Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
08 August 29, 1988 Citizens Advisory
" " 0 4 0 2 5 7 R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N A G E N D A C I T I Z E N S A D V I S O R Y C O M M I T T E E 1 : 3 0 P . M . , M O N D A Y , A U G U S T 2 9 , 1 9 8 8 R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y A D M I N I S T R A T I V E C E N T E R 1 4 T H F L O O R C O N F E R E N C E R O O M 4 0 8 0 L E M O N S T R E E T , R I V E R S I D E 9 2 5 0 1 1 . C a l l t o O r d e r . 2 . A p p r o v a l o f M i n u t e s . ( M i n u t e s w i l l b e d i s t r i b u t e d a t t h e m e e t i n g . ) 3 . M e a s u r e " A " - L o c a l S a l e s T a x f o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n . o E x p e n d i t u r e P l a n P r e s e n t a t i o n . o P r o p o s e d P r o j e c t s S t a t e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I m p r o v e m e n t P l a n . 4 . S t a t u s R e p o r t o n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y M o t o r i s t C a l l b o x S y s t e m . 5 . S t a t u s R e p o r t o n t h e R i v e r s i d e - O r a n g e C o u n t y C o m m u t e r R a i l S t u d y . 6 . T r a n s i t V e h i c l e A c c e s s i b i l i t y . 7 . S t a t u s R e p o r t o n S C R T D R o u t e s 1 4 9 a n d 4 9 6 C o n t r a c t i n g . 8 . O t h e r B u s i n e s s . 9 . A d j o u r n m e n t . A C T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N DATE August 29, 1988 Citizens Advisory Committee NAME AzAr-----A 6.4 etz REPRESENTING ci-or jTettotetetle..4"1* r, :L 1 f //t1:1 5 PHONE 7;t712 -Y2:1 6/7,/=77x/ 6j /f to 2x1_ -21Q 7-37- -8"7 ITEM NO. 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director P6 SUBJECT: MEASURE "A" - Local Sales Tax for Transportation Attached is a copy of the "Riverside County Transportation Improvement Program", the proposed Expenditure Plan developed to show the voters of Riverside County specifically how revenues from a proposed 1/2 cent local sales tax for transportation will be used when they approve Measure "A" in November. This Expenditure Plan was developed through a cooperative effort by the cities, the County and other interested parties, and was approved by the Commission at their meeting on July 6, 1988. This plan reflects the outcome of a year of intense discussion and negotiation with local, regional and state agencies, and the results of a voter survey which helped determine the voters perception of the magnitude of the transportation problems within this county and the improvements they would be willing to fund to help maintain the quality of life we expect for Riverside County in the future. Staff will provide an overview of the Expenditure Plan and answer questions at the meeting. We will also discuss the environmental and engineering work to be undertaken jointly by the Riverside and Orange County Transportation Commissions and Caltrans, and the projects that have been proposed to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for inclusion in the Five -Year State Transportation Improvement Plan scheduled for adoption by the CTC in September. The passage of Measure "A" is by far the most important transportation issue facing the Commission in the next several months as it is the only real hope for adequate funding to be available to the Commission to plan and construct the improvements that will be needed to insure the future mobility of Riverside County residents. All Committee members are encourage to attend the meeting to review the plan and to ask any questions that they may have on the measure. CAC Agenda Item No. 3 August 29, 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN July 13, 1988 GOALS AND POLICIES IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY BY SUPPLEMENTING EXISTING FUNDS FOR TRANSPORTATION. Enhance Riverside County's ability to secure State and Federal funding for transportation by offering matching local funds. Avoid "Los Angelization" of Riverside County by reducing current traffic congestion problems now. PROVIDE FOR EQUITY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF MEASURE A REVENUES. Return funds to the: Western County, Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley proportionate to funds generated in those areas. Adopt Improvement Plan proposals which address the unique needs of each of these areas of the County. Provide for a reasonable balance between competing highway, commuter rail, transit, and local street and road needs. PROVIDE FOR LOCAL CONTROL OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROGRAM. Provide for cost-effective, local administration of the program through the existing Riverside County Transportation Commission. No new agency would be created to administer these funds. Delegate appropriate administrative responsibility to cities, the county, and other local agencies for local programs. This TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, which shall also act as the County's expenditure plan, was prepared by the Riverside County Transportation Commission for the proposed 1/2% local transactions and use tax for transportation to be collected for the next 20 years if approved by voters on November 8, 1988 - Measure A. This is proposed by the Commission as a means to fill the funding shortfall to implement needed highway and commuter rail projects, local street and road programs and transit improvements for the_ seniors and handicapped people.. SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY The -Improvement Plan Map illustrates both the Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley areas. The Western County area includes the cities of Riverside, Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Norco, Perris, and San Jacinto. It also includes the unincorporated communities of Sun City, Canyon Lakes, and Rancho California and other sparsely populated unincorporated areas. - 1. State Highways Many more state highway projects are needed to deal with congestion and safety problems than existing federal and state revenues can fund. The major focus in the Western County area is improvement to State Route 91 and the State Routes 91/60/1-215 interchange. The 1988 costs of these and other priority highway projects in the Western County area exceed $655.6 million. Estimated funds from existing state and federal sources will meet only about one-half of these needs. Measure A funds are anticipated to cover the other half. The highway projects to be implemented with funding assistance from Measure A funds returned to the Western County area are as follows: Route Limits Rte 91 Rte 91 Rte. 60 Rte 60 Orange County line to Mag- nolia Avenue (South-west Riverside) (Riverside Freeway) Magnolia Avenue to 91/60/I-215 Interchange (Riverside Freeway) Interstate 215 to Redlands Boulevard (Pomona Freeway) Route: 91 to Valley Way (Pomona Freeway) Rte 74 Interstate 15 to Interstate 215 Rte 74 Rte 79/ Sand- erson Rte 79 Rte 60/I- Route 60 215 Winchester Road to Warren Road Interstate 10 to Route 74 near Hemet/San Jacinto Newport Road to Keller Road Route 91 to Cost Range Proiect (S Millions) Widen from 6 to 10 lanes (Add 2 lanes in each direction) Add up to 2 lanes in each direction Widen to 6 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) Widen to 6 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) Widen to 4 lanes (add 1 -lane in each direction) Realign curve Widen portions to 4 lanes & construct all- weather crossing at Sanderson Widen to 4 lanes (Add 1 lane in each' direction) Widen to 8 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) $ 118.0 173.5 21.7 16.8 28.8 2.0 19.4 10.0 18.8 *Rte I-215 Interchange to San Bernardino County line Rte 60/91/I-215 91/60 Interchange Rte. 60 Various &. 91 locations Rte Various 60, 91 locations & 1- 215 All Various locations All Spaced per standard/all. highways Widen to 8 lanes (add 1 lane in each direction) Reconstruct with 2 direct freeway to freeway ramps Lease Park & Ride lots Interchange work to improve local circulation Share cost of interchanges for job.devel- opment 14.2 115.0 2.0 30.5 20.0 Augment highway 2.0 call box funding Contingencies 32.0 TOTAL. $ 624.7 * If connecting projects are constructed in San Bernardino County. Funds to support these projects will come from a highway and commuter rail transportation account of $339 million. 2. Local Streets and Roads Over the last 20 years, available funds for maintenance of local streets and roads has declined. At the same time, these facilities are reaching "middle age," with potholes and need for major reconstruction.; Local street improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments willcontinue to be paid for by the developers. The greatest need is for maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing city and county road system. Current resources cover only 25% to 50% of the pavement maintenance needs. -4- The Improvement Plan proposes that 40% of the Measure A funds to be returned to the Western County area shall be used to assist funding for local streets and roads. Funds should be distributed to the cities and the County by a formula based 75% on proportionate population and 25% on Measure A revenues generated within each jurisdiction. Five year Capital Improvement Programs will be prepared and annually updated within each city and the County with public participation. 3. Discount Fares and More Transit Service for Seniors and Handicapped Discount transit fares for seniors (age 60 and older) and handicapped people are now one-half the normal fare for fixed route transit service within the Western County area. Measure A funds will be used to guarantee continuation of this reduced fare for 20 years. In addition, funds will be used to provide further reductions for the truly needy. Funds will be used to; expand existing services and implement new services. Ways to do -this include providing vans and operating assistance to social service agencies, contracts for evening taxi service for medical purposes, and an outreach program to advise seniors and handicapped people of all available transit services and how to use them. The intent of this program is to provide service to those with no other means of transportation. Funding for this program:. would come from $31 million for specialized transportation. 4. Commuter Buses, Carpools and Vanpools A systematic program will be implemented that encourages the use of commuter bus, carpools and vanpools to make our existing highway system work better during congested rush hour periods. The commuter bus component will consist of express bus service between major points for home and work trips utilizing special bus/carpool lanes on the freeway system as they are constructed. The use of carpool and vanpools will be encouraged by improving computer assisted ridesharing matching programs, encouraging positive incentives by major employers and providing "seed" money for the start up of vanpool groups for initial vehicle_ purchase, insurance and related costs. Fundin for this program would come from $31 milli or specialized transportation programs. -5- 5. Commuter Rail to Los Angeles and Orange Counties Recent studies indicate that development of a commuter rail system using existing rail lines from the Riverside/San Bernardino areas to Los Angeles and Orange Counties is feasible. Commuter rail service would be beneficial to Riverside area commuters, and Los Angeles and Orange County employers. There are considerable federal and state funds available to match local dollars for theprovision of rail transit service. It is the intent of this Improvement Plan to match to the maximum extent possible these federal and state funds for the implementation of commuter rail service to both Los Angeles and Orange Counties. It is anticipated that this program will involve a cooperative plan to be funded by Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Orange Counties. In order for Riverside County to be able to qualify for full state matching funds for commuter rail, Measure _ on this same ballot will need to be passed by the voters. This will allow Riverside County to be allocated a share of the $75 million per year which the California Transportation Commission must, by law, set aside from the state highway account for rail transit. Commuter Rail Route P•ara- ilel to Rte 91, I - 1 0 and 1-215 Limits Project Riverside to Los Angeles and Orange Counties Commuter rail on existing lines Cost Range (S Millions) $ 100.0 Riverside County's share of funds for these projects will come from a highway and commuter rail transporta- tion account of $339 million. COACHELLA VALLEY The Transportation Improvement Plan generally illustrates the proposals for the Coachella Valley Area The area includes the cities of Cathedral. City, Coacheila, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, and Rancho Mirage. It also includes the major unincorporated areas and a substantial amount of more sparsely populated county areas.. 1. State Highways and Major Regional Road Projects Fifty-five percent of the Measure. A funds generated within the Coachella Valley will be used for state highways and major regional road projects. The Coachella Valley area is served by few state highways. The proposed Regional. Arterial System developed through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments would function much like state highways to address future needs for the area., Of the 55% share, about, one -quarter will supplement federal and state funds for thefollowing state highway projects: Route Limits Rte 86. .Dillon Road. to Oasis Rte 111 All Ramon to Indio Boulevard Spaced per standard/all highways Contingencies TOTAL Project Construct 4 -lane freeway Various operational improvements Augment highway call box funding Cost Range SS Millions) $ 55.7 20.0 1.0 2.8 $ 79.5 The remaining Measure A share of this fund will be used to implement the planned Regional. Arterial System. The estimated cost for arterial system improvements will -7- exceed $200 million. The proposed system is to be implemented with a mix of existing funding, required from new development, a Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee which would also be paid by developers from new development, and Measure A funds returned to the Coachella Valley Area. The Uniform Traffic Mitigation fee schedule shall be established in order to generate at least the equivalent of Measure A funding toward the regional arterial system. It is anticipated that this plan will be implemented through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. The highest priority projects include the Mid -Valley Parkway (from Gene Autry north of Vista Chino to I-10 at Monterey), Palm Drive/Gene Autry Trail (from the Mid -Valley Parkway to Desert Hot Springs), Fred Waring Drive (from Route 111 in Palm Desert to Indio Boulevard), and Jefferson Street (from Avenue 54 to Indio Boulevard). 2. Local Streets and Roads As in Western Riverside County, over the last 20 years available funds have not kept pace with local streets and roads needs in the Coachella Valley. Cities and the county are also faced with the problems of an aging system and potholes. The Measure A funds would supplement existing federal, state, and local funds. Local street improvements adjacent to new residential and business developments will continue to be paid for by the developers. The greatest need is for maintenance and rehabilitation of the existing city and county road system. Current resources cover only 25% of the pavement maintenance needs. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments will play a role in determining allocations to local governments for streets and roads. Local streets and roads funds will be provided to Coachella Valley cities and the county if they participate in the uniform Traffic Mitigation fee program to assist in financing the priority Regional Arterial System. If local agencies choose not to levy the additional developer fees, the funds they would otherwise receive for local streets and roads will be added to the Measure A funds for the Regional Arterial System. In addition, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments will have -8- the discretion to provide a portion of these funds to increase funding for specialized transit programs for seniors and handicapped people, bus replacement or other transit programs which may improve air quality. The Coachella Valley Improvement Plan anticipates that from $84 to $96 million of the funds will be available for local streets and roads projects. Allocations of funds to the cities and the County will be based on a formula weighted 50% on proportionate dwelling units and 50% on Measure A revenues generated within each jurisdiction. Five year Capitz1 Improvement Programs will be prepared and annually updated within each city and the County with public participation. 3. Discount Fares and More Transit Service for Seniors and Handicapped Discount transit fares for seniors (age 60 and older) and handicapped people are now one-half the normal fare for fixed route transit service for most of the day within the Coachella Valley area. Measure A funds will be used to guarantee reduced fares for 20 years. In addition, Measure k funds will be used to provide further reductions for the truly needy. Funds will used to expand existing services and implement new services. Ways to do this include providing vans and operating assistance to social service agencies, contracts for evening taxi service for medical -purposes, and an outreach program to advise seniors and handicapped people of all available transit services. The intent of this program is to provide service to those with no other means of transportation. Funding for this program would come from $12 million of the retail transaction and use tax funds set aside for specialized transportation programs. 4. Commuter Buses, Carpools and Vanpools A systematic program to encourage the use of commuter buses, carpools and vanpools is also proposed for the Coachella Valley. This program would beparticularly beneficial to get employees to seasonal jogs in the Desert hospitality industry. It will also improve air quality within the Coachella Valley. The commuter bus component will consist of express buses serving major work locations. The use of carpools and vanpools will -9- also be encouraged by improving computer assisted ridesharing matching programs, encouraging positive incentives by major employers and providing "seed" money for the start up of vanpool groups for initial vehicle purchase, insurance anti related costs. Funding for this program would come from the $12 million set aside for specialized transportation programs. 5. BusReplacement and More Service Sunline Transit Agency does not have enough federal. and state funds to replace their buses as they wear out.. Despite continuous maintenance and periodic rehabilitation, the need to replace the fleet within the next 20 years is anticipated. Replacement buses would also meet more stringent air pollution control requirements. Funding may also be needed for additional bus service. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments: may provide up to an additional $12 million. PALO VERDE VALLEY The Palo Verde Valley is located on the far eastern side of Riverside. County. It is geographically separated and remote from the Western and Coachella Valley areas. The population within the area is relatively small, and significant growth over the next 20 years is not anticipated. The Palo Verde Valley is served by Interstate 10 as a divided freeway providing adequate connections to more westerly portions of Riverside County and east to Arizona. Increased transit needs canbe adequately met from existing available sources. The greatest need within the Palo Verde Valley area is additional funding to maintain and rehabilitate local streets and roads. All of the $13 million Measure A funds to be returned to the Palo Verde Valley are to be used for local streets and roads. Funds shall be distributed to the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside by formula. The formula distribution is based 75% on proportionate population and 25% on sales tax revenues generated in each jurisdiction. -10- MEASURE A: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN M ajo r Highway, Arterial, Commuter Rail, and Transit Projects Local street and road, local bus, Dial -A -Ride, a nd call box improvements not shown. • NO RCO .r . ,v .v ' •a CORONA RIVERSIDE 4 4• • • • LAKE ELSINORE ►. • • • 11 . Major Improvements to L ocal Stre ets and R oads PALO VERDE VALLEY ♦ •'V. e. • • M ORENO VALLEY • • 0 Sun City • • • • • BEAUMONT BANNING • HEM ET SAN JACINTO • ❑DQ❑ ■❑❑ • • • Ran cho Caldornia • • • DESERT H OT SPRINGS PALM SPRINGS • • CATHEDRAL CITY • RANCHO MIRAGE • Highwa y Widening and Improvements (Routes 91, 60,1-215, 111, 74, 79, 86, and 91/60/1-215 interchange) Arteriallmprovements ♦ 1 ♦ ♦ Highway Interchange Improvements at Key Loc ations `■ ■ gip Com mu te r Ra il on Existing Tracks to O range Coun ty, with co nnections to Lo s An geles and San Bernardino 11❑ 0 ❑ Il? tithe r Po tential Commu ter Rail Corrido rs (existing tracks) • . • Co mmu ter Bus, Carpoo Wa npo oi Pro grams WESTERN COUNTY 10 DESERT •- • . INDIAN WELLS 1 0 0 • 54th LA O UINTA CO ACHELLA VALLEY INDIO COACHELLA Measure A Revenue Allocations ($ millions) Western County Area Highways and Commuter Rail Account $ 339.0 Streets and Roads Account. 247.0 Specialized Transportation Account 31.0 Total Western County Area Measure A Funds $ 617.0 Coachella Valley Area Highways and Regional Arterial Account $ 132.0 Local Streets and Roads Account 84.0 - 96.0 Specialized Transportation Account 12.0 - 24.0 Total Coachella Valley Measure A Funds $ 240.0 Palo Verde Valley Area Local Streets and Roads Account Total Palo Verde. Valley Area Measure A Funds TOTAL. 20 YEAR MEASURE A REVENUES $ 13,0 $ 13.0 $ 870.0 GENERAL. PROVISIONS OF THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN 1. Basis for Revenue Estimates Federal and state participation for highway and commuter rail funding is based upon an assumed statewide $1 billion annual capacity expanding program. (Excluding highway rehabilitation and safety improvement projects.) Riverside County's "70% county minimum" share of this amount is assumed to be about $25 million. Reflecting the need to reserve about 20% of these funds for projects proposed by CalTrans which are not included in this Transportation Improvement Plan, the assumed federal and state funding is about $20 million per year. This is approximately 50% of the highway projects within this Plan. Measure A revenue estimates have not been adjusted to reflect inflation.. It is assumed that inflation related revenue increases will be offset by inflating project costs.. "Real growth" is assumed to parallel county -wide population growth. Prudentgrowth rates of the State Department of Finance have been used - 4.5% to 1990, 3.5t to 1995, and 2.5% thereafter. Based upon these factors, total Measure A revenues over the 20 year period are assumed: to be about $870 million. 2. Basis for Cost Estimates Allcost estimates within this Improvement Plan are prel-iminary and are based on 1988 values. Future costs may increase due to inflation or other factors beyond the control of the Commission. 1988 cost estimates are to be used to determine the proportionate distribution of funds by area and category of transportation program. 3.. State Highway and Commuter Rail Programs a. Eligible state highway project costs include engineering, right-of-way acquisition and long-term leases, and construction. Funds are intended to supplement existing Federal and state sources -- not replace them. At minimum, 50% of the funds for the highway projects listed in the Plan should come from state and federal sources. If it is determined that Riverside County is not receiving its fair share of existing funds, sales tax funds may be redirected to other types of transportation needs. b. Commuter Rail projects are anticipated to be on existing rail lines to Los Angeles and Orange Counties, or internal to Riverside County. If commuter rail service is to occur, railroads must agree to a Plan to use their right-of-way and tracks, an agency for implementation of a multi - county system must be created, funding must be securedfor on -going operations if a subsidy is required and state and/or federal and other county funding participation must be secured. c. The scope of highway and commuter rail projects to be implemented is to be determined through required environmental analysis and full consideration of alternatives. Public participa- tion duringthe environmental analysis, process is required. d. The Commission shall establish a "State Highway and Commuter_ Rail Transportation Account" for funding capital expenditures for state highways and commuter rail. This account will consist of 60% of the Measure A funds for the Western County area and In of the funds for the Coachella Valley area. 4. Specialized Transportation Programs a. Eligible transit programs include special discount fares for seniors and handicapped people, commuter bus services, funding for computer assisted rideshare programs, and "seed" programs to encourage the creation of vanpools.' Bus capital replacement and additional bus service may also be an eligible program within the Coachella Valley, subject to a determination of funding by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. b. The Commission shall establish a "Specialized Transportation Programs Account" for funding these programs. The Commission shall determine to which public transportation or specialized transportation service operators, or carpool/vanpool facilitating agencies, shall receive funding assistance. Based on 20 year funding estimates, the amount of funds should be $30.8 million for the Western County area and $12 million for the Coachella. Valley Area. The fund for the. Coachella Valley may increase up to an additional $12 million for Sunline Transit Agency capital replacement, at the discretion of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. 5. Local Streets and Roads Projects a. Eligible local street and road project costs include any engineering, capital or maintenance cost. Decisions on projects are to be made by local jurisdictions, but subject to Capital Improvement Program requirements. The first five year program shall be submitted to the Commission by the local agencies by May 1, 1989. b. Annual population estimates used for the distribution formula for the Western County and Palo Verde Valley areas shall be from the State Department of Finance. Dwelling unit estimates used for the distribution formula'for the -Coachella Valley shall be from the Riverside County Planning Department.- Actual State Board of Equalization retail sales transactions shall be used for the formula in all three areas for cities. The County Planning Department shall estimate the share for each of the unincorporated areas for the three areas, from the total retail sales transactions for the total unincorporated area. c. The Commission shall assure the cities' and county compliance with maintenance of effort funding requirements before allocating funds for local streets and roads. Further, the Commission shall not allocate funds to an individual city or the County for local streets and road use within the Coachella Valley area unless the Coachella Valley Association of Governments indicates participation -15- of that agency in the Uniform Traffic Mitigation Fee program necessary for implementation of the planned. Regional Arterial System. d.. The Commission shall establish a "Local Streets and Roads Program Account." Based on 20 year funding estimates, the amount of funds should be $216 million for the Western County area, and from. $84 to $96. million. for . the Coachella: Valley Area 6. Funding Flexibility and Bonding to Expedite Program The Commission_ may make maximum use or available funds by temporarily shifting allocations between geographic areas and transportation~ purposes.. However-, the proportionate shares for- areas or the purposes over the. 20• year period may not be changed without an amendment to the Improvement Piano as- required ` by law:.,. Shifts: may not be made without previous consultation with the affected agencies. The Commission.. may also: use bonds tospeed implementa- tion. of some : projects -1- Bonding will not be used without first determining' that the benefits. of an accelerated program outweigh the additional cost of interest on borrowed funds.. Informing the Publics of Local Funding Support Ail: state highway, commuter rail,. and regional arterial projects using $E million or more of sales- tax revenues shall be, signed toinform_ the public that localvoter approved revenues:. are being: used to support the project. 8'.- Severance Provision If ° ` any provision of this Improvement Plan is for any reason held invalidor unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the Commission declares that it would hove passed each part of this Plan irrespective of the validity of any other part. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM. Hideo Sugita, Staff Analyst SUBJECT: Callbox Project Update On Thursday, August 25, 1988 the consultant for the callbox study will be presenting an update to the Bi-County Technical Advisory Committee. Staff will update the Citizens Advisory Committee of the current status of the callbox study at your August 29th meeting. CAC Agenda Item No. 4 August 29, 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Staff Analyst, SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Feasibility Study At the Riverside County Transportation Commission's July 6, meeting, the Commission reviewed the Preliminary Feasibility Assessment Q1 the Riverside -Orange County Commuter Rail Service which was produced by the Commission's consultants, Sharon Greene and Associates and Schiermeyer Consulting Services. (copy enclosed) After reviewing the preliminary data on capital and operating costs, potential ridership and institutional issues the Commission approved the report as the basis for including commuter rail projects in the Expenditure Plan for Measure A. Following this memorandum is the staff summary report which was presented to the Commission at their July 6, 1988 meeting. CAC Agenda Item No. 5 August 29, 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Hideo Sugita, Staff Analyst , Subject: Preliminary Feasibility Assessment, Orange County Commuter Rail Service Riverside - The Commission's consultants, Schiermeyer Consulting Services and Sharon Greene and Associates, have completed the preliminary feasibility assessment of providing commuter rail service from Riverside County through Santa Ana Canyon to the Irvine Amtrak Station. The following is a very brief overview of the operating characteristics, capital and operating requirements. Operating Characteristics The service would start from the Seventh Street station in Riverside and travel 49.4 miles to the Irvine station. At this time, 12 potential station sites have been identified, five in Riverside County and seven in Orange County. This assessment was based upon running four trains in the morning, from Riverside to Irvine and four trains in the early evening from Irvine back to Riverside. Each train would consist of an engine and four high density passenger cars having 160 seats with sitting capacity plus standing room being 225 per car. The proposed service, as evaluated in this report, would be run on 20 -minute headways on both the A.M and P.M. runs. The projected travel time from the Riverside Seventh Street station to Irvine is 74 minutes and the projected average train speed is almost 40 MPH. Train storage during the day would be at Irvine and at the Riverside Seventh Street station at night. In all, five train sets will be required with one set used to rotate the others for maintenance purposes. Preliminary passenger estimates, provided by the Southern California Association of Governments, show that if the service were operational by 1993, it would be run at approximately 73% of capacity. The patronage forecast, which is a bonus to this study because SCAG provided this without charge, is a preliminary estimate which would need to be refined at such time Measure A is successful and the project moves forward. Capital and Operating Costs The consultants have provided a low and high scenario for capital costs. The low end total capital cost is $78.3 million and the high end is $137.9 million. The only difference between the two cost figures is that the high end assumes double tracking of the Page 2 ATSF line through Santa Ana Canyon to Riverside. The capital costs include railroad improvements, land acquisition, station improvements, train engines and cars and insurance retention. The consultants have provided a rough estimate of the annual operating costs for the proposed service which is $9.33 million. They have also provided a very preliminary estimate, based on the ridership estimates which provides a range of what could be expected in terms of fare revenues. The range is a low of $2.4 million to a high of $6.64 million. Using the low estimate, both Orange and Riverside Counties would each have to supplement the operation of this service with $3.5 million of other funding. Conclusion The Commission recognizes the need for improving the flow of commuter traffic through the Santa Ana Canyon corridor. This project, as roughed out in this preliminary feasibility study, would contribute to improving the flow of traffic through the Santa Ana Canyon corridor by putting some auto occupants on to commuter rail. This report satisfies two Commission objectives: 1) The report documents the feasibility of commuter rail between Riverside and Orange Counties, and 2) This report will serve as a good foundation for outlining a more in depth study of this service should Measure A be successful. RECOMMENDATION That the RCTC accept the commuter rail report as a basis for including such projects in the Measure A Plan. HS AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: Transit Vehicle Accessibility Attached is the report presented to the Commission at their meeting on August 3rd concerning whether or not accessibility features for transit vehicles required by the State in conformance with Section 4500 of the Government Code applies to the purchase of used buses needed to improve or expand services. The Commission accepted the Legal Counsel's opinion and the staff recommendation. In all fairness to the SunLine Transit Agency and its staff, we should point out that there were several legitimate reasons why they wanted to purchase used buses that would not necessarily be lift equipped. First, capital funding from federal sources available to the Coachella Valley area are not as plentiful as they are for the Western County area. Formula funds available annually to the Palm Springs urbanized area through the UMTA Section 9 Program will fund less than 1 replacement bus/year. Second, SunLine wanted to expand their services during the next year to meet the demands of continually increasing ridership within the Coachella Valley area and to attempt to meet the transportation needs of a relatively large pool of unemployed San Gorgonio Pass area residents to hotel and other service industry jobs in the Coachella Valley area. CAC Agenda Item No. 6 August 29, 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director Dr SUBJECT: Legal Opinion Regarding Used Bus Accessibility Requirements Last month the Commission, in approving the Sunline Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan, directed staff to obtain a legal opinion whether or not requirements under Section 4500 of the Government Code relating to accessibility of transit vehicles apply to the purchase of used buses. There are two ways to obtain an opinion from the Attorney Generals Office, by request from a Legislator and request from County Counsel. Staff requested County Counsel, who provides legal counsel for the Commission, to obtain an opinion from the Attorney General's Office regarding this matter. Joe Rank, assigned to the Commission by County Counsel, researched the issue prior to requesting an opinion. He has issued an opinion based on Section 4500 of the Government Code and a prior opinion regarding accessibility of transit vehicles issued by the Attorney General's Office. His opinion is that the purchase of used buses contemplated by the Sunline Transit Agency must meet the accessibility requirements of Section 4500, that is, they must be accessible for handicapped persons. He also states that we would not be further served by seeking an additional opinion from the Attorney General's Office. A copy of his opinion is attached. Staff recommends that Sunline proceed with their efforts to expand services as outlined in their approved Short Range Transit Plan and to find and purchase used transit coaches that are accessible to the handicapped to implement these service expansions. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission accept the legal opinion of County Counsel, encourage Sunline Transit Agency to move as rapidly as possible to implement the FY 1988/89 service expansion projects as approved in their FY 1989-93 Short Range Transit Plan and approve funding to purchase used buses for expansion of services so long as the buses meet the accessibility requirements of Section 4500 of the Government Code. Agenda Item No. 4 August 3, 1988 GERALD J. GEERLINGS COU:.nv CC J S« OFFICE OF -HE PRINCIPAL DEPUTIES W. W. MILLER, CH:EE PETER M. L ONS _-V:AR P4:•.•[R COUNTY COUNSEL RIVERSI'OE COUNTY 3535 -TENTH STREET, SUITE 300 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501-3674 'E_E-+-CNE :714! 767 242.. July 25, 1988 Mr. Jack Reagan Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4075 Main Street, Suite 302 Riverside, California 92501 Dear Mr. Reagan: KA T:ENSTE.N C A. ✓R.CH GLENN P S. -TER ROBERT M, PEPPER DC'ROT - V L HCNN .. AN ©O _,ER SRERRr G. GORDON FAr✓.ELA J. ANDERSON N ARv M.: TCFIELI Your request for opinion of July 14, 1988, involved Government Code Section 4500 at it relates to making transit systems accessible to handicapped per- sons. Specifically, you were seeking a determination as to whether the pur- chase of used transit equipment would require retrofitting to comply with the above -referenced code section. While we were unable to find any case law "on point", a 1987 Attorney General Opinion provided some meaningful insights. The questions addressed in 70 Op.Atty. Gen 70 were raised as to the "accessibility", requirement where local government was contracting for "services" and not equipment itself as well as where local government leases transit equipment. The initial thrust of the opinion was to general legal principles and inter- pretations. In reviewing the specific language of Section 4500, it was de- termined that the use of future tense ("shall be obligated to require"; "shall be so built"; "shall have ready access to") was so stated to prevent public agencies from being required to retrofit existing equipment. As to activities subsequent to the passage of Section 4500, however, the Attorney General has opined that "it is applicable to any contract awarded which pertains to rapid transit equipment and which contemplates the use of that equipment in a public transit system." (Emphasis originally added.) As pointed out by footnote, "The actual time the equipment was built would be immaterial." The general theme of the cited Attorney General Opinion looks to the legislative intent of Section 4500 and finds that the words "awarding contracts for equipment" pertains to ALL contracts and requires accessibility be established. Given the foregoing, it is the opinion of this office that the contemplated purchase of used transit equipment by SunLine Transit Agency would require Mr. Jack Reagan July 25, 1988 Page Two compliance with Government Code Section 4500. It is further our opinion, that given the findings of 70 Opp.Atty.Gen. 70, your interest would not be served by seeking an additional Attorney General's Opinion. Very truly yours, GERALD J. GEERLINGS County Counsel By: Joe S. Rank Deputy County Counsel JSR:jf RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director SUBJECT: SCRTD Lines 149 and 496 Contracting The County Transportation Commissions in Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles Counties and several transit operators have been working on a proposal for over a year to reduce the cost and subsidy of two intercity lines currently operated by the Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD). The two lines are Line 496 (San Bernardino -Riverside - Los Angeles) and Line 149 (Riverside -Anaheim -Long Beach). The Riverside Transit Agency, at the request of the Commission has taken on the role of lead agency for this project. Staff will provide a status report on this project at the meeting. CAC Agenda Item No. 7 August 29, 1988 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No. 6-88 June 1, 1988 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission/Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies Board was called to order by Chairman Don Baskett at 2:05 p.m. on Wednesday, June 1, 1988, at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Members present: Don Baskett Kay Ceniceros Susan Cornelison Alternates present: Russ Beirich Jack Clarke Dick Deininger Melba Dunlap Roy Wilson Al Lopez Pat Murphy Ray Tanner Chairman Baskett welcomed and introduced Ken Steele, the newly appointed Caltrans District 8 Director. Self introductions of others present followed. 2. Approval of Minutes. M/S/C (DUNLAP/CLARKE) to approve the minutes of the May 4, 1988 meeting as submitted. 3. Public Comments. There were no public comments. 4. Consent Calendar. M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to approve the consent calendar. A. Lake Elsinore Transit System (LETS) - State Transit Assistance Fund Claim. To adopt Resolution 88 -5 -LET allocating $72,000 in State Transit Assistance funds to the Lake Elsinore Transit System to provide local match funds for an UMTA Section 18 grant to purchase two lift -equipped transit coaches. Page 2 B. UMTA 16(b)2 Grant Applications. 1. That Meditrans and the Cathedral City Senior Center be required to cooperate with the Commission in conducting the CTSA Alternatives/Feasibility Study and to coordinate their services with the public transit operators and any new operator that may be created as a result of the study. 2. To highly recommend the Meditrans and the Cathedral City Senior grant applications for approval by Caltrans with the condition that the Cathedral City Senior Center provide information to Caltrans documenting the need for the service. C. Overall Work Program Planning Funds for Transit. To approve UMTA 8 pass through funds from SCAG to the Riverside County Transportation Commission ($12,000), SunLine Transit Agency ($28,000), and Riverside Transit Agency ($40,000). 5. Fiscal Audits. Jack Reagan informed the Commission that Request for Proposals were sent out to firms to conduct fiscal audits of the Commission, the Transportation Development Act Fund, the State Transit Assistance Fund, and the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies. The firms that responded were: 1) Thomas, Byrne and Smith; 2) B.R. Sharp; 3) Peat, Marwick, Main & Company; and, 4) Ernst & Whinney. One of the criteria for selection was that the firm would have to have a peer review. Of the four firms that submitted a proposal, only two (Peat, Marwick, Main & Company, and Ernst & Whinney) had a peer review. In terms of the proposed cost for the fiscal audit, Ernst & Whinney was $1300 higher. However, staff recommended that the Commission select Ernst & Whinney because they design the audit requirements around the operations of the agency. The Commission is a very small agency, it does not have a lot of administrative guidelines and regulations, and relies very heavily on the County auditor's office. Commissioner Deininger stated that in the City of Corona, they have to select the lowest bid. He asked if the Commission is also constraint to the same requirement. Paul Blackwelder pointed out the difference with a Request for Proposal and a Request for Bids. He said that with a Request for Proposal, the Commission does not have to select the firm with lowest proposal if they have reasons for choosing another qualified proposer. Page 3 M/S/C (DUNLAP/WILSON) to select the firm of Ernst & Whinney to perform the fiscal audits of the Commission, the Transportation Development Act Fund, the State Transit Assistance Fund, and the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies. 6. FY 1989-1993 Short Range Transit Plan. Hideo Sugita stated that SunLine's Plan was not included in the agenda packet. Staff's review of the operators' plans indicated compliance with the Commission's unmet transit needs findings, reasonableness of estimated cost and ridership increases, compliance with fare revenue to operating cost ratio requirements, and justification for capital projects. With the exception of RTA, no major service expansion during the five-year period has been planned by Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Lake Elsinore Transit System, Rancho Mirage, Riverside Special Services and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency. For FY 1988-89, the RTA Plan proposed: 1) implementation of a Corona/Norco fixed -route service; 2) extension of Route 29 to the Belltown area; 3) a study of the Rubidoux area to determine the feasibility of a second route to expand coverage of the area and to improve the headway of Line 29 to 60 minutes; and, 4) a survey Lake Elsinore area employers to determine if there is a demand for service to and from the Perris area for commuters. Paul Blackwelder stated that SunLine's Plan would before the Commission next month. The Plan will be in four tiers: 1) Service levels with no funding limitations; 2) Service level with 10% of the expected local sales tax revenues for the Coachella Valley area to be used for transit; 3) Service levels with 5% of the expected local sales tax revenues for the Coachella Valley area to be used for transit; and, 4) Service levels using current revenue sources available for transit. Commissioner Ceniceros said that RTA proposes to examine and evaluate future service needs in the Sun City area and suggested that RCTC be involved in the process... Barry Samsten, RTA staff, said that the evaluation of the Sun City area is built into RTA's work plan. Staff has committed to its Board to do the work. M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to: A. Approve the FY 1989-1993 Short Range Transit Plan for the public transit operators in the Western County and Palo Verde Valley areas of Riverside County. Page 4 B. Include the Sun City area in the list of areas to be monitored and studied by RTA and RCTC to determine transit service needs. C. Authorize staff to transmit the plans to SCAG. 7. Allocation of TDA Funds to Transit Operators. Paul Blackwelder informed the Commission that for FY 1988/89, (approximately $3.6 million more than last year) $19,891,611 is available in Transportation Development Act funds in Riverside County. Included in the agenda packet are Table I, which showed the funds available for each apportionment area and the recommended TDA allocation for each transit operator, and Table II, which showed the estimated operating and capital expenses and proposed revenue sources based on the operators' Short Range Transit Plan, the preliminary TIP, and the operators' budgets. Although SunLine's plan approval was not scheduled until the Commission's next meeting, Commission approval of the TDA allocations for all public transit operators was necessary due to a new State law that claims by public transit operators approved after June 30th would have to have "pull notice" certifications signed off by the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Because the CHP has indicated that they will not be able to certify public operators for the 6-9 months, it would cause a cash flow problem for the public operators if allocations were not approved. He said that although the Commission is approving the allocation at this time, TDA funds for SunLine will not be disbursed until such time as the Commission has approved the SunLine Short Range Transit Plan. M/S/C (WILSON/TANNER) to approve the TDA allocation for the public transit operators as recommended by staff 8. Minimum Fare Revenue Ratio for the Riverside Transit Agency. Paul Blackwelder said that the Commission is responsible for calculating the intermediate ratio for RTA and SunLine. As required by State law, because RTA and SunLine serve both urbanized and non -urbanized areas, their required minimum fare revenue to operating expense ratio must be between the 10% requirement for non -urbanized area services and the 20% requirement for urbanized area services. Using the formula developed by the Commission and approved by the State and based on RTA's Short Range Transit Plan, the minimum required ratio for RTA in FY 1988/89 is 18%. He pointed out that the ratio is fixed for the year and cannot be changed even though actual revenues and expenses differ from the estimates in the SRTP. After Commission's adoption of the required ratio, SCAG must also confirm the ratio. Page 5 M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to approve the minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio of 18.0* for the Riverside Transit Agency, and request SCAG concurrence of the ratio. 9. Legislation. M/S/C (DUNLAP/CENICEROS) to support AB 1872 (Deddah) and SB 2446 (Davis) . 10. Park and Ride Lot Security. Paul Blackwelder informed the Commission that the theft and vandalism problems in park and ride lots was brought up by a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Caltrans staff was invited to Committee meetings to report on the types of problems. Caltrans staff had indicated that it is difficult to assess the extent of the problems that occur at park and ride lots because of lack of addresses. Also, Caltrans is not able to contact and verify from persons who previously used on their reasons for discontinuing using the lots. Caltrans identified ways to deter theft and vandalism. One way is making space available to agencies such as Goodwill Industries and recycling centers to use the lots as collection points. The Committee recommended that the Commission request Caltrans District 8 to obtain addresses for the park and ride lots and attempt to lease limited space in the lots to agencies that would assign an employee to the lot to reduce theft and vandalism problems. Ken Steele stated that he will discuss the address problem with the California Highway Patrol to come up with a solution and assign addresses to the lots if it's needed. M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to request Caltrans District 08 to attempt to lease limited space in park and ride lots to agencies that would assign an employee to the lot to help to reduce thefts and vandalism. 11. Transportation Management Association Demonstration Project Funding. Jack Reagan stated that $600,000 is available statewide from Federal Highway Administration to conduct Transportation Management Association (TMA) demonstration project. For Riverside County, $30,000 is available for use as seed money to set up one or more TMA's. Chairman Baskett said that in a previous meeting with the Orange County Transportation Commission, the Orange County rideshare staff had stated their success in forming TMA's and the TMA's helped to increase the number of carpools. Page 6 Commissioner Cornelison added that she attended a meeting of the OCTC and UMTA in which a number of TMA representatives were present and that there was great amount of enthusiam with the program. She said that OCTC has dedicated quite a bit of staff time into developing TMA's. Jack Reagan said that Caltrans will allow 5% of pass through funds to offset administrative cost but if RCTC were to administer the program, he would propose absorbing the cost within RCTC operations. SCAG is also taking this same approach. M/S/C (DVNLAP/WILSON) to request Caltrans to program at least $30,000 in TMA Demonstration Project funds for Riverside County and direct staff to work with Caltrans, SCAG, the City and County of Riverside, and CVAG to develop projects to be funded. 12. Transportation Sales Tax Status Report. Jack Reagan reported on the following items: o Bechtel Civil, Inc., "Transportation Expenditure Plan, Scope and Cost Review" Reports. Copies of the Transportation Expenditure Plan, Scope and Cost Review Reports for the Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley area were distributed to Commission members. Jack Reagan said that he is very pleased with the reports. o Coachella Valley Traffic Mitigation Fee. Commissioner Murphy informed the Commission on discussions held at CVAG relating to the uniform mitigation fees. She said that there are cities in the Coachella Valley that feel that the proposed fees are too high. One of those cities is Cathedral City. She provided examples of the fees on commercial developments. Commissioner Wilson stated that the Coachella Valley area, with the exception of two cities, is solidly in support of moving forward with the mitigation fees. Jack Reagan said that CVAG has suggested and Commission staff agrees, that the Expenditure Plan ought to link the issue of uniform traffic mitigation fee with the sales tax. CVAG defines the development of the regional system as a priority and if a city chooses not to implement a uniform traffic mitigation fee, then the Page 7 amount of local sales tax funds that they would otherwise receive for local streets, based on the formula, would go into the regional pool of funds. Commissioner Ceniceros said that she had the impression that, generally, RCTC is supportive of an Expenditure Plan for Coachella Valley area that envisions a development fee supplementing existing and sales tax revenues issue and that they recognize that it is an important selling point for the measure. Commissioner Murphy has raised an issue of whether there is unanimity beyond consensus on the particular nature of the development fees. She asked if at the June 6 CVAG General Assembly meeting this issue would be resolved and could RCTC support this concept without nailing down the dollars? Les Cleveland, CVAG Executive Director, informed the Commission that the Executive Committee, at its meeting last night, adopted, in concept, the transportation package in its entirety which includes the concept of the mitigation fee. They did not accept the fee recommendation itself. There was concern that the fee, as it is right now, maybe too high. Another meeting of the Mitigation Fee Subcommittee will be scheduled to develop some options. The consultant was instructed to bring back scenarios to address some of the concerns from several of the cities at the Subcommittee meeting. He asked that the Commission let the Coachella Valley cities to work out the details for the uniform traffic mitigation fee. Jack Reagan said that a public survey indicated that there is support of the concept of development fees. To protect the Commission in relation to differing opinions regarding legality, he suggested that the uniform traffic mitigation fee be included in the Expenditure Plan as a severable clause. In the event that it is found not to be appropriate legally, then it can be eliminated without affecting any other provisions to the plan. Norm Ring, City Manager of Palm Springs, requested that the Commission leave the details of the uniform traffic mitigation fee to the cities in Coachella Valley. Mary Drury, Sunrise Company, stated that they participated in the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Subcommittee and they believe that the issue of mitigation fee is something that will have to be done sooner or later. Page 8 Chairman Baskett said that RCTC staff will be meeting with the cities and County to discuss the formula structure of how the revenues will be expended. From research, it is uncertain if the original expenditure plan is a salable product. The Committee will be working with the Commission's consultant, D.J. Smith, and private organizations to put together a salable package. M/S/C (CENICEROS/DUNLAP) to reaffirm the Commission's general direction that it will accept the essential decision yet to be made by the Coachella Valley and incorporate into the program when it returns in detail. 13. Agreement with Caltrans For Services Assistance In Planning and Constructing a Callbox System. Paul Blackwelder said that a proposed agreement between the Riverside County SAFE and Caltrans to provide assistance in the planning and construction of a callbox system in Riverside County is included in the agenda packet. The agreement calls for the Riverside County SAFE to reimburse Caltrans for actual costs, not to exceed $30,000, for review and approval of plans and specifications and for processing and approval of permits for the SAFE and its contractors. This is the same agreement negotiated between Caltrans and the San Bernardino and Ventura Counties' SAFE. M/S/C (DUNLAP/TANNER) to approve and authorize the Chairman to execute the proposed agreement between the Riverside County SAFE and Caltrans for assistance in planning and constructing a callbox system for Riverside County and to reimburse Caltrans for actual costs for their assistance as outlined in the agreement at a cost not to exceed $30,000. 14. SAFE Consultant Status Report. Bruce Churchill, Techplan, gave a status report of the callbox system. He briefed the Commission on the type of callboxes, cost, coverage and spacing of callboxes. He pointed out that affordability of cost for the Riverside - County system is based on joint progression with San Bernardino County. Using a map, he pointed out the controlled access freeways in Riverside County. They estimated that approximately 920 callboxes in the State routes and approximately 448 callboxes in the rural (non - controller) highways (Routes 10, 60, 15, 79, 86) will be installed in Riverside County. They will be going through the control access highways and eliminate those areas that have traffic controlled and/or readily available facilities in order to reduce the number of callboxes. The numbers are s. Page 9 based on today's existing Caltrans' guidelines which specified that an ADT of greater than 100,000 will require a spacing of 1/4 mile, for ADT of 40,000-100,000, a spacing of 1/2 mile and less than 40,000 ADT, a spacing of 1 mile. In looking at the total amount of finance, it is based upon vendor financing of 8%. They recommend a 10 -year life based on durability and potential changes in technology. The total cost is estimated to be from $17 to $25 million. The accummulated revenues within 10 years will be approximately $21,400,000 by 1998. They estimate we could afford to purchase, install and operate 920 boxes They will be looking at three sources to determine criteria: 1) Federal Highway Administration - federal highway program manual; 2) Joint CHP-Caltrans callbox guidelines dated July 1986; and, 3) Caltrans spacing guidelines dated October 1986. Some of the things that they will be looking at to develop alternatives are: 1) Can we or will we be able to live with increase spacing in the urban areas? 2) Should spacing of greater than 1 mile be used in rural areas? Policy issues to be resolved are: 1) The highways to be covered; 2) Spacing decisions in urban and rural areas given the highways to be covered; and, 3) If additional funding should be sought. Commissioner Ceniceros asked if the Commission should provide comments for prioritizing particular segment of routes. Bruce Churchill suggested that the Commission not address prioritizing at this early stage of the program until the total system is defined. Commissioner Cornelison asked if the study would be able to demonstrate to the Commission which routes will require radio relay stations. Bruce Churchill responded that after determination of the outer limits with cellular coverage then everything else will be radio controlled. Chairman Baskett thanked Bruce Churchill for the presentation. 15. Executive Director's Report. o Jack Reagan reported that an AB 1246 meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 8th, to discuss the regional "bid pot" and to coordinate the regional transportation improvement program. The Commission has previously approved its program. Commissioner Cornelison will be attending the meeting with staff. " P a g e 1 0 I t w a s t h e c o n s e n s u s o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n t o d i r e c t C o m m i s s i o n e r C o r n e l i s o n a n d J a c k R e a g a n r e p r e s e n t R C T C ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t a t t h e A B 1 2 4 6 m e e t i n g . o J a c k R e a g a n r e p o r t e d t h a t a m e e t i n g t o d i s c u s s t h e p r o p o s e d R F P f o r t h e O r a n g e C o u n t y / R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y R o u t e 9 1 S t u d y i s s c h e d u l e d t o b e h e l d o n J u n e 3 0 . I n t e r v i e w s o f t h e f i n a l p r o p o s e r s i s s c h e d u l e d o n J u l y 1 9 . T h e i n t e r v i e w p a n e l w i l l b e c o m p o s e d o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m O C T C , O C T D , C a l t r a n s D i s t r i c t 1 2 a n d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y w i t h e i t h e r a n R C T C s t a f f , C a l t r a n s D i s t r i c t 8 a n d e i t h e r a C o m m i s s i o n m e m b e r o r C o m m i s s i o n a p p o i n t e e . T h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e i n t e r v i e w p a n e l w i l l b e b e f o r e t h e R i v e r s i d e a n d O r a n g e C o u n t i e s ' C o m m i s s i o n f o r a c t i o n . C h a i r m a n B a s k e t t s u g g e s t e d t h a t a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f r o m t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y R o a d D e p a r t m e n t b e a m e m b e r o f t h e p a n e l . o J a c k R e a g a n n o t e d t h a t t h e n e x t C o m m i s s i o n m e e t i n g o n J u l y 6 t h w i l l b e a f t e r a h o l i d a y a n d s u g g e s t e d c h a n g i n g t h e m e e t i n g d a t e t o t h e f o l l o w i n g w e e k . I t w a s t h e c o n s e n s u s o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n t h a t s t a f f p o l l t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r s t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h d a t e m o s t C o m m i s s i o n e r s w i l l b e a b l e t o a t t e n d . 1 6 . S C A G R e p o r t . T h e r e w a s n o r e p o r t f r o m S C A G f o r t h i s m e e t i n g . 1 7 . A d j o u r n m e n t . T h e r e b e i n g n o o t h e r i t e m s b e f o r e t h e C o m m i s s i o n , C h a i r m a n B a s k e t t a d j o u r n e d t h e m e e t i n g a t 3 : 5 3 p . m . R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d , c k R e a g a n x e c u t i v e D i i ' c t o r N K