BLVD
Bas.
=•
Ile .:•e: �w�rrr.m [
reurrr— I.
-r!
i tem
E
•
p „ \ rem
ia .. . s .. • I.
h -
s S ANoao
di Faroe
Sara
war
¢f •
[ m
�* %47
! {I•
c
rrn
--+
¢mo
- #3
Imu"ru.l�ktsso$
.n -e•,..
4
w
34
troa--. labia
FA, AT -�
YMINIM
NMI. Sr
a.
MAP 2
ALTERNATIVE 2
ROUTE 18
PAGE SIX
MAP 3
CITY OF
RIVERSIDE
ALESSANDRO
LEGEND
-�-� EXISTING ROUTE 16
fir► -
PROPOSED ROUTE 18
MANZANITA
Pigeon ,Pass
Dam Reservoir
JOHN F
March
\Air
Force
Base
MORENO VALLEY DIAL -A -RIDE \\
SERVICE AREA BOUNDRY
EXISTING & PROPOSED FIXED
ROUTE SERVICE AREA \
a
o:
MARIPOSA
PAGE SEVEN
z
U
I-
QV -•'� PERMS •.
Moreno Valley Fixed
Route Study
May 24, 1984
Page eight
Total revenue miles
292.6 revenue miles x 255 weekdays = 74,613
212.8 revenue miles x 56 Saturdays = 11,917
1T days 86,530 total revenue
miles per year
Total Revenue hours
11 revenue hours/weekday x 255 weekdays = 2,805
8 revenur hours/Saturday x 56 Saturdays = 448
3,253 total revenue
hrs. per year
Total Deadhead Miles and Hours
12.5 deadhead miles /day x 311
.5 deadhead/hours/day x 311
= 3,888 total deadhead
miles
156 total deadhead
hours
TOTAL YEARLY MILES (revenue and deadhead) = 90,418
TOTAL YEARLY HOURS (revenue and deadhead) = 3,409
Ridership Projections Methodology
RTA staff obtained the latest map of the Moreno Valley area from
the County Planning Department. This map illustrates the number
of lots in the various residential developments. It should be
noted that some of the developments appearing on this map are in
various stages of construction or have been recently completed and
are still unoccupied. The total number of residential units located
within the Route 18 service area were multiplied by the average num-
ber of people per residence (based on 1980 census tract data). The
results of this calculation indicated that the Route 18 service area
will have a population of approximately 18,800 people once all the
new homes under construction are sold and occupied. Of the 18,800
people residing in the Route 18 service area, approximately 2,000
of these people are also located within the Route 16 service area.
It is anticipated that these 2,000 people would use Route 16.
This reduces the service population for Route 18 down to 16,800
people.
Current estimates of the number of people who reside in the Moreno
Valley area and commute to Orange or Los Angeles Counties varies
between 38 and 75%. RTA staff has selected 50% as a reasonable
Moreno Valley Fixed
Route Study
May 24, 1984
Page nine
factor for people residing in the Route 18 service area and
commuting to locations beyond the RTA service area. The pop-
ulation of the service area was further reduced by applying a
5% dwelling unit vacancy factor and 15% for limited access to
Route 18 from some developments due to walled communities.
Route 18 Ridership Calculation
18,800 route 18 service area population
- 2,000 population also located in Route 16 service area
16,800
-8,400 50% of population commuting to locations outside
RTA service area
8,400
- 420 5% dwelling unit vacancy factor
7,980
- 1,200 15% limited access to bus stops (walled developments)
6,780
2.5% estimated mode split
170 DAILY WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP
170 x 255 weekdays = 43,350
85* x 56 Saturdays = 4,760
48,110 riders/year
Estimated Revenue and Operating Costs
The average revenue per passenger on Route 16 for the month of
April (first month after recent fare increase) was 39.17 cents per
passenger. This same average revenue factor has been applied to
Route 18 since the demographic makeup of Route 18 riders should be
approximately the same as Route 16.
48,110 annual riders x 39.17 cents = $18,845 total revenue
per year
Yearly operating cost for Route 18 is estimated to be approximately
$119,000. The projected revenue and expense for this service would
yield a farebox recovery ratio of 15.8%.
One hundred and nineteen thousand dollars represents the totally
allocated cost for operating Route 18 for one year. In terms of
added costs (funds needed beyond those necessary to provide cur-
rently budgeted services) operating Route 18 would require
$50,640 additional per year.
Potential Unmet Transit Needs
If the decision is made to convert the Moreno Valley DAR service
to a local fixedroute service, some people currently using the DAR
* Satuday ridership is based on 50% of weekday load.
Moreno Valley Fixed
Route Study
May 24, 1984
Page ten
service will be without public transit service. As reported earlier
in this report, approximately 25% of DAR trips have an origin or
destination outside of either the Route 16 or proposed Route 18 ser-
vice areas. It would be economically impractical to cover all of
the current Moreno Valley DAR service area with fixed route service.
It is estimated that between Route 16 and proposed Route 18, 76% of
the current Moreno Valley DAR trips would have an origin and destin-
ation within the area covered by the current and proposed fixed
route services. Twenty four percent of the trips would have at
least one end point beyond the quarter mile distance to a fixed
route. Half of these trips would be trips going to or from Moreno
Valley Junior High and Senior High Schools or Armada Elementary
School.
Possible Alternatives to be Considered for Moreno Valley are:
1. Provide only fixed route service on Routes 16 and 18 recogniz-
ing that upwards of 24% of current DAR trips may not be served
by fixed route services.
2. In addition to fixed routes 16 and 18, provide a limited DAR
service on weekdays for elderly and handicapped only.
3. Same as Alternative two except a subsidized privately operated
taxi cab service would be used for limited elderly and handi-
capped transportation.
4. If the Moreno Valley were annexed into the City of Riverside, it
may become eligible for Riverside Special Services transporta-
tion for the elderly and handicapped.
5. Contract with Meditrans to provide weekday only service for
elderly and handicapped. This alternative would presume that
Meditrans would have sufficient resources to maintain this ser-
vice on a daily basis.
At the Board Meeting, staff will provide more detailed information
regarding the estimated amount of ridership by fare category that
would not be served if the current Moreno Valley DAR service were
eliminated in favor of a local fixed route. Staff will also pro-
vide detailed cost estimates of the various alternatives proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests approval to conduct at least two public hearings in the Moreno
Valley. (These hearings should be held during the first week of July to
gather public input regarding additional fixed route service, and the reduc-
tion or elimination of dial -a -ride in Moreno Valley.
MORENO VALLEY DAR
ROUTE 18
NET DIFFERENCE IF ROUTE 18
IS OPERATED INSTEAD OF
MORENO VALLEY DAR
MORENO VALLEY
ROUTE 18
NET DIFFERENCE IF ROUTE 18
IS OPERATED INSTEAD OF
MORENO VALLEY DAR
1TOTAL
C OST
$146,185
148,950
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
ESTIMATED COST AND REVENUE
CO MPARISON
a
OPERATING
$78,958
75,926
REVENUE
$16,290
18,645
ADDENDU M ITEM 9
(Moreno Valley Fixed
Ro ute Study) M ay 24, 1984
TOTAL NET COST
PER PASSENGER
$6 .14
$2.74
$2,765
PASSENGERS
21,155
47,600
$(3,032) $2,355
ESTIMATED PERFORMJNCE
COMPARISON
PASS/MILE
.23
.74
PASS/HOUR REv/H OUR
4 .85 $3.73
14.5 $5.68
($3.40)
F AREBOX
11.1;
12`.5%
26,444
.51
9 .65 $1 .95
1.4%
NOTES:
1) Total c ost include s all indire ct co sts
ope ra tin g cos ts.
2) Opera tin g Cost - include s all var iable
3) Net cos t pe r pa ss enge r - total cost pe
REVISED STATISTICS
(Pa ges 4, 8, and 9)
Route
18 Operating Statis tics
PASSENGERS
REVENUE MILES
DEADHEAD MILES
• TOT AL MILES
REVENUE HOURS
DEADHEAD HOURS
TOTA L HOURS
(adminis tra tive sala ries and fringe benefits, utilitie s, etc.) pl us di re ct
costs only (driver salarie s and f ringe benefits, fu el, tir es, insuran ce, etc).
r passe nger less re venue pe r pas senger equ als net cost or subsidy p er pa ssenger.
(full year - 254 wee kdays, 52 Saturdays)
47,600
65,600 (weekday 225 miles, Saturda y 162.5 miles)
4,272 (weekda y 13.4 miles, Saturday 16.7 miles)
69,872
3,280 (wee kday 11.25 hours , Saturda y 8.125 hours)
161.84 (weekda y .5 hours , Saturday .67 hours)
3,441. 84
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $148,950
REVENUE 18,645
T OTAL NET CO ST ,$130,305
11%s'JERSiot COUNTY T .ANSPO =iTA T IO
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Unmet Transit Needs/Short Range Transit Plan
At its meeting on May 17th the Commission determined that there were no unmet
transit needs that could be reasonably met in the Coachella Valley provided
that SunLine committed to extending the Palm Desert tel-a-ride service area
to Palm Desert Greens and implemented a service level for the North Palm Springs
area that is acceptable to the Commission. Staff was directedto work with the
SunLine Transit Agency to investigate whether transit service could be provided
to North Palm Springs at a cost consistent with anticipated demand and to report
back to the Commission in July. The Commission then approved the FY 1985-1989
Short Range Transit Plan subject to the extension of tel-a-ride service to Palm
Desert Greens and implementation of an appropriate level of service for North
Palm Springs being amended into the SunLine Transit Agency plan. The plan for
the SunLine Transit Agency had been amended to include services to Western
Village Mobilehome Ranch and the Mt. View Seniors Complex recommended by the
Committee prior to the Commission meeting. The Committee had deferred action
on the unmet transit needs in North Palm Springs and Palm Desert Greens.
On May 9th, Supervisor Kay Ceniceros and staff from the Commission and the Sun -
Line Transit Agency met with residents of North Palm Springs to determine the
transit needs of the area and whether or not the needs could be met. Twenty-
four area residents attended the meeting. The consensus of the group was that
most of the needs in North Palm Springs could be met by operating a limited
door to door service two or three days each week. Residents should be picked
up in the morning by a dial -a -ride vehicle and taken to Desert Hot Springs and
to a transfer stop with Line 19 for service to Palm Srpings. An hour and a
half later, the dial -a -ride vehicle should provide service from Desert Hot
Springs back to North Palm Springs. A second return service to North Palm
Springs should be available later in the day for persons who had travelled
to Palm Springs on the fixed route. On May 23rd, the SunLine Transit Agency
Board of Directors authorized implementation of limited service two days a
week for North Palm Springs as described above. The service will start on
July 1st. The SunLine staff will notify the residents of the proposed service
and will hold a meeting to explain the service prior to its implementation.
Discussions with the SunLine staff showed that the Palm Desert tel-a-ride
service could be extended to serve the Palm Desert Greens Estates at little
or no cost and without reducing the level of service provided in Palm Desert.
On May 23rd, the SunLine Board of Directors authorized the expansion of tel-
a-ride service to Palm Desert Greens Estates.
PB:nk
Agenda Item No. 5
June 11, 1984
RivERSIUC CouNrt T RANSPO'STA3 O - c ,%.
Minutes of Meeting No. 5-84
April 19, 1984
1, Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison
at 1:36 p.m., on Thursday, April 19, 1984, at the Riverside
County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
4080 Lemon Stret, Riverside. The Chairman noted that a
quorum was present.
Members present:
Susan Cornelison Jean Mansfield
Bill Edmonds
Alternates present:
Jim Adams
Lewis Hull
2. Approval of Minutes.
Pat Murphy
M/S/C (MURPHY/ADAMS) to approve the minutes of the
March 15, 1984 meeting.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. Unmet Transit Needs.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, said that staff is request-
ing that action only be taken at this time for the Western
County and Palo Verde Valley area. The comments that were
received from the Coachella Valley area were referred to
SunLine for their evaluation and recommendation but they
will not be able to provide the information to the Commis-
sion until the May meeting. Staff is requesting that action
on the Coachella Valley area not be taken today but be
postposed until the Commission's May meeting.
No comments on unmet transit needs were received from the
Palo Verde Valley area so staff is requesting that the
Commission make a finding of no unmet transit needs that
could be reasonably met in that area.
RCTC Minutes
April 19, 1984
In the Western County area, three comments were received at
the public hearing and three letters were received. Two of
the comments have since been resolved between the time of
the hearing and today. One was a request to provide service
to the Children's Center. The Manager of the City of River-
side's Special Services Program has indicated that they will
provide service under their normal policies to the Center.
The other request was regarding the condition of the bus
stop and on the need for a bus bench or shelter at Buchanan
and Magnolia. The City of Riverside's Public Works Director
has indicated that the City will clean that area up and fix
it up. Staff has checked with RTA on placing a bus bench or
shelter in this location and was informed that boardings at
this location are very low (3 per day) and it is not a high
enough number to justify placement of a bus bench or
shelter. However, if boardings increase at this location,
RTA will automatically place a bus bench there.
Commissioner Hull questioned if this will be monitored so
that a bench or shelter will be placed in this location when
boardings reach a higher number. Barry Beck said that RTA
does a boarding and alightning study one or two times a year
and they will take appropriate action when boardings in this
location increase.
Barry Beck said that two other comments received were
evaluated and felt not reasonable. One was a request for
Sunday service on Line 12 and the other was a revision of
the Line 25 schedule. Regarding Line 12, given the current
weekday ridership on this line and expected fall off in
ridership if it were operated on Sundays, staff does not
think that the extra cost would be justified. Regarding the
Line 25 schedule, staff discussed this request with RTA
staff and they had stated that any revision in the schedule
would impact current services provided by Line 25 parti-
cularly the run that generates a number of riders from
North High School. In any event, staff does not think that
by simply revising the Line 25 schedule even with ideal
transfer timing, the trip length time is too long to
generate any ridership. RTA is presently looking into
improving intercity service to Beaumont particularly between
Hemet and Beaumont/Banning and perhaps Beaumont/Banning into
San Bernardino County. The Commission may get some
recommendations next year on improvements in that area. So
we are not totally ignoring the need in the Pass area.
2
RCTC Minutes
April 19, 1984
The last expressed need was regarding the high fare of the
Riverside Special Services for the elderly and handicapped.
The fare for the elderly and handicapped is $0.45 and com-
pared to any other operator in Southern California it is
probably the lowest. Even if this could be argued, the fact
is the operator has to charge that level of fare in order to
meet the required farebox to operating cost ratio that is
mandated by the State. Thus, staff does not recommend that
any action be taken to ask the City of Riverside to roll
back the fare.
M/S/C (HULL/MURPHY) to:
1. Find that there are no unmet transit needs that
can be reasonably met in the Western County and
Palo Verde Valley area.
2. Request that SCAG concur with the Commission's
findings.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that as normal procedure,
staff will contact by letter all those people that had
written in or commented to inform them of the Commission's
determination. Also, subsequent to the meeting, a letter
from Developmental Disabilities Area Board No. 12 was re-
ceived praising the Commission and the operators in the
Western County for the amount of services that have been
implemented over the years and hoping that something could
be worked out for providing services to the Children's
Center. He pointed out that five or six years ago, the
Commission was under a real threat of being sued because of
lack of services for the handicapped.
5. Status of 1984 State Transportation Improvement Program.
Barry Beck noted that at the Commission's last meeting four
projects were approved for three routes totalling
approximately $77 million. As explained in the staff re-
port, the list had to be pared down once the six counties
aggregated their list at the SCAG level because the total
was even far more than what SCAG is allowed under the rules
to submit to the State. As a result, the funding for Route
86 was reduced from the $60 million level that the Commis-
sion was requesting to $20 million. The improvements and
the level of funding for 1-215 and Route 74 remained
unchanged. As it was discussed by the Commission last
month, we expect that our projects will be cut substantially
more at the State level if we get anything at all. There-
fore, we must continue to pursue federal funding as we have
been doing on Route 86. As explained last month, now that
3
RCTC Minutes
April 19, 1984
I-215 is eligible for I -4R funding, staff is fairly optimis-
tic that the project will be funded if not this year then
probably next year because I -4R funds are more plentiful
than primary funds.
Commissioner Edmonds commented that there is a commitment to
the federal government by 1990 to improve I-215 and we
certainly ought to honor it. He has fairly strong agreement
with headquarters that it will be included in next year's
program because that is the last year to meet the obligation
with the federal government.
Barry Beck said that the State does have an agreement with
the federal government to bring I-215 up to interstate
standards by 1990. The date was originally 1984 but another
agreement was subsequently executed and the date was
extended to 1990. So next year will be the last year to get it
in the program and comply with that agreement.
Chairman Cornelison asked that if funds will be cut
drastically at the State level, is there a guarantee on
meeting the county minimum.
Barry Beck said that the minimum for the first year is
proportional to the amount that's due us over a five-year
period. What the State Commission will likely say is that
they have not missed meeting the county minimum yet as they
have another four years from 1989 through 1993 to meet that
deficit.
Chairman Cornelison pointed out that the reason Imperial
County has a zero in the division of funds among counties is
that they feel so strongly about Route 86 that they are
literally donating their "paper money" to Riverside County
for Route 86 so they did not even bid on any of the funds
because they put such a high priority on Route 86.
Commissioner Adams told Commission members that Councilwoman
Carmen Cox of Perris was a previous neighbor and a good
friend of Congressman Glenn Anderson, who is Chairman of the
House Surface Transportation Subcommittee. She had contacted
Congressman Anderson informing him of the Route 74 project.
Congressman Anderson had requested Councilwoman Cox to send
him informational material on Route 74. At the Perris City
Council's last meeting, Jim Adams was instructed to request
the Commission to supply this material for Councilwoman
Cox.
Barry Beck said that he will be happy to work with Caltrans
to put together the material on Route 74 for Councilwoman
Cox.
4
RCTC Minutes
April 19, 1984
6. Route 86.
Barry Beck reported that the latest news on Route 86 is that
it had made it into the House transportation bill. This is
more than we had hoped for originally but less than we
thought we might get a week or two ago. A couple of weeks
ago, we thought we might have had a chance for $30-45
million but because there were so many special projects,
they had to cut back the funding. Route 86 has been cut
back from the original $45 million over three years to $30
million over two years and then to $9 million over two
years. Part of the reason for the cut back is because we
got into the process late. At any rate, we should consider
ourselves fortunate. The $9 million will certainly be much
appreciated but we still have a few hurdles left. In
actuality, the $9 million was really all we really need at
this time assuming that we can get additional funds at a
later date because Caltrans would have to do engineering and
right of way acquisition and $9 million will be more than
they can use over the next year or two. It would have been
nice to get Route 86 fully funded now though. At this time,
staff is working on trying to get some kind of a commitment
in the bill or in the report language that will accompany
the bill that would give some kind of a commitment in what—
ever form toward letting us back in the process in the year
or two when a new highway bill comes along to try to get the
remaining funds. As stated earlier, we still have a few
hurdles to go through, the mark up on the bill on Committee
will probably be set next week and we'll have to get by that
and then face the Senate which traditionally does not want
to include any special or demonstration projects funding at
all. We are hoping that now that the list has been pared
back a little and the amount dropped down that they will be
able to get an agreement from the Senate to pass what comes
out of the House. At any rate, staff is a lot more optimis-
tic than before and it looks like it could work out. The
only problem is we still have to go through the process
again in a year or two to get the remaining funds for
construction.
In response to Commissioner Hull's question if staff has
contacted any of the Senators yet, Barry Beck said that they
have not yet done so at this time.
Barry Beck said that in talking with Congressman Anderson's
staff, they were very impressed over the technical need for
Route 86. Paul Schlesinger who was on Congressman
Anderson's staff in 1980 when he toured the project and
heard testimony on Route 86 was fairly impressed with the
project. But as he explained when we complained about the
drastic cutback from $30 million to $9 million, there is a
5
RCTC Minutes
April 19, 1984
lot of politics involved besides the absolute technical
merits of the project.
7. Legislation.
Barry Beck reported that AB 2359 has finally got through the
Assembly Transportation Committee. The only problem is that
it was amended such that now only a one time only trade of
funds will be allowed in the State. This is fine for the
first time but both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties
want to do this over a period of years. He thinks that this
language could be erased from the bill sometime later this
year in the process or we could live with it this year and
go back next year and get it cleaned up.
Staff is requesting Commission support on ACR 109 and ACR
94. ACR 109 would request that Caltrans study the
restructuring of the truck weight fees. This is in lieu of
AB 613 which would have directly established heavy truck
weight fees. ACR 94, authored by Assemblyman Bergeson,
would request that the RCTC and SCAG work with Caltrans to
evaluate the feasibility of accelerating Route 86 projects
that are already in the STIP. His own feeling is that there
is probably a very limited opportunity given the lead time
on some of these projects to advance much, if any. AB 2720,
sponsored by Assemblyman Mountjoy, is concerning the
administration of the Transportation Development Act. This
needs to be further discussed with SCAG and the other county
commissions. This matter will be brought back to the
Commission at its next meeting.
M/S/C (MURPHY/HULL) to support ACR 109 and ACR 94.
8. Parking Lot Tax at Ontario Airport.
Barry Beck said that Commissioner Norton Younglove requested
at the last meeting that staff prepare a report on this
matter. The City of Ontario has established a parking fee
surcharge of 25% or a maximum $0.25 a day and the the Los
Angeles Department of Airports and the airlines are up in
arms as they view it as an incursion into their source of
revenue which has been historically the Department of Air-
port's source of revenue for making improvements at the
airport. A lawsuit has been filed against the City of
Ontario by the Department of Airports claiming that it is
illegal under Proposition 13 and it is not in compliance
with the agreement between the City of Ontario and the
Department of Airports that funds generated at the airport
be utilized at the airport. While staff feels that the
surcharge is not significant at this time to cause any
change of airport usage, he is sure that the Department of
6
RCTC Minutes
April 19, 1984
Airports and the airlines view it as a beginning step that
other cities where airports are located can institute this
kind of charge and the charges could grow to be much larger
than they are now as government looks for new sources of
revenue. He does not know of any action that the Commission
should take on this matter. He understands that the City of
Ontario is possibly backing off now that it has developed a
lot of controversy within the city itself. He understands
that it could be that they are going to back off and rescind
it before it gets to court.
Chairman Cornelison commented that the matter will at any
rate be decided in the court.
9. Commission's Short Term Objectives.
Barry Beck said that over a year ago, the Commission adopted
a number of objectives to be pursued in addition to the
routine functions of the Commission. Staff is recommending
that the list be updated as some of the objectives have been
achieved and/or are no longer applicable. Also,itis
recommended that an additional five objectives which are
listed in the staff report be added.
Chairman Cornelison asked if it is anticipated that the CTC
would reinstitute the 10 -year plan concept.
Barry Beck said that it wouldn't be in the same context as
it was originally initiated.
M/S/C (HULL/MANSFIELD) to adopt the revised list of
Commission short term objectives.
10. 1983-84 Commission Budget Amendment.
Barry Beck said that staff is recommending a transfer of
$8,000 from the Commission's Contingency Reserve Account to
the Professional and Specialized Services Account in order
to pay Smith and Egan Associates for the Route 86 activity.
The $8,000 would carry the agreement through the end of the
fiscal year.
In response to Chairman Cornelison's question if there is a
projection on how long to retain Smith and Egan, Barry Beck
said that the way it presently stands, we'll want to go at
least through the end of the fiscal year. He does not know
when the Senate would take action on the transportation bill
but at least until that time. If we are successful, but
since we'll be looking for more money, we may want to retain
Smith and Egan on at least a small monthly retainer to
continue to work for the Commission. This will be discussed
more in the next few months.
7
RCTC Minutes
April 19, 1984
M/S/C (HULL/MANSFIELD) to approve the transfer of
$8,000 from the Contingency Reserve Account to the
Professional and Specialized Services Account.
11. 1984-85 Commission Budget - Set Hearing Date.
M/S/C (MURPHY/HULL) that the Commission schedule the
hearing and budget adoption at its May 17, 1984 regular
meeting.
12. Commission Committee Appointments.
Chairman Cornelison made the following appointments.
Finance Committee
Kay Ceniceros
Phil Jones
Norton Younglove
Bylaws Committee
Melba Dunlap
Personnel Committee
Susan Cornelison
Jean Mansfield
Roy Wilson
Barry Beck informed the Comission that staff has received a
letter from Fred Fickas of Desert Hot Springs resigning his
position as a member of the Commission's Citizens Advisory
Committee. In addition, a couple of months ago,
Commissioner Mansfield referred staff to Ms. Jordis Cameron
as a potential member of the Citizens Advisory Committee.
Staff has contacted her and she is desirous of being on the
Committee and staff recommends that the Commission appoint
her to the Committee. She is from the Cherry Valley area
and there are no representatives on the Committee from the
Pass area.
M/S/C (MANSFIELD/MURPHY) to appoint Jordis Cameron to
the Citizens Advisory Committee and to send a letter of
appreciation to Fred Fickas for serving on the
Committee.
Commissioner Adams informed members of the Commission that
this will probably be his last appearance at the Commission.
He said that he had enjoyed being a member of the Commis-
sion. He wished the Commission good luck in its future
endeavor.
Chairman Cornelison, on behalf of the Commission, expressed
the Commission's appreciation for Commissioner Adams' parti-
cipation. She said that Commissioner Younglove was well
represented by his alternate.
8
RCTC Minutes
April 19, 1984
13. Adjournment.
The next RCTC meeting will be held on May 17, 1984 at 1:30
p.m., Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor
Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
M/S/C (HULL/MANSFIELD) to adjourn the meeting at 2:20
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
` B-arry Beck
Executive Director
nk
9