HomeMy Public PortalAbout12 December 10, 1984 Citizens Advisory4
040232
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, December 10, 1984, 1:30 P.M.
Riverside City Hall
Fourth Floor Conference Room
3900 Main Street, Riverside 92522
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes. (ACTION)
3. Election of Officers. (ACTION)
4. Committee Activity Discussion. (DISC.)
5. Transit Operations Quarterly Report. (INFO.)
6. RTA Marketing Program. (INFO.)
7. RCTC and CAC Schedule. (INFO.)
8. SB 821 Project List. (INFO.)
9. Adjournment. (INFO.)
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 3-84
September 10, 1984
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order at 12:50 p.m., on Monday, September 10, 1984, at the
Riverside City Hall, Fourth Floor Conference Room, 3900 Main
Street, Riverside by Barry Beck, Executive Director, who
acted as the Chairman Pro Tem as the Chairman and Vice
Chairman were absent. The Committee operated as a Committee
of the Whole as a quorum was not present.
Members present:
Jordis Cameron
Marian Carpelan
Herb Krauch
Others present:
Rand Martin
Joanne Moore
Laurence M. Weinberg
Bob Harvey, Caltrans District 8
Steve 011er, Riverside Transit Agency
Kay Van Sickel, Riverside Transit Agency
Guy Visbal, Caltrans District 8
2. Approval of Minutes.
There being no changes, deletions or additions to the
minutes of the June 11, 1984 meeting, the minutes were
approved as submitted.
3. Election of Officers.
This item was postponed until the next meeting.
4. Transit Operations Report.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, informed the Committee
that there were 3,983,639 countywide transit riders for FY
1983/84, 12.4% higher than the previous year. In the fourth
quarter of 1983-84, countywide ridership was 10% higher than
the fourth quarter ridership of last year. Most of the
increase in ridership occurred in the Riverside Transit
Agency and SunLine Transit Agency services. The SunLine
ridership increased by 17.7%. The RTA ridership increase
was 10%. The only services that showed a decline in the
number of riders were in the RTA dial -a -ride systems. The
decreases in ridership were most likely due to a fare
1
CAC Minutes
September 10, 1984
increase for all dial -a -ride services, elimination of
student discount fares and dispatching problems encountered
when all dispatching was consolidated into a central
facility. This year's transit service levels were
basically the same as last year. The total operating cost
for FY 83/84 was $8,794,000; 5.7% higher than the operating
costs last year, reported fare revenues were 12.1% higher,
and the operating subsidies rose 4.3%. The SunLine Transit
Agency has the highest subsidies per passenger with the
average subsidy per passenger for the Palm Springs E & H
service being $20.26 and $19.04 for the Palm Desert general
public service. The SunLine Transit Agency is in the pro-
cess of investigating the feasibility of establishing a non-
profit agency and/or contracting with private operators to
provide tel-a-ride services if it will reduce the cost. The
report will be submitted to the Commission by January 1,
1985.
Marian Carpelan asked for cost information on contracting
with taxicabs.
Steve 011er stated that RTA contracts with Riverside Red Cab
for services in Norco and the cost per passenger is $4.85.
Paul Blackwelder added that the City of Rancho Mirage con-
tracts with a local taxicab at a cost of $3-4 per trip.
Larry Weinberg gave an update on the status of the proposed
specialized transportation program in Coachella Valley. At
the last meeting, he reported that questionnaires were
mailed out to agencies in the Coachella Valley and 80% of
the agencies had returned them. The study group is in the
process of analyzing the responses and are hopeful that
perhaps a recommendation will be formed. He will keep the
Committee informed on the development of the study.
5. RTA Fixed -Route Wheelchair Lift Use Report.
Paul Blackwelder informed the Committee that the graph that
is included in the agenda packet shows the total lift use
for the past three years in RTA's fixed route system. While
the numbers are small, there is a steady increase in usage.
The cost to maintain and repair the lifts has decreased from
$19.87/use in 1981/82 to $6.00/use in 1983/84. As the
number of wheelchair lift use increases, the average
maintenance cost will be further reduced. It is staff's
present assessment that dial -a -ride is and will continue to
be the preferred and most effective way to meet the needs of
handicapped persons but that increased useof accessible
fixed route buses may help to reduce overall costs for
transporting the handicapped in the future.
2
CAC Minutes
September 10, 1984
In response to Marian Carpelan's question as to what the
requirements are on lift equipped buses, Paul Blackwelder
said that the federal requirements allows local option with
either accessible fixed route service, supplemental
paratransit services for handicapped or some combination of
accessible fixed route and paratransit service. State
requirements are that all transit vehicles purchased with
State funds must be accessible.
6. Route 91 Congestion.
Paul Blackwelder stated that with Route 91 becoming more
and more congested due to increased commuters from Riverside
to Orange County, a speed survey on Route 91 from Corona
west to Coal Canyon Road was done by Caltrans. The graph
showing the results of the survey is included in the agenda
packet. He said that the survey showed that in the segment
near Route 71 the average speeds dropped below 35 mph for a
period of over one hour (from before 6 a.m. to after 7:15
a.m.). The lowest speed recorded was at 15 mph. He said
that he had invited RTA and Caltrans to give the Committee a
brief presentation on what efforts are being made to reduce
congestion on the Route 91 corridor.
Steve Oiler briefed the Committee on the bus pools that are
being provided within the Route 91 corridor. He said that
RTA contracts with Hunt Transportation which operates a
monthly subscription commuter bus service between Tyler Mall
in Riverside and Hughes Aircraft Company in Fullerton.
Taylor Bus Service provides two commuter bus services out of
Tyler Mall with one route serving McDonnell Douglas Aircraft
in Huntington Beach and the other route serving the Santa
Ana Civic Center. The fare for the Hunt commuter bus ser-
vice is $60/month and $75/month for the Taylor commuter bus
service. Steve 011er stated that the commuter buspool ser-
vices operated by Taylor are experiencing problems because
of lack of passengers. If low ridership continues, the RTA
Board will have to make a determination at the end of the
year whether to continue the service.
Joanne Moore commented that perhaps the problem is in the
monthly fare charge as it is a little bit too much.
Steve 011er said that the clientele that the commuter
service is serving view the fare as reasonable.
Barry Beck stated that the commuter service is in competi-
tion with carpools which may in fact be cheaper to
commuters.
3
CAC Minutes
September 10, 1984
Kay Van Sickel reported that a cooperative agreement with
OCTD was developed and that RTA will be provided with the
names and addresses of the commuters between Orange County
and Riverside. Also, the RTA is currently developing
schedules, information on pickup points, route map and
information on how to use the buspool. They are discussing
with Caltrans the possibility of placing telephone number to
contact for buspool on freeway signs.
Marian Carpelan added that it would also be helpful if the
information was placed on the Press Enterprise's B Section.
Bob Harvey briefed the Committee on the location of current
and proposed park and ride lots within the Route 91
corridor. He said they attribute 50% of the commuters
rideshare because of park and ride facilities are available.
A lenthy discussion followed on whether or not funds should
be used to provide park and ride lots or widen the freeway
to continue providing employees for Orange County employers.
Barry Beck said that perhaps employers will move from Orange
County to Riverside if they can't get employees to commute.
At this time, Barry Beck introduced Susan Cornelison,
Chairman of RCTC, to Committee members.
Susan Cornelison stated that the jobs/housing balance was
discussed in SCAG's Development Guide whereby it was noted
Riverside County as currently housing rich and job poor.
Barry Beck said that to evaluate projects on jobs/housing
balance, some of the policies conflict where high priority
is given to reducing congestion and by continuing to widen
Route 91 does not promote jobs/housing balance.
7. Committee Meeting Dates.
Paul Blackwelder said that in April when the Committee
changed its meeting dates from the fourth Monday to the
second Monday of the month, he has failed to notice that
during some months, Committee meetings will be scheduled
only three days prior to the Commission meeting. He
suggested that the Committee meetings be held on the same
date as the Technical Advisory Committee's which is ten days
prior to the Commission meetings. This will allow recommen-
dations by the Committee to be included in the reports to
the Commission.
M/S/C (WEINBERG/KAMRATH) to schedule Citizens Advisory
Committee meetings ten days prior to the Commission
meetings.
4
CAC Minutes
September 10, 1984
Larry Weinberg requested RCTC staff to send the list of SB
821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program ranking to members of the
Committee.
8. Adjournment.
There being no other items to be discussed, the meeting was
adjourned at 2:27 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Blackwelder
Assistant Director
nk
5
AGENDA ITEM NO, 4
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Citizens Advisory Committee
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
Committee Activity Discussion
Staff has invited Susan Cornelison, the Citizen
representative on the Commission, to assist us in conducting
a "brainstorming session" to identify the transportation
issues of concern to the Committee. The session is intended
to stir up discussion and identify issues that the Committee
wants to focus its attention and activities on over the next
one or two years. The session is not intended to find
solutions. By identifying issues, we hope to increase the
activity level of the Committee in the upcoming year.
This exercise was scheduled because the Committee has been
meeting less frequently over the past year than in previous
years. The primary area of activity of the Committee has
been on transit development and expansion and accessibility
for the handicapped issues. The Committee has provided
numerous and valuable recommendations to the Commission to
guide the development of the transit system we have today in
Riverside County. Consequently, as the transit system has
matured and improvements in the Short Range Transit Plans
have been aimed at fine-tuning the existing system and
providing low cost services in small rural areas, the
activity level of the Committee has decreased. Most of the
Committee activity now occurs in the Spring when the Short
Range Transit Plan is reviewed and approved. The remainder
of the year is used for periodic monitoring of transit
ridership and performance.
The Committee has and will continue to be an important part
of the Commission's planning and programming process. The
Committee provides a vital link between the Commission and
the general public. We will need the full participation of
Committee members to make this effort a success and increase
the activity level of the Committee. We encourage each
Committee member to identify the issues with which they and
the residents of the area they represent are concerned. The
issues must be related to transportation but need not be
restricted to transit issues.
PB:nk
Agenda Item No. 4
December 10, 1984
1
Agenda Item No. 5
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director -
SUBJECT: Transit Operations Quarterly Report
The attached table and graphs show transit operations data
for the first quarter (July 1 - September 30) of FY 1984-85.
This information was compiled by staff using data supplied
by the transit operators.
Ridership
Total countywide ridership for the first quarter of this
year is 10.2% (86,911 passengers) higher than last year and
19.5% (153,876 passengers) higher than two years ago. The
three operators experiencing significant growth compared to
last year's ridership levels were the Riverside Transit
Agency 7.5% (47,415 passengers), the SunLine Transit Agency
24.7% (31.755 passengers), and, the Lake Elsinore Transit
System 43.1% (8,399 passengers). Ridership on the other
systems remained fairly stable.
Operating Costs and Subsidies
Total operating costs are running 3.1% ($63,552) higher than
last year. With ridership increases, the average subsidy
per passenger has decreased from last year on services
operated by the RTA, the SunLine Transit Agency, the Lake
Elsinore Transit System, and the Corona dial -a -ride service.
The highest subsidies per passenger continue to occur on the
SunLine Transit Agency tel-a-ride services. Subsidies for
these services range from $3.82 on the intervalley
handicapped service to $21.68 on the Palm Springs E & H tel-
a-ride service. In an attempt to reduce the costs and
subsidies for these services, the SunLine Transit Agency is
changing the La Quinta service back to fixed route and is
requesting proposals from private operators to provide the
remaining tel-a-ride services. Proposals are due to be
submitted in early January.
aaLYLQ anA Farg hanged C_Apit 1 1jnpl e.nts, and
Marketing Efforts
During the next three months (November -January), a number of
efforts will be accomplished by the transit operators.
1
Agenda Item No. 5
December 10, 198o
Riverside Transit Agency
1. Line 18 (Moreno Valley Local) service will be
implemented to replace the existing dial -a -ride
service.
2. Line 16 (Riverside -Moreno Valley) weekday service
frequency will be improved from 60 minutes to 30
minutes.
3. Bus shelters will be installed at 25 locations in the
City of Riverside.
4. A five -part marketing program to increase ridership and
general awareness of RTA services will start in
December. The marketing program was approved by the
RTA Board in November.
SunLine Transit Agency
1. Line 19 (Desert Hot Springs -Coachella) service
frequencies will be improved from 60 minutes to 30
minutes (Monday -Saturday) and Sunday service on a 60 -
minute frequncy will be implemented.
2. Saturday service will be offered on the Desert Hot
Springs tel-a-ride system.
3. Palm Springs Sun Special fares will be reduced from
$0.50 to $0.25.
4. Palm Desert Sun Special, operated fare free last year,
will charge $0.25 or a coupon provided by a local
merchant.
5. Marketing efforts will focus on:
a. Service improvements.
b. Palm Springs Sun Special service to the Tram at
Tramway Drive.
c. Student slide presentations and a student poster
contest.
d. Updating the slide presentations for the elderly
and the business community.
Lake Elsinore Transit System
1. Fares will be increased from $0.25 to $0.50 with $0.25
fares for the elderly and handicapped and ticket book
discounts for students at 10 tickets for $3.50.
2
2. LETS will prepare and submit an UMTA Section 18 Capital
Grant application for two 45 -passenger lift equipped
buses to replace the existing 27 passenger buses.
These buses are needed to accommodate the growing
demand experienced this year.
Banning
Two 33- passenger lift -equipped buses will be ordered using
UMTA Section 18 capital grant funds recently approved.
Delivery of the vehicles is expected within six months. A
second route will be implemented when the vehicles arrive.
Riverside Special Services
Service scheduling will be computerized to reduce the amount
of time required to record requests and develop daily
schedules, reduce errors in transfering data between forms,
and improve the ability of schedulers to fill cancelled time
slots.
PB:nk
3
'1'RAIJ:;1'1' OPF:RA'IJUNS QUAR'I'Nb1L1' 581'01:'1'
1ST UUAR'1'1:11 NY 1984/85
P. P. Passe nge r
MAP Pa:;_;e n9er: s
To tal Pacn 9e r:;
F. 11. Lxpen:-c5
DAP Expense s
To ra 1 I?xpen:;es
P anning
16,048
16,(148
$23,713
$23,713
Beaumo nt Coro na
Riverside
PVV'1'A Spec .S vcO.
RTA
Sun]i nc
'17 0'1'3 1,
27,896 639,830 150,336 834,110
12,844 78,381 NA 30,430 36,955 10,1 .76 100,786
12,844 18,387 27,896 NA 30,430 676,785 160,512 942,096
$34,458 $1,087,365 $441,469 $1,587,005
$27,479 $57,771 NA $143,809 $191,631 $99,502 $520,132 .
$27,479 $57,711 $34,458 NA $143,809 $1,278,996 $540,971 . 52,107,137
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
PASSENGERS PER VEHICLE 011.
FIXED ROUTE 17.39 NA NA 14.70 NA NA 2.3 .71 14.47
DIAL -A-1088 NA 7.83 7.15 NA NA 5.44 5 .50 4 .07
COST PIP WHIM, 1111.
NIXED POU'I'I; $25. 69 NA NA $18 .]5 NA NA $39 .28 $42.49
D1AJ,-A-RIDE NA $16.76 $2.2.45 NA NA $25.73 $28.51 $39.82
PAM : ROVENUr RA'T'IO 16. 5% 24.2% 22. 3% 16.1% NA 10.6% 22.3% 17 .6°
5Ills51 D Y/PASFNG I;R
E]XNI ROUTE $1. 23 NA NA $1.04 NA NA $1.30 $2.35
111AI,-A-RIDN NA $1.62 $2.44 NA NA $4.23 $4.42 $9.07
TOTAL COUNTY 1)11)13));)) I I'
1,200,000-
1,1-00,000-
1,000,000-
900,000-
A
08)1,1100-
G
R
i
700,000-
600,000-
`i00,000-
400, 000--
300,000-
OUAR'I'I,R
r1; CA1. YEAR
TOTAL
YEAR
3,536,895
TOTAL
YEAR
3,716,764
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1979/80
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1980/81
TOTAL
YEAR
3,578,2. 38
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
3,542,951
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
3,983,639
] 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1983/84
TOTAL
YE AR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1984/„5
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT A(;EI1(:Y R11I;RSII '
900,000-
800,000-
700,000-
600,000-
A
N 500,000-
c
R
400,000-
300,000-
200,000-
100,000-
8 -
QUARTER
TOTAL
YEAR
;,413,333
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
TOTAL
YEAR
2,492,025
1 1 2 1 3 1
I I I
4
TOTAL
YEAR
2,496,172
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1
TOTAL
YEAR
2,488,300
3 1 4
I I
TOTAL
YEAR
2,808,047
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I I
`r'NivR 1 1'179/80 1
1980/01
1981/82 1
1982/83 1
1983/84 1 1984/05 1
SUIJ1, 1 i1 I'I AN!, 1'1' AGENCY 1 i N141'SII11'
900,000-
M,500-
700,000-
0 600,000-
A
N 500,000-
G
400,000-
300,000-
200,000-
100,000-
0-
(3IAP'I'ER
FISCAL YEAR
x
TO'T'AL
YEAR
792,840
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1980/51
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1979/80
TOTAL
YEAR
884,384
TOTAL
YEAR
750,726
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
687,454
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
756,539
1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1983/84
TOTAL
YEAR
1 1 2 1 _3 1 4
1 1 1
1984/85
BANNING 12 I NIU:!'(I 11'
40,0(10-
30,000-
A
G
E
R
20, 000-
10,000-
O-
(33ARTJ;R
FISCAL 1'I:AR
TOTAL
YEAR
36,609
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1979/80
TOTAL
YEAR
44,554
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1980/81
TO TAL
YEAR
47,659
i
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
59,923
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 I 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
63,903
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1983/84
TOTAL
YEAR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1984/(S5
BEAUMONT N -A --R R1MIIk;;HIP
40,000-
0 30,000-
A
5
20,000-
10,000-
0 -
QUARTER
F1SOAI, YEAR
TOTAL
YEAR
15,328
*
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1979/80
TOTAL
YEAR
20,685
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1980/81
TOTAL
YEAR
30,891
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
42,259
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I I
1982/83
TOTAL,
YEAR
50,885
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I I 1
1983/84
TOTA1,
YEAR
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1984/85
St3/6861
I I I
t/I£ I z I i
68/£861
I I I
61£IzIi
ZL8''LL
2TV:IA
'I V,LO,[
£ii/Z86i
I I I
6 £I 11
Ci5'S9
uV2A
'WW1
LOLL
Z8/T86T
I I I
6 I£ I z I [
906'89
aV}Ili
IV,LO.L
18/0861
I I I
6 1£ I Z I
921'£8
2IV1A
'I V,LO:L
OS/L61
I I I
61£Izir
1\151A '1V:) I;I
-0
-000'01
-000'0z
v
156'68
MIA
1V,LOJ,
-000'0£
-008' Jv
j t IL';a:IO I'rl d --V- 1 VIdo,IO)
LAKE: 1':1i808!: T8ANt:1T SYSTEM RID8l'SII]8
40,000-
30,000-
A
N
G
I•.
R
S
20,000-
10,000-
QI'AITER
FISCAL YEAR
TOTAL
YEAR
50,699
1 1 2 1 3 1
1 1 1
1979/80
TOTAL
YEAR
65,890
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1980/81
TOTAL
YEAR
75,093
1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1981/02
TOTAL
YEAR
74,053
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
92,246
1 1 2 1 4
1 1 1
1983/84
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1904/05
0 VI'L';,I;;I • ( H;( RI1)IJ SIII1'
A
E
N
G
R
4I"+, 0,00
30,000-
20,000-
10,000-
0-
CAART1':0
FISCAL YEAR
i l
107,(4 .0
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I 1 I
1979/80
T OTAL
YEAR
104,352
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1980/81
TOTAL
YEAP
10' 3,285
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
I 1 1
1981/82
TOTAL
YEAR
118,902
1 1 2 1 3 1
1 I 1
1982/83
TOTAL
YEAR
126,816
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 1 1
1983/84
N
*
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
1 I 1
1984/i35
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency Marketing Plan
Last month, the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Board of
Directors reviewed and approved a new marketing plan for the
agency. Kay Van Sickle, RTA Manager of Planning and
Marketing, will provide an overview of the marketing .plan at
the meeting.
The new marketing plan is the result of a three-part effort
by the RTA to improve its marketing program. The three-part
effort was presented to the Committee last year. Part One
consisted of improving the marketing program within the RTA
organization itself. The aim of the RTA marketing staff was
to increase the awareness of the RTA employees about the
range of services offered and the goals and objectives of
the RTA as an organization. Part Two was a series of tele-
phone and on -board surveys. The surveys were designed to
provide the RTA with general impressions of the RTA services
by users and non -users, identify improvements needed in the
marketing of the system, and identify the make-up of current
RTA ridership. The third and final part of the effort was
to redesign the RTA marketing plan and materials.
With assistance from the marketing firm of Lenal, Waford and
Stone, Inc. of Newport Beach, the RTA staff has designed a
number of new marketing tools and programs. The following
are some examples of the marketing efforts to be undertaken.
A Rider's Guide to explain what RTA services are available
and how to use them will be distributed in the next month or
two. Newspaper ads aimed at specific segments such as the
elderly, handicapped, students and commuters have been deve-
loped and are starting to be run in the local newspapers.
System maps and service information will be posted in all 25
bus shelters to be constructed in the City of Riverside
within the next two months. New bus stop signs will be
installed which identify the route or routes serving the
stop. Employers will be encouraged to purchase RTA passes
for resale to employees at discount rates.
This presentation by Kay Van Sickel should prove interesting
to the Committee. The RTA marketing program is an improve-
ment over past efforts and the RTA Board is very interested
in increasing the image of the RTA and the awareness of the
services RTA offers to all residents throughout the RTA
service area.
PB:nk
Agenda Item No, 6
December 10; 1984
1
Agenda Item No. 7
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Meeting Dates
Attached is a schedule of meetings for the Commission, the Technical
Advisory Committee and the Citizens Advisory Committees The Commission
meetings on March 7th and March 21st are tentative dates for the "unmet
transit needs" public hearing. Should the Commission change the dates
or places, Committee members will be advised.
PB:nk
Attachment
Agenda Item No. 7
December 10, 1984
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ZRArZSPCETATION COMMISSION
FY 1984-85
MEETING SCEEDULE
December 10, 1984 - Technical Advisory Committee - 9:30 a.m.
Riverside City Hall
- Citizens Advisory Committee
December 20, 1984 - RCTC
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside City Hall
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside County
Administrative Ctr.
January 7, 1985 - Technical Advisory Committee - 9:30 a.m.
Riverside City Hall
- Citizens Advisory Committee
January 16, 1985 - RCTC
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside City Hall
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside County
Administrative Ctr.
February 11, 1985 - Technical Advisory Committee - 9:30 a.m.
Riverside City Hall
- Citizens Advisory Committee
February 21, 1985 - RCTC
March 7, 1985 - RCTC
March 11, 1985
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside City Hall
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside County
Administrative Ctr.
- 1:30 p.m.
Palm Desert City
Council Chambers
- Technical Advisory Committee - 9:30 a.m.
Riverside City Hall
- Citizens Advisory Committee
March 21, 1985 - RCTC
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside City Hall
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside City
Council Chambers
April 8, 1985 - Technical Advisory Committee - 9:30 a.m.
Riverside City Hall
- Citizens Advisory Committee
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside City Hall
1
April 18, 1985 - RCTC
May 6, 1985
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside County
Administrative Ctr.
- Technical Advisory Committee - 9:30 a.m.
Riverside City Hall
- Citizens Advisory Committee
May 15, 1985 - RCTC
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside City Hall
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside County
Administrative Ctr.
June 10, 1985 - Technical Advisory Committee - 9:30 a.m.
Riverside City Hall
- Citizens Advisory Committee
June 20, 1985 - RCTC
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside City Hall
- 1:30 p.m.
Riverside County
Administrative Ctr.
Meeting Place
Riverside City Hall, 4th Floor Conference Room, 3900 Main Street, Riverside, 92522.
Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room, 4080 Lemon St.,
Riverside, 92501.
Palm Desert City Council Chambers, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, 92260.
Riverside City Council Chambers, 3900 Main Street, Riverside, 92522.
2
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: SB 821 Program
At the last meeting, Mr. Larry Weinberg requested that a copy of the
5 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program ranking be sent to members of
the Committee. Attached is the staff report and project rankings
submitted to the Commission. The 1984/85 -SB 821 Program was approved
as recommended.
PB:nk
Attachment
Agenda Item No. 8
December 10, 1984
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director
SUBJECT: 1984/85 SB 821 Program
Project sponsors submitted six projects to the Commission
for funding under the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Project
Program. The SB 821 Project Evaluation Committee, made up
of Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee members, has
evaluated the projects based on Commission approved
criteria. The attached table lists the projects in ranked
order.
The amount of funds available for the SB 821 Program is
approximately $273,000. This would provide enough funds for
the first three projects with $93,635 left for the two
projects that tied for No. 4. Staff recommends that the San
Jacinto project be fully funded because it is relatively
small and because Indio already has another project funded.
The remaining $81,497 would be available for the Indio
traffic signal project. The No. 5 project would not receive
any funds.
Regarding the construction of a traffic signal at Highway
111 and Las Palmas Drive, staff recommends that this project
be funded subject to the approval of Caltrans.
Notwithstanding the fact that the project is in Indio, it is
on a State Highway controlled by Caltrans and the Commission
should get concurrence from Caltrans for the project.
Furthermore, there is some concern that the traffic signal
which is being proposed in order to allow high school
students to cress Highway 111 to commercial areas may cause
more problems than it resolves.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve SB 821 funding for the first four projects on
the attached listing.
2. Approve partial funding with remaining SB 821 funds for
the Indio traffic signal project subject to Indio
agreeing to fund the remaining project cost and subject
to Caltrans approval of the project.
BB:nk
Attachment
Agenda Item No. 5
September 20, 1984
1
SB 821 PROJECT RANKINGS
AGENCY
Indio
SB 821 FUNDS
PROJECT REOUESTED RANK
Various locations - con- $ 24,815 1
struct sidewalks.
Desert Hot West Dr. between Pierson $ 20,000 2
Springs & Hacienda & 4th & 8th -
construct sidewalks.
Riverside Santa Ana River Bikeway, $134,550 3
County Anza Narrows to Jasmine
St. - construct bikeway.
San Jacinto Central Business Dist - $ 12,138 4
construct wheelchair ramps.
Indio
Highway 111 @ Las Palmas $110,000 4
Dr - construct traffic
signal.
Indio Central Business Dist - $ 61,000 5
construct wheelchair ramps.
1g
1
RCTC MINUTES
T m�
RIVERSIDE COUNTYTRANSPORTATION COMM SSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 10-84
September 20, 1984
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called•to order by Chairman Susan Cornelison
at 1:42 p.m., on Thursday, September 20, 1984, at the
Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor
Conference Room, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. The Chairman
noted that a quorum was present.
Members present:
Susan Cornelison Roy Wilson
Melba Dunlap Norton Younglove
Alternates present:
Lewis Hull
Pat Murphy
2. Approval of Minutes.
Ed Shepard
M/S/C (SHEPARD/MURPHY) to approve the minutes of the
August 16, 1984 as submitted.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. Consent Calendar.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/HULL) to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
a.
Amendment to FY 82/83 aB_ 821 Program - To approve
the revised scope of work for the Hacienda Avenue
sidewalk project and allow the expenditure of the
remaining $2,188 for further additional sidewalk
construction.
b. Wheelchair Lift Use on RTA Fib Routes Buses -
Receive and file.
c. Sunline State Transit Assistance Fund Claim - To
adopt Resolution No. 85-3-SUL allocating $414,873
to the SunLine Transit Agency.
1
RCTC Minutes
September 20, 1984
5. 1984/85 SB 821 Program.
Barry Beck, Executive Director, informed the Commission that
six projects were submitted for funding under the SB 821
Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Program. The projects were
reviewed and ranked by the SB 821 Project Evaluation
Committee, consisting of Citizens and Technical Advisory
Committee members. There are sufficient funds for the top
three projects and partial funding is available for the next
two projects that tied for 4th place. Staff is recommending
that the San Jacinto project be fully funded and the remain-
ing funds be allocated to the Indio traffic signal project
contingent on: (1) Indio committing to providing the
remaining funds for the project; and, (2) Caltrans approving
the project as it is on State Highway 111.
M/S/C (SHEPARD/MURPHY) to approve:
1. SB 821 funding for the first four projects on the
list.
2. Partial funding with remaining SB 821 funds for
the Indio traffic signal project subject to Indio
agreeing to fund the remaining project cost and
subject to Caltrans approval of the project.
6. ACR 94 - Route 86 Project Acceleration.
Barry Beck stated that a meeting of staff of the involved
agencies under ACR 94 met on September 6th. Caltrans
District 11 staff provided a status of Route 86 projects
that were already in the STIP. Three of the six projects'
schedule have already been accelerated and moved ahead one
year at the time the 1984 STIP was updated. Further
acceleration of the projects' schedule an entire fiscal year
earlier is just not possible given the minimum time needed
for environmental documentation and right-of-way acquisi-
tion. Caltrans District 11 staff added that they are going
to try and deliver the projects at the earliest possible
date. A draft report, required by ACR 94, will be
submitted to each involved agency in October and it will be
included in the Commission's agenda for October.
7. Caltrans Highway System Plan.
Barry Beck said that this item is for information only. The
table included in the agenda packet combines what Caltrans
District 8 presented at the Commission's meeting two months
ago and recently received information from District 11
regarding what projects will be built over the next ten
years given the four funding scenarios. To build all the
identified now needs and what will become needed by 1995,
2
RCTC Minutes
September 20, 1984
a fifteen cent gas tax increase is needed.
Joe Sanchez, Caltrans District 8, pointed out that
due to inflation, Alternative 1 - Status quo or no tax
increase, will now require a one -cent gas tax increase.
Commissioner Shepard asked if inflationary rates were
factored into the proposed tax increase.
Barry Beck said that this is a gallonage tax. He said that
the projections that he has seen showed that sales of gaso-
line will be on a down trend because of improved fleet fuel
economy.
8. Route 74 Project Study Report.
Barry Beck stated that the Route 74 study report basically
contains the same information as the Route 74 report pre-
pared a year ago at the request of Councilman Jim Adams.
The only new suggestion is to divide the project in two
phases with the first phase being the part of Route 74
between the railroad and I-215. Estimated cost for Phase I
is approximately $1.6 million. Withthe reduction in the
project cost, it may be feasible to include the project in
the STIP.
Chairman Cornelison asked if with redevelopment in the City
of Perris, is the congestion problem anticipated to become
worse or would that all be bypassed.
Barry Beck said that the traffic problem will continue. The
report indicates that the only feasible alternative to
resolve the congestion is to widen Route 74 from two to four
lanes.
9. AB 2359 - Fund Trade With LACTC.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that AB 2359 has passed
the Legislature and was signed by the Governor. He esti-
mated that approximately $3.6 million in federal transit
capital funds could be traded for about $2.4 million in
State Transit Assistance Funds over the next two years. The
Los Angeles County Transportation Commission plans to use
the funds for the construction of the Metro Rail Subway
project so that any trade that RCTC makes with them will be
contingent upon the project moving forward. A draft agree-
ment is presently being prepared and it will be before the
Commission in October or November.
In response to Commissioner Hull's question of how the 3 for
2 formula was arrived at, Barry Beck said that the ratio
3
RCTC Minutes
September 20, 1984
partly came about because of the Commission's ability to
trade a portion of the federal capital funds back to the
federal government on a 3 for 2 basis.
10. Executive Director's Report.
a. Status of Riverside/San Bernardino Multimodal
Transportation Study.
This study, which was started two years ago, is
proceeding and SCAG staff claims that a draft report
will be completed by January 1st. The forecasted com-
pletion date may be optimistic given the state that the
report is in right now. He thinks that it will proba-
bly be next Spring before the Commission will see
actual results. The report has been going slow due to
SCAG staff turnover and inexperience.
b. Status of Coachella Valley Transportation Study.
Barry Beck told the Commission that the transportation
study for the Coachella Valley has a high degree of
interest for local government in the area. It will
take 1 1/2 to 2 years to complete the study. SCAG is
planning to hire a consultant to do much of the techni-
cal work.
c. Legislation.
1. AB 3182 - Barry Beck informed the Commission that
this bill passed the Assembly but the contents of
the bill were put in Senate Bill 1986. However,
he understands that UMTA had only agreed to fund 2
or 3 of the buses as opposed to 30 buses. RTD has
indicated that they will not proceed with the
experiment if UMTA does not fund 30 vehicles.
Eric Haley, SCAG, stated that the Governor is not
sold on the expenditure for this type of
technology. It is likely that it will be vetoed.
RTD does not want to spend any political capital
on it because the experiment is too small. The
concept will be coming back before the Legislature
again next year.
In response to Chairman Cornelison's question of
why UMTA changed the number of vehicles for expe-
riment, Eric Haley said that part of the problem
is at the State level. It is his understanding
that Assemblyman Bill Leonard was encouraged to
drop the bill so that his bill wouln't be vetoed.
4
RCTC Minutes
September 20, 1984
Another bill will be introduced in the next
session. It is just that the size of the project
is too small to get anybody excited.
Chairman Cornelison commented that the experiment
by Golden Gate Authority using two buses was not
sufficient enough to come up with anything.
2. Transportation Developement Act, Farebox Ratio -
Barry Beck stated that there seems to be a renewed
interest in the farebox ratio issue. This is due
to a myriad of different requirements all around
the State with Riverside County as one of the main
culprits having had several changes made for our
County. Some of the counties that don't enjoy the
same flexibility that we have want to get some
consistency throughout the State.
Eric Haley commented that the district of the
assemblyman that introduced the bill covered two
counties (San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties) with
different farebox standards. There is frustration
in trying to clarify the requirements because an
adjacent city across the county line has a diffe-
rent standard for farebox recovery.
Barry Beck said that he will monitor the farebox
ratio issue and he will keep the Commission
apprised of any activities on this matter. He
commented that the farebox ratio requirements
for Riverside County have worked fairly well. We
have a reasonable goal for the transit operators
to obtain and it has encouraged greater
productivity.
Barry Beck pointed out that another issue that
will probably come up next year is to increase the
State gas tax. Everybody is hoping that the
Legislature will deal with this next year.
d. Route 86 - Status of Federal Legislation.
Barry Beck informed the Commission that, to date, the
Senate has not acted on the transportation bill. He
did want to discuss with the Commission the contract
with Smith and Egan. The contract initiated was a
limited contract and it was indicated at that time that
a decision will be made to continue or terminate the
contract by this time. Options open to the Commission
are: 1) To terminate the contract now and hope for the
best in Washington; 2) To terminate the contract
5
RCTC Minutes
September 20, 1984
whenever Congress takes action or adjourns; 3) To con-
tinue the contract in order to pursue additional
federal funding even if we get $9 million or some part
of it this year; or, 4) To reduce the contract amount
($1500/month) over the next few months while there is
little activity at the federal and State level.
Chairman Cornelison asked if the consultant has given
any indication as what they think they can accomplish.
Barry Beck said that naturally, they would like to.
continue at the full amount. They realize that there
is not much activity going on in Washington but they
would like to represent the Commission in Sacramento as
well. They feel they might be able to help the RCTC
with the CTC with Route 86 and/or other legislation.
Barry Beck said that the only thing that he sees that
is coming up before the State Legislature would be the
revision of the Clute bill. There was an amendment put
in the bill that the trade could only be done on a one-
time basis. When he met with LACTC staff, it was
agreed that at the next legislative session to have the
bill amended to allow the trade on a continuing basis.
This is one opportunity for Smith and Egan to help the
RCTC. In an indirect way, they could work on any gas
tax legislation. He is not sure that the Commission
should be a direct participant in this effort.
Commissioner Shepard suggested that perhaps a set of
criteria should be established on accomplishment.
Commissioner Dunlap stated that the County of Riverside
is close to not having a lobbyist in Washington for the
same reason that the work asked for might not justify
the expense.
Barry Beck said that perhaps he could talk with Smith
and Egan to see if the contract cost could be reduced
over the next two or three months. It will give the
Commission a chance to see where we are the beginning
of the year, what happens in Washington, etc.
Eric Haley pointed out that there could be a lame duck
session of Congress.
Barry Beck said that this was also pointed out by Tim
Egan that there maybe a lameduck session of Congress.
Actually, this is how the Surface Transportation Act
and five cents gas tax passed a couple of years ago.
6
RCTC Minutes
September 20, 1984
Commissioner Shepard suggested a $5,000 retainer and
have the consultant work on an hourly basis.
It was the consensus of the Commission that Barry Beck
request Smith and Egan to prepare and submit a proposal
for the Commission's review at its next meeting.
11. Miscellaneous Items.
a.
Last month, Commissioner Norton Younglove mentioned a
concern by the March Air Force Base over the design
of the interchange at Cactus and I-215. Apparently,
Caltrans has offered a compromise proposal to March
Air Force Base which should take care of their con-
cerns.
Joe Sanchez, Caltrans District 8, said that they have
received a response from March Air Force Base which an
implied acceptance of what Caltrans had offered.
b. Barry Beck said that there is an existing MOU between
the four county transportation commissions and VCAG
with SCAG concerning responsibilities on various
transportation items. There have been discussions
over the last several months with SCAG over updating
that MOU which was executed in 1979. The updating of
the MOU has been delayed due to two main issues: 1)
On the treatment of locally funded projects. In
particular, Los Angeles' Proposition A transit pro-
jects and whether SCAG has veto power over those
projects even though they are locally funded; and, 2)
on formal Commissions participation on SCAG's
Transportation and Communications Committee. Up till
now, SCAG has not allowed Commissions to be
represented in that Committee although there is repre-
sentation by Caltrans, Air Resource Board, Auto Club,
California Highway Patrol and other non -city and
county agencies. SCAG has always indicated that only
city and county elected officials can participate on
their committees. It is felt that the commissions
should have representation on the Committee.
Eric Haley stated that there is a question of SCAG
updating their whole Committee structure as some of
the appointments were made in 1974 prior to the exis-
tence of the commissions. They do have a series of
task force which are very effective and deal with
specific subjects. The question is how to get this
committee more effective.
7
"
R C T C M i n u t e s
S e p t e m b e r 2 0 , 1 9 8 4
C h a i r m a n C o r n e l i s o n s t a t e d t h a t R C T C a p p e a r e d b e f o r e
t h e T C C o n a n o t h e r m a t t e r a n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e , t h e y
w e r e d i s c u s s i n g t h e l a t e s t r e p o r t o n t h e L o n g B e a c h
H a r b o r a c c e s s . I t w a s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e s t u d y e v e n
t h o u g h u n d e r t a k e n b y t h e S C A G r e g i o n o n l y s h o w e d t h e
i m p a c t o f t h e H a r b o r o n t h e i m m e d i a t e s u r r o u n d i n g
a r e a . O u r c o n c e r n s o f h o u r l y c o a l t r a i n s c o m i n g
t h r o u g h R i v e r s i d e w a s n o t a d d r e s s e d .
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
c o m m i s s i o n s s h o u l d b e r e p r e s e n t e d o n t h e S C A G T C C .
1 2 . A d j o u r n m e n t .
T h e n e x t R C T C m e e t i n g w i l l b e h e l d o n O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1 9 8 4 a t
1 : 3 0 p . m . , R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C e n t e r , 1 4 t h
F l o o r C o n f e r e n c e R o o m , 4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t r e e t , R i v e r s i d e .
M / S / C ( S H E P A R D / W I L S O N ) t o a d j o u r n t h e m e e t i n g a t 2 : 3 0
p . m .
n k
R e s t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d
B a r r y B e c k /
E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r
8