Loading...
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