Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04 April 2, 1990 Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Advisory CouncilRIVERSII CO LINTY TRANSPORTATIO N COMMISSION 040269 AGENDA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICE ADVISORY COUNCIL 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1990 PLEASE NOTE LOCATION CHANGE SCAG INLAND EMPIRE OFFICE 3600 LIME STREET, SUITE 216 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 PHONE # (714) 787-7141 1. Call to Order. q� 2. Approval of Minutes (February 5, 19,8%I) . AUPICN 3. Public Comments. 4. April 30 CAC Meeting (At SunLine) DISCUSSION 5. UMTA 16(b)2 Program - Mr. Jo Sanford INFO 6. Social Service Transportation Delivery Study INFO/ACTION Update Presented by - Ms. Pat Piras 7. FY 1990 TDA Unmet Needs. 8. Other Business. 9. Adjournment. INFO/ACTION " 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Service Advisory Council February 5, 1990 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Advisory Council was called to order by Cathy Bechtel, Chairman Pro-Tem at 1:42 p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission Conference Room, 3560 University Avenue, Ste. 100, Riverside, CA. Members present: Anita Alcorn Cathy Bechtel Don High Herbert Krauch Lucia Moran Members absent: Terry Allen Ace Atkinson *Ray Baca *Rose Eldridge Lori Nickel Leon Overton Don Senger Clarence Swalve Dick Weeks *Joanne Moore Rena Parker *Chuck Schmitt **Tom Paradise * Excused ** Tom Paradise is the alternate for So Calif Gas Co representative. Others present: Debra Astin, Sunline Transit Agency (Representing Lee Norwine) Sandy Cook, RCTC Staff Joan Ellis, R.C. Senior Citizen Coalition Jerry Rivera, RCTC Staff Jim Stoffer, Riverside Transit Agency (Representing Durand Rall) Hideo Sugita, RCTC Staff Marilyn Williams, RCTC Staff " " Page 2 Minutes of February 5, 1990 Meeting 2. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the December 4, 1989 meeting were corrected to reflect Lucia Moran as an excused absence and to remove Durand Rall and Lee Norwine from the members absent as neither RTA nor Sunline are members of the Citizens Advisory Committee. M/S/C (WEEKS/NICKEL) that the minutes of the December 4, 1989 meeting be approved as corrected. 3. Public Comments There were no public comments. 4. Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule for 1990. Hideo Sugita explained that the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting date is approximately 9 days prior to the Commission meeting which is the second Wednesday of the month. The CAC has a commitment to hold two meetings during the year in the Coachella Valley area. Hideo Sugita suggested a meeting in the Spring and then one in the Fall. The Committee discussed possible dates and agreed upon April 30 instead of April 2; this will allow time for the transcription of the unmet needs hearings to be completed and the results to be reviewed by staff. The Fall meeting will be held on November 5. Both of these meetings, April 30 and November 5 will be held at the Sunline Board Room if the meeting room schedule permits. Debra Astin of the Sunline staff will check on the dates and get back to the Committee. As with the previous meeting at Sunline, RTA will provide a mini -van to transport Committee members, should they wish. The Committee also discussed changing the time of these two meetings, due to the temperature in the desert and to prevent a late return from the meetings. Cathy Bechtel said the time of the April 30 and November 5 meetings will be determined and the Committee members will be informed prior to the meeting date. 5. FY 1990 TDA Unmet Needs Hearing Schedule Hideo Sugita stated that, included in the agenda, was a copy of the packet of information that is distributed at the unmet needs hearing. This packet contains an overview of the TDA Act; a listing of the dates of all of the hearings; additional mail -out that was sent to the senior centers, social service/job development program agencies, and any of the workshops that are associated with the developmentally disabled; and a copy of the display advertisement that will be in the local newspapers approximately one week before the hearing date to catch the attention of those individuals that might have an interest in attending the unmet needs hearings. Additionally, there will be placards placed on the Riverside Transit Agency and Sunline buses a week before the hearing date. There are two meetings scheduled on February 14; one at 9:00 a.m. at the RCTC offices and one at 2:00 p.m. at the Lake Elsinore Board room in conjunction with the RCTC Commission meeting . On Thursday February 22, 1990 an unmet needs hearing will be held in Blythe. Page 3 Minutes of February 5, 1990 Meeting Commissioners Pat Murphy, Corky Larson and Susan Cornelison will be attending that hearing. On March 14 an unmet needs hearing will be held at Palm Desert City Hall, again in conjunction with the Commission meeting. Anita Alcorn and Leon Overton asked that copies of the agenda packet information be provided to them so they could distribute as they see necessary. Jerry Rivera said he would make the copies and see that they are given to the Committee members that request them. Leon Overton stated, on behalf of his contingency, that the packet is very well put together and provides a large amount of necessary information. 6. FY 1989 UMTA 16(b)2 Program Results. Hideo Sugita said that last year there were four applications for UMTA 16(b)2 program funds. The Commission, for their part, reviews the applications and then forwards them with recommendations to the State inter -agency review committee which is comprised of representatives from the Department of Rehabilitation, the Department of Aging and one other party. Two of the four applications were recommended for approval. The two successful applicants were Meditrans and Family Services. The other two applicants, Mt. Rubidoux Manor and Riverside Congregational Homes (Plymouth Towers), were not approved and rated too low for funding for the FY 1989 application process. Hideo Sugita then pointed out that the amount for Family Services shown in his memo included in the agenda packet, is an incorrect amount. The amount identified by Caltrans as $39,000 total funds with a Federal amount of $31,200 should be total funds of $85,000 with a Federal amount of $68,000. Members of the Citizens Advisory Committee had a number of questions concerning the 16(b)2 application process and criteria for choosing the successful applicants. Hideo Sugita stated that he will invite Caltrans to the next meeting to do a presentation concerning the UMTA 16(b)2 process. 7. Potential Policies for Measure A Elderly and Handicapped Transit Programs. Hideo Sugita reviewed the previous policy recommendations of the Western Policy Advisory Committee (comprised of elected officials in the Western County) regarding potential policies for Measure A Elderly and Handicapped Transit programs. Hideo Sugita included, as an attachment to this agenda item, a memorandum reviewing the policies that have previously been in place: 1) To use Measure A funds to assist operators to meet their fare box ratio (on the dial -a -ride systems) to avoid the need for a fare increase; 2) An interim policy that divided the Western County share of the 5% Measure A funds for transit programs into two categories - 50% for specialized transit services and 50% for commuter services (this is not a set funding ratio, just a guideline). He then outlined the proposed policies: 3) Adopt a policy of 50% of the cost of commuter buspools be covered by fares and employer contributions; and 4) The Measure A subsidies for commuter buspools which operate between the Measure A areas or between counties should be split equally between the Measure A areas or counties. Staff recommended to the Western County Policy Advisory Committee to use Measure A funds to match the UMTA 16(b)2 funds and provide operating assistance, where possible. Successful applicants can receive 80% federal funds for these projects. Part of the Commission's requirements for agencies applying for UMTA 16(b)2 funds, is there must be coordination of van use with other social service agencies. Page 4 Minutes of February 5, 1990 Meeting Lori Nickel expressed concern with the E&H Policy's lack of a distinct separation in each of the "geographical" areas of Riverside County (Western County, Palo Verde Valley and Coachella Valley) in the Measure A administration, and that each area should be looked at separately and a different policy should be set for each area because they will each have different needs. Hideo Sugita said he will discuss with management the suggestion that Commission needs to be more cognizant of the fact that there are separate geographical areas involved with separate Measure A administrative needs. The E&H Policy, as presently written, gives the impression we are adopting a county -wide policy and that may not be all together true. Sunline staff submitted a letter citing their concerns with the E&H policy. Debra Astin outlined Sunline's concerns in detail and, since the letter was not available in time to distribute to the Committee members, Hideo Sugita said this letter will be included in the publication of the minutes. M/S/C (NICKEL/SENGER) to accept the recommendations of Staff to establish a policy similar to the one presented today, but have the details outlined by the Western County Policy Advisory Committee, since this is a policy decision to be made by their Committee. Don Senger stated that, as a result of a discussion at the prior Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, Paul Blackwelder said that he would provide to the Committee details and an update on the spending of Measure A funds. The Committee members have received a number of inquiries from the constituents concerning the application of the Measure A funds. Hideo Sugita responded that Paul Blackwelder could not be available for today's meeting, but would bring an update to the next meeting. 8. Social Service Transportation Delivery Study. Hideo Sugita presented a handout outlining a re -direction for the Social Service Transportation Study. He said the study was started in May of 1989 and the consultant has had a number of unfortunate problems the last month and has not been able to work on the Social Service Transportation Delivery Study. Hideo Sugita went on to further explain that there have been four technical papers prepared to date: (1) Looked at the definition of social service transportation and public transportation; (2) All of the possible alternatives; (3) Who are the potential players - who might be a CTSA? and; (4) Where do we go from here? This is the point where the study stands now. The outline Hideo Sugita presented suggested the following done: (1) There needs to be a more definitive definition of social service transportation vs. public transportation; (2) Review the findings of the AB 120 action plan and list the responsibilities of the CTSAs; (3) Ask the CTSA to examine their desire to carry out these responsibilities and remain a CTSA; (4) Review the existing dial -a -ride services in terms of who is going where and what are the trip purposes?; (5) Review how unmet needs are currently being met. There is $15,000 left in the existing contract to complete this study; (6) Determine if there are any other needs that are not being met and, if so, why are they not being met. M/S/C (WEEKS/MORAN) to affirm that these steps are a logical and good direction to recommend a re -direction of this study and present the recommendation to the Commission. Leon Overton was an opposing vote to this motion. " " Page 5 Minutes of February 5, 1990 Meeting 9. CAC Representative Resignations. Arnold Dickson (Chairman of the Coalition for Better Transportation for the Southern California Gas Co.) has submitted his letter of resignation from the Citizens Advisory Committee as he is being transferred in his job to Glendale. There is no replacement at present. A replacement cannot be appointed for Arnold Dickson until a new Chairman is appointed for the Coalition for Better Transportation. Mike Beggins (Private Industry Council) also has submitted his letter of resignation. Gilbert Lopez, also of the Private Industry Council, is Mike Beggins' suggested representative from that agency. Staff will be taking a recommendation forward to the Commission for Gilbert Lopez to replace Mike Beggins. 10. Other Business. a. Measure A In lieu of a full report, Hideo Sugita reported that a lot of the Commission action to date on Measure A has been geared toward administratively setting up the offices, and working out agreements with Caltrans to begin project development work for state highway improvements. State highway improvements is a very time consuming and a long, drawn-out process which requires an environmental review of potential alternatives; an alternatives analysis; and a look at any environmental problems - this process takes between 1-2 years, including preliminary design. Once that process is accomplished, then comes the public hearing process; and then the move to final design (which can take upwards of a year) and finally comes the actual physical process of breaking ground and laying concrete. In terms of Measure A, the Commission had actually started funding project development prior to the Measure A passing by working with the Technical Advisory Committee and receiving authorization to use $1.6 million of FAU (Federal Aid Urban) funds, that are normally used for local jurisdictions for road improvements, to fund the beginning preliminary project development work on the Route 91 project. Currently, the Commission is trying to get the environmental and preliminary engineering work done by June 30 of this year to qualify for SB 140 which is state matching funds and will provide 25% of the total project cost of a particular improvement. This program hinges on the passage of SCA 1 (gas tax) because currently there are no funds in SB 140 to cover these costs. Regarding rail issues, the Commission is working as quickly as possible to acquire and preserve rights -of -way. They have taken a $10 million line of credit and have been working with the private individuals who have acquired the San Jacinto Branch Line to try and get easements to use the line for commercial rail purposes. The Commission has completed, prior to Measure A being voted on, the preliminary assessment of feasibility between Riverside/Orange County. A joint meeting will be held for the first time with the San Bernardino Association of Governments and a number of the topics on that agenda deal with rail issues and coordinating with SanBAG to look at the Santa Fe operations yard in San Bernardino. The Commissions are already talking with Los Angeles County about a proposed rail line between Los Angeles/San Bernardino County. Also the Commission put together a RFP concerning the assessment of integrating the commuter rail operations with the Santa Fe freight rail operations. The rail line that travels through the Santa Ana Canyon is the number one Santa Fe freight rail line. Hideo Sugita reported that callboxes are also Measure A funded. There has been a vendor selected Page 6 Minutes of February 5, 1990 Meeting who will purchase the callboxes, do the installation and also maintain those callboxes for the next ten years. Secondarily, there has been a vendor selected who will provide cellular telephone service for the callboxes. Hideo Sugita stressed to the members of the CAC the importance of SCA 1 passing on the June ballot and the lack of alternatives for project funding if it does/does not pass. 11. Adjournment. M/S/C (NICKEL S/KRAUCH) to adjourn the meeting at 3:29 p.m. as there was no other business to come before the meeting. Respectfully submitted, HS:sc (fc ideo Sugita, Staff Analyst SunLine Transit 1 MEMBER AGENCIES Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indio La Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Riverside County February 5, 1990 ECIERVIED rH OJ 1990 Riverside County Transportation Commission Mr. Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Dear Jack: In reviewing the agenda for the Citizen's Advisory Committee, we became concerned over some items. Since the approach to the performance measures worked so well, we would like to follow that avenue. We hope that we can resolve these concerns by working together on a staff to staff basis rather than in an open forum (i.e., CAC or RCTC meeting). This letter is being written with that in mind. First, we were under the impression that we had begun working jointly with Commission staff to address the questions relating to the CTSA issue. Unfortunately, the CAC staff report leads us to believe that Commission staff is involving committees prior to a consensus between Commission staff and operators being reached. Possibly I misunderstood but I thought we had agreed that additional discussion is required between Commission staff and operators relative to policy being developed to provide Measure A funds to social service transportation providers. Before policy can be properly developed we believe several questions need to be addressed (such as: Who will administer the program? How will coordination and consolidation be assured? Will all agencies be eligible? How will all groups needing specialized transportation be assured access and who will insure this? What is the relationship of the transit system to these services?). Jack, RCTC and SunLine have been working on this project for several years. I think we both recognize this as a very important issue. I strongly urge you to have more discussion with us and with RTA prior to setting any policies on the table. To reiterate, I believe the performance measure discussion outcome was satisfactory to RCTC while at the same time we felt 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail • Thousand Palms, California 92276 • (619) 343-3456 " " Mr. Jack Reagan February 5, 1990 Page 2 involved in a process that ultimately saw some compromise - can't we do the same with other major issues? We urge you to strive for a comprehensive solution regarding Social Service/E & H Transportation that is acceptable to all parties before there is a commitment to any action. As a second concern, we believe that the proposed policy to offer Measure A funds as match to federal funds under UMTA's 16(b)2 program will continue the proliferation of equipment identified in Pat Piras' Social Service Transportation Delivery Study. Secondly, we are concerned that in allowing Meditrans and Family Services Association of Riverside to apply for Measure A match at this stage of the application, other applicants (who did not apply for the grants) may have been treated unfairly because they did not have match funds available. Thirdly, we are concerned that this policy actually decreases the total pot of money available for transportation by substituting Measure A funds for private funds. Finally, as an aside, the staff report states that a policy on commuter buspools was adopted by the Commission (50% from fareboxes or employers). As we understand the minutes of the Commission, this policy applies only to the Western County. I am hopeful that you remember the discussions noting that the Coachella Valley is dissimilar to the Western County and what is applicable to one may not be applicable to the other. If I remember correctly, the Commission deferred action on adopting any policy for the Coachella Valley. Jack, please understand that we are very anxious to work with RCTC to create a reasonable solution to the problems we are having with specialized transportation services but it our belief that the proposal of policy, at this stage, is premature. Sincerely, SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Lee Norwine General Manager LN/cmb cc: Durand Rall, RTA Lucia Moran, CAC Anita Alcorn, CAC Paul Blackwelder, RCTC Hideo Sugita, RCTC RIVERAIOE COUNTY TRgNSPORTATIO COMMISSION Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Service Advisory Council December 4, 1989 CORRECTED PAGE 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Advisory Council was called to order by Chuck Schmitt, Chairman at 1:37 p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission Conference Room, 3560 University Avenue, Ste. 100, Riverside, CA. Members present: Anita Alcorn Terry Allen Ace Atkinson Ray Baca Cathy Bechtel Rose Eldridge Don High Herbert Krauch Members absent: Lori Nickel Leon Overton Rena Parker Chuck Schmitt Don Senger Clarence Swalve Dick Weeks * Mike Beggins * Joanne Moore * Lucia Moran **Tom Paradise Arnold Dickson e - and-hall * Excused ** Tom Paradise is the alternate for Arnold Dickson Others present: " CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATES 1990 REVISED 02/05/90 January 1990 - Meeting canceled. February 1990 - February 5, 1990 March 1990 - March 5, 1990 - MEETING CANCELED April 1990 - April 2, 1990 May 1990 - April 30, 1990 - Sunline Board Room -- TIME TO BE DETERMINED June 1990 - June 4, 1990 July 1990 - July 2, 1990 August 1990 - July 30, 1990 September 1990 - September 4, 1990 - TUESDAY - MONDAY IS HOLIDAY October 1990 - October 1, 1990 Novembei' 1990 - November 5, 1990 - Sunline Board Room -- TIME TO BE DETERMINED December 1990 - December 3, 1990 RIVERSIDE• COUNTY TRANSPORTATION OMMISSION TO: Advisory Council FROM: Hideo Sugita, Staff Analysts SUBJECT: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Update of Social Service Transportation Delivery Study Pat Piras will be in attendance at the meeting to update the Committee on the recent work accomplished, given the revised work program for the study. Attached is Technical Memorandum #5 which addresses the definitions of public vs social service transportation and examples of the application of the definition on services in Riverside County. 12:50 F'M +MAILBOX 415 5 1 - 2 8 7 9 PU4 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION DEL/VERY STUDY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #5 Throughout this study, consultants, RCTC staff, and the Citizens Advisory committee (CAC) have been seeking definitions of "public" transportation and "social service" transportation. Based on the recommendations of Working Paper #1, the definitions below were endorsed by the CAC and have been approved by the Commission. This paper continues this process by describing the toles and responsibilities of each of these transportation services, and provides specific examples from Riverside County. "Definition': Public transportation is a service that in available to any member of the general public, upon payment of a fare, upon generally established routes or openly -available demand - responsive services (which may include subscription trips). It has a publicly -accountable policy board, and is subject to performance and/or revenue requirements, usually legislatively imposed by its funding source(s). Any other transportation service has elements of a social service nature. This is the open-ended side to the continuum. To the extent that any particular service is restricted to certain types of users or purposes of use, it takes on greater aspects of a social service nature. The general distinguishing characteristics of public transportation include: o Available to all; limited personal assistance o Fare required o Directed by a public policy board o Opportunities for public input required o Generally longer hours of service. The general distinguishing characteristics of social service transportation include: o Availability limited to a specific type of person(s) o Generally for specified purposes or destinations o Decisions on service use are made sponsoring agency, rather than by individuals o Highly personalized and driven by agency activities." 1. y �� 1 : I_I r lvl t tvi N 1 L ki VA 4 1 5 2;51 -Lb r _+ 1 - Now Do These Definitions Apply? One public transit agency has described the role of Bppcialized (i.e., generally demand -responsive) public transportation as serving the general needs of special passengers. These most often include medical appointments, shopping, work or education, recreation, and personal business. When the destination is a program activity, and service is provided or arranged on a group basis, the transportation function is more likely to be on a social service basis. It is also important to look at the "exclusivity" of the transportation scarvice, both what is intended and what happens in actuality. Public transportation cannot discriminate against any individual or group or type of individuals, and access to the system should be equally available to all. If there are eligibility requirements to receive a certain type of transportation service (such as "specialized" or "elderly & handicapped"), then all eligible persons should have an equal opportunity to receive the service. On the other hand, social service transportation may often restricted to clients of a particular agency, or who are attending a particular program or activity. Waiting lists may be similarly controlled or dominated. Certain types of commuter services may help to explain this distinction. With public transportation, bus service is available to any persons who pays their. fare (whether cash or pass), on a first -come, first -served basis. If the service is overcrowded, depending on the policies of the system, some people may be required to stand, additional vehicles may be required (if the budget can afford them), or capacity may be limited to the number of available seats. However, no individual can reserve a seat or receive service in preference to others, except by their own actions in boarding the bus earlier. On the other hand, there are "club bus" services (Golden Gate Transit is one example) where all seats are available on a subscription basis and only "members" may ride. /t has been ruled that, because of the exclusionary nature of club bus service, TDA funds -- which are intended for public transportation -- are not allowed to be used to subsidize this program. It is particularly interesting to note that draft Transportation Regulations developed by the Department of Developmental Services (dated 3/9/90) propose a definition of "public transit" as "a regularly scheduled, fixed route transit (e.g. via a large bus, streetcar, light rail system, etc.) available to all members of the general public at a fixed fare." However, it appears that nobody agrees with this potential definition! 2 I 1 I_! t td A. Pei h 1 L b V di -f J _1 1 i • L. I :_1 1 1 1 L_1 Applio�ttion oP_ the Definittena to Riversi a County prosrams "Program" uses of transportation, such as to a nutrition site or an Adult Day Care program, are generally considered social service, since they directly support the user's ability to participate in, and receive, program benefits. Transportation provided through the Riverside County Office on Aging for these purposes, is available to any interested senior, and on a apace available basis, but generally only to specific program sites and timed to accommodate specific program activities. The Stroke Club service operated through Desert Blind and Handicapped (DBAH) similarly earves a therapeutic purpose, but its exclusivity also tends to categorize it as social service. Although service should have changed somewhat recently with the addition of a new vehicle, no other persons were transported during those "blocks" of time reserved for this group. This "discrimination" against "non-members" cannot support classification of this service as general public. The special recreational transportation provided by Riverside Special services (Rss) on Friday evenings appears on the surface to have strong elements of a social service program, but its intent is to provide specialized "public transportation" for elderly and disabled persons. The primary focus of the service is the "Friendly Stars" activities provided through the City's Parks & Recreation Department, and about 150 people a week, primarily with developmental disabilities, participate. However, particularly during the "down time", other trips can be taken by eligible persons for other reasons, such as shopping. However, very few people take advantage of the other opportunities, although RSS staff states that they have made a number of attempts to market the service, especially to seniors. There is no intent to provide exclusive service, although this is happening de facto, nonetheless. One of the most troubling problems for this study has been the long-standing issue of transportation for clients of the Foundation for the Retarded of the Desert (Foundation). It is consultants' analysis that, although these clients could be eligible for public transportation (and according to Regional Center staff, at least some can benefit from mobility training to use fixed -route and specialized services), the type and level of service provided should be categorized as social service. Arrangements to receive service are made and monitored by an third party (Regional Center), rather than the individual or their family. Only a single destination is served, and there is a strong effort to "trade in" riders from only a single waiting list, compiled by an agency other than the transit provider. Further, no other elderly or disabled persons in the service area are provided the level of cross -city -boundary service that is provided to the "Intervalley" riders. The combined factors of 3 LI ►_ '11 1J L_i 1-'1%4 f M 4 i L 8 U X. 4 1 ':i 'Li 1 - b i' '.:i 1- l 1 ( • • exclusivity, specific clientele, agency involvement, and special types of service provided indicate that this is a form of social service transportation. Boles and Reeponsibiij,tJeq However, categorizing a transportation function as social service does not, in and of itself, disqualify the program from eligibility for "public" transportation dollars. Both UMTA and TDA statutes include special provisions for operating and/or capital funding for "special transportation needs". What Is important, when specific social service programs benefit from publicly -provided transportation programs, is that all available resources should be used in a cost-efficient, prudent, and where feasible, coordinated effort. This may entail special funding agreements based on the level or quantity of service "consumed" by a particular program or agency. Further, while specific social service agencies are responsible to protect and further the interests of their own clients, the public transit agency is responsible to ensure an adequate and equitable level of service for all eligible riders. It is in the balancing of these multiple interests that funding, such as through Riverside County's Measure A, can provide a useful tool. 4 TO: RIVERSID• E COUNTY TRANSPORTATIONtOMMISSION Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Hideo Sugita, Staff Analyst SUBJECT: Unmet Needs Hearings Update and Transcript Summaries As of March 14, 1990 the Commission completed the public testimony portion of the Transportation Development Act Unmet Needs Hearings for FY 1990-91. The testimony, with the exception of the March 14 hearing held in Palm Desert, has been summarized for your review. We should have the Palm Desert testimony summarized for your review, along with responses for your April 30 meeting. Staff will be working with the affected public transit agencies to delineate unmet needs requests from service complaints/operational issues and develop responses to the testimony. The responses will be developed with respect to the criteria of "reasonable to meet". The Commission assesses each request on the basis of whether or not there would be sufficient ridership to justify expansion of service(s) or new services. In other words, part of the assessment includes review of the cost effectiveness of any service changes. On the basis of the testimony it appears that there are several "common thread" concerns which will be discussed with the operators which could have a significant affect on the manner transit is currently delivered in western Riverside County, they are: o Employers, as well as the general public are requesting the extension of service hours. Transit should start earlier in the morning (5:30) and extend to 10:30 in the evening. The need is specifically targeted to providing service for work commute trips. o Requests for improved service between counties. o Requests for dial -a -ride service expansion in Riverside, Hemet, Perris and inter -area service from Perris/Mead Valley to Woodcrest and service from Riverside into Woodcrest. o Requests for same day or one day reservation for Riverside Special Services rides. Staff will be working with the transit operators to develop, as quickly as possible, responses to the testimony. It appears that most, if not all responses will be available for your April meeting. " " FY 1990-91 TDA UNMET NEEDS TESTIMONY Riverside, RCTC Board Room February 14, 1990 1) Evelyn Kilmartin, 3287B Bernard St., Riverside, CA Would like to see Riverside Special Services provide one day advance reservation/response for service requests. Requests that services for the "frail elderly" be expanded particularly to include emergency service trips to the persons own doctor. This would avert people needing to call an ambulance to get them to emergency service and then have the ambulance take them back. This not a very cost effective way nor efficient way for people to obtain needed medical service. Response: 2) Nelly M. Glaze, Inland Empire Chapter CCB, 18921 Clark St., Perris, CA 92370 Explained that the frequency and duration of service on Line 22 is inconsistent. Sometimes service frequency is 35 minute and at others it is 1 1/2 hours. She would like to have earlier service from Perris in order to make the transfer to the 7:25 a.m. RTD 496 going to San Bernardino. Requests Bial- a -ride service in the Perris/Mead Valley area extended to the Woodcrest area for shopping and medical purposes. Response: 3) Paul Jones, Californians for Effective Public Transportation, 312 W. 6th Street, #448, Corona, CA 91720 Presented a transportation idea/concept that uses the existing freeway system (1 lane) and some form of eight passenger vehicle. The system has no schedules, will make no more than three stops on a fifty mile trip and will pick you up within 10 minutes of a request. Response: 4) Ace Atkinson, Developmental Disabilities Area Board #12, 1960 Chicago Ave., E8, Riverside, CA 9250 Requested SCAG and the RCTC do a technical study as to whether or not the air conditioners on the shoreline buses in the Coachella valley are designed to meet the temperature conditions and environment that is found in the Coachella Valley. Are the air conditioners designed specifically to operate in that environment, are they maintained, and do they operate the way they are supposed to. " " Response: 5) Ronald Sheppard, United Cerebral Palsy, 2060 University Ave., #101, Riverside, CA 92507 Requests that TDA funds be directed in accordance with growth (population) e.g. if growth mainly occurs in the Coachella Valley, then funding should be directed there. Would like to see available funds be directed towards providing evening and weekend service. Response: 6) Roberta Holden, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 3125 Myers St., Riverside, CA In testimony named 5 Fleetwood plants in the western Riverside County area that could benefit from realigned RTA service. 1) Myers Street site- could be served by routes 14 at Indiana/Van Buren and Line 27. 2) Jurupa Ave site - closest RTA line is Line 21 at Van Buren and Jurupa. Susan Cornelison also related that staff should also check the terminus of Line 12. 3) There are three sites in the Belltowne area - should check the routing of Line 29. Holden says that Fleetwood Enterprises is committed to providing for the sale of RTA bus passes on site, subsidizing transit where needed and providing a guaranteed ride home to their workers. Response: 7) Sandra Benz, Riverside County Employment Services - GAIN Program, 1025 N. State St., Hemet, CA 92343 Requests a direct route from Hemet to Moreno Valley, would like to see the elimination of the transfer in Perris and would like "improved" service from Banning/Beaumont to Hemet. Response: 8) Manuel V. Torres, Friends of Moreno Valley Sr. Center, 25480 Alessandro Blvd., Moreno Valley, CA 92388 Requested RCTC support for an UMTA 16(b)2 application for base and mobile radio units to the Friends of Moreno Valley van (which is an UMTA 16(b)2 vehicle). The vehicle is currently operated by Meditrans under contract to the Friends of Moreno Valley. Response: 9) Tim Barry, 92509 Rohr Industries, 8200 Arlington Ave., Riverside, CA Requests additional service on RTA Lines 15 and 21 and would " " like a earlier arrival time (at the Rohr plant) for these lines. The bulk of the hourly workers at the plant live within 5 miles of the plant. Requests that the start time for the lines be 6:00 a.m. rather than 6:45 a.m.. The first shift starts at 6:30. Response: 10) David Zappe, Riverside County Flood Control, 1995 Market St., Riverside, CA The County Flood Control department currently has 170 employees and the number of employees on site at the office will increase to 220 with the County Department of Waste Management moving in the building. This office complex is on the same RTA line that serves the Butler Industrial Center. Response: 11) Terry Flynn, Riverside County Mental Health, 4095 County Circle Dr., Riverside, CA 92503 Requests a bus stop at the end of County Farm Road. The clients of the mental health programs are currently without transit service. Should service be provided, a bus shelter is also requested because many of the clients of the program are on prescription medications that make them photo sensitive (light sensitive) and exposure in the sun may cause physical harm. Response: (There is currently a bus stop at Harrison and County Farm Road. We should check the distance from Harrison/County Farm Road and see if there is adequate turn around space by the facility. Could we split the distance from the existing stop and the requested stop? 12) Mike McCall, Riverside County Planning Department, 9th Floor, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside, CA The County of Riverside is responsible for the preparation of an air quality plan for the Riverside County. In order to assist rideshare coordinators for businesses in the county, it becomes imperative that the transportation system make attempts to accommodate the needs of individuals who will be arriving earlier in the day and leaving work later in the evening due to modified work schedules. Response: 13) Jean Battleman, 3460 Fifth St., #C, Riverside, CA Requests quicker response dial -a -ride in the City of Riverside. (Does not like the seven day reservation system.) Says that Meditrans only carries wheelchair users. Requests " . service to the University of California Riverside for education purposes. In a time when there is Glastnost and the Berlin wall being torn down it is a shame we cannot provide adequate transit services in our area. Response: 14) Ed Crespin, Riverside Center for Independent Living, 6800 Brockton Ave., Riverside, CA 92506 Requests improved service coordination between Riverside Special Services and those services outside Riverside City limits. Complaint against the RTD line 496 service stopping at El Monte for transfer purposes. This additional stop makes it impossible for persons commuting to work to get there by 8:00 a.m.. Requests service coordination between RTA and RTD and would like to have service from Riverside to San Bernardino. Would like to see a.m. and p.m. service frequencies increased to facilitate work commute trips. Need to provide options for commuters 3 trips outbound in the a.m. and 3 trips inbound in the p.m.. Response: 15) Christy Crespin, 6667 Cathy Place, Riverside, CA Requests improved connections between lines at transfer points. Requests better intercounty service to San Bernardino via the downtown terminal particularly to facilitate trips to Cal State San Bernardino. Requests increased Sunday service. Requests extended service hours for RTA (5:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.). Requests shorter cross town bus service since it takes over an hour to ride the RTA Line 1 to the Tyler Mall. Requests Riverside Special Services provide 24 hour service or same day service response. Requests that children of passengers riding on RSS also need access to the service to go along with their parents. Requests service to Colton, Rialto, and Fontana. Says that a rail system serving San Bernardino, Orange and Riverside. Response: 16) Cathy Bechtel, Inland Regional Center, 1020 Cooley Drive, Colton, CA Requests the following: o expansion of Riverside Special Services to accommodate 39 additional clients. o review of service needs of clients residing in the Hemet/San Jacinto area. o expand the service boundaries in the Hemet, San Jacinto " " and Perris dial -a -ride service areas to allow additional Regional Center clients could utilize the services. o expand Banning dial -a -ride to the Cabezon area. o implement a dial -a -ride service in the Mira Loma/Rubidoux area and in the Moreno Valley area. o reiterated the need for a study of the air conditioning on the Shoreline vehicles serving the Foundation for the Retarded (See Ace Atkinson testimony) Response: 16) L. T. Duffey, Riverside County - GAIN, 1020 Iowa Ave., Riverside, CA Requests RTA fixed route service in Moreno Valley be extended towards the Russell Ranch, La Salle area (other side of Perris Boulevard). Requests dial -a -ride service in the upper Rubidoux, Mira Loma area. Response: 17) Kim Freeman, 3920 Oakwood, Riverside, CA 92506 Requests a bus stop in front of La Sierra Park (RTA Line 15) Response: 18) Helen Bricker, Tyler Springs Apartments, 10406 Indiana Ave., Riverside, CA Requests a bus stop at the Tanner Springs Apartments, 10406 Indiana (RTA Line 14) Response: 19) Charles Berliner, 9623 Bolton Ave., Riverside, CA 92503 Requests the review and implementation of an improved, comprehensive transit system. Response: 20) Beverly S. Berliner, 9623 Bolton Ave., Riverside, CA 92503 Requests better connecting transit services between counties. Response: " " FY 1990-91 TDA UNMET NEEDS TESTIMONY LAKE ELSINORE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD ROOM FEBRUARY 14, 1990, 2:00 P.M. 1) Leo Batt, Sun City Civic Association, 26000 Sun City Blvd., Sun City, CA 92381, Ph# 679-2311 Requests a dial -a -ride transit system within the Sun City area and surrounding developing area, and a good public relations campaign to tell people to leave your car at home and take the bus. 2) Robert Martinez, Director, Senior Center of Lake Elsinore, 420 Lakeshore, Lake Elsinore, CA 92330, Ph# 674-2526 Needs matching funds for a wheelchair accessible van to be operated by the Lake Elsinore Senior Center to provide seven - days -a -week transportation on call that the seniors can depend on and be reliable. The van is to be purchased with 16(b)2 funds. 3) Imogene Lewellen, Lake Elsinore A.A.R.P. Chapter 4056, P.O. Box 1082, Lake Elsinore, CA Requests transportation to Corona for cancer patients to receive radiation treatment and chemotherapy because services are not available in Lake Elsinore. 4) Gloria Tantzer, GAIN - Riverside County DPSS, 575 Chaney, Lake Elsinore, CA, Ph# 245-3150 Requests bus service from Lake Elsinore to Corona, from Lake Elsinore to Temecula and Perris to Temecula so that their clients will have transportation to their place of employment. 5) Dick Weeks, Riverside County Office on Aging Expressed a general concern among seniors and senior service providers for the need of transportation for seniors to and from medical clinics and shopping. Also, requests Commission to look at possibility of using T.D.A. money to fund volunteer programs to help nurture or enlist additional capabilities in some communities and to establish a policy on use of Measure A funds. " " 6) Anne Greenstone, Public Health Nurse, Riverside County Health Department, Ph# 674-3250 Requests bus services from the prenatal clinic area (Lake Elsinore) to the HUD housing in Temecula. Also requests bus service for clients between Temecula and Lake Elsinore. Requests some consideration of busing from the Temecula -Lake Elsinore area straight through to Riverside General Hospital, and bus service from the Elsinore-Perris-Temecula-Murrieta areas to Ortega Continuation School in Lake Elsinore. " " BLYTHE VFW POST 2987 MEETING HALL FEBRUARY 22, 1990, 1:30 P.M. 1) Juanita Wolfe, Blythe Senior Center, 445 N. Broadway, Blythe, CA, Ph# 619-922-8830 Requests transportation to local doctors and out of town medical needs for the elderly. Also, need for transportation for local shopping - like a dial -a -ride or something like that. Would like some feedback on how to gain Measure A funds. 2) Jim Logsdon, Rt. 1, Box 205 F, Blythe, CA 92225, Ph# 619-922- 7373 Same requests as above. 3) Barbara Tirre, Riverside County DPSS - GAIN Program, 4060 County Circle Drive, Riverside, CA 92503, Ph# 714-358-3000 Requests a reliable and reasonable transportation system for their clients to not only get to their program but also to work once they find a job. 4) Doris Morgan, Palo Verde Transit Agency, 220 N. Spring, Blythe, CA, Ph# 619-922-3139 Provided information on current services available through Valley Resource Center and wanted to find out more on what the unmet needs were. 5) John Teats, 715 N. Eucalyptus St., Blythe, CA Requests better transportation from Blythe to Indio to Coachella Valley to Riverside and to Loma Linda. Also requests service between Blythe and Wiley's Well Road turnoff for prison employees and visitors. Also suggested that a dial -a -ride program should cover the people in the county as well as the city. 6) Lula Mae Neely, Rt. 2, Box 84, Blythe, CA 92225, Ph# 619-922- 3496 Requests transportation to the doctors and local shopping. Also, occasional out-of-town trips to doctors. 7) Rev. Harold Honea, Church of the Nazarene and Ministerial Association, 131 N. 2nd, Blythe, CA Requests some kind of public transportation -- perhaps a small six -passenger van would be adequate. " " 8) Eva L. Syses, 351 N. 2nd, Blythe, CA Requests transportation services to doctors and local shopping for elderly and handicapped. 9) Mary E. Todd, Rt. 1, Box 495-D, Blythe, CA 92225 Same requests as above. 10) Katherine Searles, P.O. Box 339, Blythe, CA 92225 Same requests as above. 11) Bertha George, AARP Program Chairman, 720 E. Wisconsin, Blythe, CA 92225 She was not aware of dial -a -ride services provided by Valley Resource Center. 12) Ruth Shepardson, Service Chairman, American Cancer Society Blythe Branch, P.O. Box 763, Blythe, CA 92225, Ph# 6129-922- 7361 Requests transportation services for patients to out-of-town medical facilities that are accessible to the handicapped. 13) Mary Zieske, Palo Verde Senior Citizens, 395 N. 1st, Blythe, CA 92225, Ph# 619-922-5820 Same requests as above. Also, transportation for all patients of all ages, and some coordinated effort. 14) Hattie Downs, 251 N. Palm Dr., #14, Blythe, CA 92225 Same requests as above. 15) Mike Figueroa, 464 N. Carlton, Blythe, CA 92225 Requests transportation to prison and back for employees and visitors. 16) Callie M. Maddux, 16120 Riviera Dr., Blythe, CA 92225, Ph# 619-922-2514 Requests better coordination of tax money (had requested ride on a school bus and was denied). 17) Tracy Hollifield-Capra, MHW II, Blythe Counseling Center, 101 E. Hobsonway, Suite F, Blythe, CA 92225, Ph# 619-922-8194 Requests transportation services for clients to get to their counseling center and other needed services. Also, transportation for out-of-town services not available in Blythe. " " 18) James E. Perry, Rt. 1, Box 495 A, Blythe, CA 92225 Requests public transportation, especially for senior citizens, but not necessarily limited to senior citizens. " " WRITTEN TESTIMONY RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSION 1) RTA Interoffice Memo from Barbara Bray, Community Relations Representative to Jim Stoffer, Planner, with a petition attached requesting fixed route bus service for residents of Victoria Springs (corner of Adams and Lincoln) 2) Ed Van Nordeck, P.O. Box 2768, Riverside, CA 92516-2768, Ph# 714-784-7206 Requests improved service for Moreno Valley and inter -tie with Riverside proper. Also requests improved service for Corona - Norco -Riverside by extending Line 3. Requests additional service on route 2 and better Saturday/Sunday service on this route. Requests split of present 496 route to Los Angeles by operating express from downtown Riverside to Country Village then present route, and make the present route on Mission Blvd. a new local route from Country Village down Mission to the Riverside Transportation Terminal. 3) Jon Pickard, 4087 Hare Avenue, Riverside, CA 92509, Ph# 714- 684-8805 Requests the following information: 1. What state law required this meeting and what notification was required by that law and what notification was done? 2. Would like to review the transcript of the meeting in Riverside as soon as it is typed and before any editing may be done. 4 3. Wonder who owns the building the RCTC is in (real people with names not companies). 4. Is a biographical sketch available on the only private citizen, Susan Cornelison? Sheri Acker, Assistant Hospital Personnel Officer, Riverside General Hospital, 9851 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, CA 92503, Ph# 714-358-7100 Requests the establishment of one or two routes from Moreno Valley with direct service to RGH, Riverside Community, Parkview Community, and Kaiser Permanente hospitals. 5) Roby Gibson, 5791 De La Vista, Rubidoux, CA 92509 Requests the purchase of one or more twelve passenger vans to operate between the Jurupa/Rubidoux area and Kaiser's Fontana clinic and hospital. " " 5) James E. Hastings, Manager, Vocational Services, Inland Career Center, 6848 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, CA 92506 Requests earlier and later bus service throughout the City of Riverside, and more frequent and different scheduled routes between Moreno Valley and Riverside, Corona and Riverside and Hemet and Riverside. Also requests more Saturday service and improved service to Rubidoux, Pedley and Perris. Requests restructuring of dial -a -ride service to reduce the waiting time of return trips and elimination of transfer to travel from Central Ave. to Arlington. 7) Harriet Olitt, Regional Manager, Mid -County Mental Health Services, 1005 N. State Street, Hemet, CA 92343, Ph# 714- 925-7661 Requests bus services between Lake Elsinore and the new Walt Abraham County Administration Center in Temecula to give access to public services not available in the Lake Elsinore area. 8) Mary Wirth, Program Director, Country Village Senior Services, 10241 Country Club Dr., Ste. H, Mira Loma, CA 91752, Ph# 714- 681-5718 Requests public medical transportation services through the use of taxi vouchers for both Medi-Cal and Medicare patients. 9) Cherris Taube, Managing Director, Sun City Concern, Inc., P.O. Box 192, Sun City, CA 92381, Ph# 714-679-2374 Requests public transportation serving the Newport Road area between Bradley Road and Murrieta Road and downtown Sun City. 10) Dedria Jenkins, 8883 Indiana #B, Riverside, CA 92503 Requests that route 14 run two hours later on weekdays and until 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, as well as provide Sunday service. 11) Nanci Watson, Human Resources Representative, The Toro Company, P.O. Box 489, Riverside, CA 92502, Ph# 714-688-9221 Requests bus services begin earlier and provide express routes from other cities. Also request moving the bus stop on route 12 from Industrial, around the corner to Jasmine. 12) Ransom Beers, P.O. Box 758, Blythe, CA 92226 Requests public transportation surrounding areas for not only medical appointments, shopping, general population. for the City of Blythe and the seniors --doctor visits, church, etc., but also the " 13) Carmen M. Mercado, 3742 Brockton Ave. Apt. D, Riverside, CA 92501 Requests more frequent bus service to Kaiser Park Sierra, more Sunday service with both earlier and later hours of operation, and same day or 24 -hour minibus service for senior citizens. 14) Kay S. Ceniceros, 3rd District Supervisor, 4080 Lemon Street, Fourteenth Floor, Riverside, CA 92501, Ph# 714-275-1030 Requests public transportation to a new senior center on Newport Road and Evans Street. Center will open the first of April and will have a senior nutrition site and there are plans to have an adult day care center at this site. (See request of Cherris Taube) 15) Sandra R. Benz, DPSS - GAIN Program, 1075 N. State Street, Hemet, CA 92324 (See Riverside Public Hearing testimony) 16) Helen M. Vizthum, 22085 Bay Avenue, Moreno Valley, CA 92388 Requests quicker bus service in Moreno Valley or perhaps a separate bus system. 17) George C. Nierlich, President, Corona Chapter 3611, AARP, 985 W. Ontario Ave., Corona, CA 91720 Requests a survey to determine if any changes of current routes in Corona are required to better serve the public transportation needs, especially for seniors and the handicapped. Also requests a cooperative effort between the City, RTA and the dial -a -ride program. 18) Carrie Ann Johnson, 23355 Harland Drive, Moreno Valley, CA 92387, Ph# 714-924-8091 Requests a re-evaluation of the local transportation needs in Moreno Valley. 19) Mrs. Alberta L. Reyes, 6075 Sunny Circle, Mira Loma, CA 91752, Ph# 714-681-4245 Requests more and better public transportation service for the Mira Loma community. Also, believes ridership is down because nobody can rely of the service. 20) Ms. June Thompson, P.O. Box 906, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 Requests that all riders be allowed to ride free on weekends or alternate one day for seniors and one day for all others. R TO: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Citizens Advisory Committee DATE: February 21, 1990 FROM: Hideo Sugita SUBJECT: L7Y March 5, 1990 Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting Due to a lack of substantive agenda items, the March 5, 1990 Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting is cancelled. The next Citizens Advisory Committee meeting will be April 2, 1990; 1:30 p.m. at the RCTC Conference Room. If you have any questions, please call (714) 787-7141. HS:sc