HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 25, 1988 Citizens AdvisoryDATE January 25, 1988
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NAME
- /-4,(x.e.4,
1h9\ \KEvxtP%.
SklAgAi
C' u Clc. SC, 44 vin i TI
REPRESENTING
A r Q`J
3icto Le- � sr
4440t
PHONE
7=/00
altaz.s20-24;.)
73T-2 7
7° V{6 ZASCs741
39'13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Committee Membership - Commission Action 1/6/88
At their meeting on January 6, 1988, the Commission took the
following actions regarding the Citizens Advisory Committee:
1. Reappointed the following members whose terms were
expiring: Terry Allen, Chairman; Bertram Vinson; and,
Joanne Moore.
2. Increased the membership of the Committee from 16 members to
up to 20 members:
3. Incorporated representatives of local social service
agencies and others, as specified in SB 498, as minimum
requirements for the make-up of the Committee.
4. Appointed 11 individuals and representatives of social
service agencies, etc. to fill the 20 seats available on the
Committee.
5. Requested SCAG to designate the Citizens Advisory
Committee as the Social Services Advisory Council for
Riverside County as required by SB 498.
Staff congratulates the members reappointed and welcomes the new
members to the Committee. While the new member appointments are
not official until the Commission Bylaws are amended at the next
Commission meeting on February 3, 1988, attendance at this
committee meeting is important for their orientation and
preparation for the "unmet transit needs" process and the Short
Range Transit Plan update.
PB:nk
CAC Agenda. Item No. 4
January 25, 1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director �T
SUBJECT: Committee Responsibility - "Unmet Transit Needs"
In accordance with State law, Transportation Development Act
(TDA) funds available to Riverside County can be used for transit
services, and for street and road improvement projects. However,
prior to allocating any of these funds for street and road
purposes, the Commission must first determine which transit needs
can be reasonably be met and must allocate adequate funds to meet
the operational and capital expenses necessary to meet those
needs. To determine what needs are not being met by existing
transit services or planned improvements, the Commission holds
public hearings to receive testimony. Persons unable to attend
the hearings due to transportation or other problems can make
their needs known by writing or calling the Commission offices.
The steps in the process are:
1. The Commission holds public hearings.
2. Staff works with the transit operators to determine whether
existing services can be modified or if new services are
required to meet the needs identified in the hearings.
3. Staff prepares a summary of testimony received and, in
cooperation with the transit operators, prepares
recommendations for consideration by the Citizens Advisory
Committee and the Commission.
4. The Commission, normally at their meeting in May, makes
findings for each of the three apportionment areas of the
county. The findings are one of the following: a) there
are no unmet transit needs; b) there are no unmet transit
needs that are reasonable to meet; c) there are unmet
including needs that are reasonable to meet.
The Commission has scheduled three "unmet transit needs"
hearings. The dates, times and places for the hearings are:
2:00 P.M., February 3, 1988
Palm Desert City Hall
73-510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
10:00 A.M., March 2,1988
Corona City Hall
815 W. Sixth Street
Corona, CA. 91720
CAC Agenda Item No. 6
2:00 P.M., March 2, 1988
Riverside Main Library
3581 7th Street
Riverside, CA. 92501
The Citizens Advisory Committee, which we expect will also be
designated by SCAG as the Social Services Advisory Council for
Riverside County, is responsible for reviewing testimony from the
hearings, the staff responses and recommendations, and to make
recommendations to the Commission. For this reason, all Committee
members are encouraged, whenever possible, to attend the public
hearings. Staff will attempt to help Committee members who are
planning to attend the hearings form carpools.
PB:nk
PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSIONS OF ORANGE, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES
FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO:
A. REDUCE THE COST/SUBSIDY OF THE INTERCOUNTY SERVICES ON
LINES 149 AND AND 496;
•B. FUND THE SUBSIDY FOR INTERCOUNTY LINES;
C. PROVIDE TRANSFERS BETWEEN THE INTERCOUNTY AND LOCAL
OPERATORS; AND,
D. ALLOW LOCAL OPERATOR PASS USE ON INTERCOUNTY SERVICES.
A. REDUCE THE COST/SUBSIDY OF THE INTERCOUNTY SERVICES ON LINES
149 AND 496
As shown in Attachments lA and 1B, a significant cost/
subsidy reduction could result if portions of Lines 496
(Riverside -San Bernardino -Los Angeles) and 149 (Riverside -
Anaheim -Long Beach) were operated under contract through
competitive bid rather than operated by the SCRTD. The
estimated cost/subsidy reduction is between $1.2 million and
$1.6 million per year. The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA)
staff have agreed to request proposals from public and
private transit operators to determine if the service
quality can be maintained and the estimated cost/subsidy
reductions can be realized.
The service segments proposed to be bid are the Line 496
service from San Bernardino/Riverside to El Monte and the
Line 149 service from Riverside to Disneyland.
B. FUND THE SUBSIDY FOR INTERCOUNTY LINES
The subsidy for the Line 496 and 149 services operated by
SCRTD are split between the four counties (Riverside, San
Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles) on the basis of the Net
Cost/Mile x the Miles Traveled in each of the respective
counties. The Line 496 subsidy is split between Riverside,
San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties. The Line 149
Subsidy is split between Riverside, Orange and Los Angeles
Counties. While there are numerous other options for
splitting the subsidy between the counties, this funding
arrangement is easily monitored, has been acceptable in the
past, and we believe it should be continued.
C. PROVIDE TRANSFERS BETWEEN INTERCOUNTY AND LOCAL OPERATORS
Under current agreements between the local operators in
Riverside County (Riverside Transit Agency), San Bernardino
County (Omnitrans), and Orange County (Orange County Transit
District), SCRTD-issued transfers are accepted as the base
fare for passengers transferring to the local services from
the intercounty service. Transfers issued by these local
operators are accepted by the SCRTD as the base fare for for
Agenda Item No. 7
January 25, 1988
passengers transferring from local services operated by
these operators to the intercounty services.
The proposal under consideration would continue this
agreement for transfers to be accepted as the base fare for
passengers transferring between the local and intercounty
services. Transfers issued by the contract operator would be
accepted by SCRTD as the base 'fare. in El Monte and
.Disneyland for passengers traveling west of those two
points. Transfers issued by SCRTD would be accepted by the
contract operator as the base fare for passengers heading
easterly of El Monte and Disneyland. The transferring
passenger would pay all applicable zone charges after
initial boarding. This arrangement is consistent with the
current agreement between local operators and SCRTD on Lines
149 and 496, and between SCRTD and the operator of
intercounty services from Ventura County.
SCRTD staff has stated an objection to the proposed transfer
arrangement. As stated above, this arrangement is acceptable
under current agreements with transfers being made in the
outlying counties. Their objection is based on a reduction
in revenue collected by SCRTD. They are correct that fare
collected by SCRTD would be reduced. The total fare revenue
for the service would remain the same since existing fare
rates are proposed to be maintained under this proposal.
The majority of the fare revenues currently collected by
SCRTD as the operator of the service would be collected by
the contract operator providing the service. The point not
addressed in their opposition is that operating cost for
SCRTD would be reduced because they would no longer operate
the service. Assuming the estimates of cost/subsidy
reduction are fairly accurate, the reduction in cost to
SCRTD would far exceed the reduction in fare revenue with
which their staff is concerned.
D. ALLOW LOCAL OPERATOR PASS USE ON INTERCOUNTY SERVICES
Under current agreements between local operators (RTA,
Omnitrans, and OCTD) and SCRTD, a monthly pass issued by a
local operator is accepted by SCRTD as the base fare for
boarding the intercounty service when the passenger boards
within the service area of the issuing operator. For
example: the RTA monthly pass is accepted by SCRTD as the
base fare for boarding Lines 496 and 149 within Riverside
County. The monthly pass issued by an operator is also
accepted as a zone charged at the county line for passengers
traveling on the intercounty service into the service area
of the issuing operator. For example: the RTA monthly pass
is accepted by SCRTD as the zone charge at the Riverside
County line for a passengers traveling from Los Angeles, San
Bernardino, or Orange Counties into Riverside County on
Lines 149 and 496. This arrangement has been acceptable and
has worked very well in the past and should be continued.
The Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino County Transportation
Commissions are requested to consider the following actions at
their earliest possible meeting so that RTA can proceed with
obtaining proposals for the operation of segments of Lines 149
and 496 with adequate time allowed for a change in operators at
the start of FY 1988/89, if the saving in cost/subsidy estimated
will be realized without decreasing the quality of service on
these two intercounty lines.
1. That the Commission agree that the subsidy for the
intercounty routes to be contracted should funded by
the counties receiving service on the basis of the Net
Cost/Mile times the Miles Traveled in their respective
county.
2. That the Commission agree that transfers issued by the
intercounty public transit operator and the local
public transit operators should be accepted as the base
fare by the operator to which the passenger is
transferring.
3. That the Commission agree that monthly passes issued by
local public transit operators should be honored as the
base fare for boarding the intercounty service within
the service area of the issuing operator and as the
zone charged at the county line for passengers on the
intercounty service entering the county in which the
issuing operator operates its services.
4. That the Commission direct their staff to request the
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to propose and obtain
proposals from qualified public and private transit
operators for the operation of Line 496 service from
San Bernardino/Riverside to El Monte and Line 149
service from Riverside to Disneyland.
5. That the Commission direct their staff to participate
with RTA staff in evaluating the service proposals
received by RTA.
INTERCOUNTY TRANSIT ROUTES LINES 496 & 149
496 S an Bernardi no - Rive rside - Los Angeles
149 Riverside - Disneyla nd - Lo ng B ee ch
LOS ANGELES
El. MONTE
Line 496
MONTCLAIR ONTARIO
*•• •••••••s.*
Lin e 496
LONG BEACH DISNEYLAND
Lin e 149
Segmen t Propos ed for Con tracting -moo s
Line 149
CORONA
RIVERSIDE
SAN BERNARDINO
Li ne 496
ALTERNATIVE 1
RTA OPERATION OF LINE 496 SAN BERNARDINO TO EL MONTE
AND LINE 149 RIVERSIDE TO DISNEYLAND
COUNTY RIV S.B.
MILES OPERATED 214,565 228,825
RTA ESTIMATED FARE REV. $246,391 $305,471
RTA ESTIMATED COST $545,038 $581,262
RTA ESTIMATED SUBSIDY $298,648 $275,791
SCRTD CONTRACT SUBSIDY $637,258 $679,610
ORANGE L.A. TOTAL
58,208 224,530 726,128
$47,543 $299,738 $899,142
$147,860 $570,352 $1,844,512
$100,318 $270,614 $945,370
$172,878 $666,854 $2,156,600
SUBSIDY REDUCTION $338,610 $403,820
$72,560 $396,240 $1,211,230
ASSUMPTIONS:
RTA INCREMENTAL COSTS
Cost/ Mi $0.60
Cost/ Rev Hr $15.18
Supervisor/ Yr $33,000
Bus/ Yr (Local Capital) $2,500
RTA Fully Allocated Cost/ Mi $7,366,928 + Incremental Costs
2,492,513 + Additional Miles
RTD Contract Cost $5.10 / per mile
RTD Contract Subsidy $2.97 / per mile
* ALTERNATIVE SERVICE: RTA OPERATED
RIVERSIDE - DISNEYLAND (149)
SAN BERNARDINO - EL MONTE (496)
* RTD OPERATES EL MONTE TO DOWNTOWN L.A.
ANNUAL MILES
ANNUAL HOURS
ANNUAL PASSENGERS
AVG MI/HR
FARE REVENUE
RTA INCREMENTAL COSTS:
MILES
HOURS
SUPERVISOR
BUSES (7)
TOTAL
FULLY ALLOCATED COST
SUBSIDY
Subsidy reduction Riv.
RTA vs RTD contract FY
RTA SCRTD
726,128 859,155
21,271 21,271
493,197 493,197
34.77 34.77
$899,142 $899,142
$435,677
$322,894
$33,000
$17,500
$809,071
$1,844,512
$945,370
ESTIMATED
SAVINGS
$4,381,691
$2,551,690 $1,606,320
San B'dno, Orange and L.A. Counties
1986/87.
PBB 2/87
ALTERNATIVE 2
RTA OPERATION OF LINE 496 SAN BERNARDINO TO EL MONTE
AND LINE 149 RIVERSIDE TO DISNEYLAND
COUNTY RIV S.B.
MILES OPERATED 214,565 228,825
RTA ESTIMATED FARE REV. $246,391 $305,471
RTA ESTIMATED COST $545,038 $581,262
RTA ESTIMATED SUBSIDY $298,648 $275,791
SCRTD CONTRACT SUBSIDY $637,258 $679,610
SUBSIDY REDUCTION $338,610 $403,820
ORANGE L.A.
58,208 357,557 TOTAL
$47,543 $299,738 859,155
$147,860 $570,352 $899,142
$100,318 $270,614 $1,844,512
$172,878 $1,061,944 $945,370
$2,551,690
$72,560 $791,330 $1,606,320
ASSUMPTIONS:
RTA INCREMENTAL COSTS
Cost/ Mi
Cost/ Rev Hr
Supervisor/ Yr
Bus/ Yr (Local Capital)
$0.60
$15.18
$33,000
$2,500
RTA Fully Allocated Cost/ Mi $7,366,928 + Incremental Costs
RTD Contract Cost
RTD Contract Subsidy
2,492,513 + Additional Miles
$5.10 / per mile
$2.97 / per mile
* ALTERNATIVE SERVICE: RTA OPERATED
RIVERSIDE - DISNEYLAND (149)
SAN BERNARDINO - EL MONTE (496)
* LINE 496 DISCONTINUED, ALL PASSENGERS TRANSFER IN EL MONTE FOR TRAVEL
TO DOWNTOWN L.A.
ANNUAL MILES
ANNUAL HOURS
ANNUAL PASSENGERS
AVG MI/HR
FARE REVENUE
RTA INCREMENTAL COSTS:
MILES
HOURS
SUPERVISOR
BUSES (7)
TOTAL
FULLY ALLOCATED COST
SUBSIDY
RTA
726,128
21,271
493,197
34.77
$899,142
SCRTD
859,155 (Includes El Monte to L.A. miles)
NA
493,197
34.77
$899,142
$435,677
$322,894
$33,000
$17,500 ESTIMATED
$809,071 SAVINGS
$1,844,512 $4,381,691
$945,370 $2,551,690 $1,606,320
Subsidy reduction Riv., San B'dno, Orange and L.A. Counties,
RTA vs RTD contract FY 1986/87.
PBB 2/87
RCTC MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 15-87
November 4, 1987
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Melba Dunlap at
2:03 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4, 1987, at the 14th Floor
Conference Room of the Riverside County Administrative
Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
Members present:
Susan Cornelison
Melba Dunlap
Jean Mansfield
Alternates present:
Don Baskett
Russell Beirich
Dick Deininger
2. Approval of Minutes.
Roy Wilson
Norton Younglove
Pat Murphy
Wayne Stuart
Ray Tanner
M/S/C (CORNELISON/STUART) to approve the minutes of the
October 7, 1987 meeting as submitted.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. Consent Calendar.
M/S/C (CORNELISON/TANNER) to:
A. Fiscal Audits - STA Account, SAFE Account and RCTC
Account.
Receive and file the fiscal audits of the
Commission's accounts, the State Transit
Assistance Program account, and the Service
Authority for Freeway Emergencies account.
B. Quarterly Financial Report.
Receive and file the quarterly financial report of
the Riverside County Transportation Commission
Fund.
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
5. Rideshare Efforts in Riverside County.
Kathy Gerwig, Commuter Computer, briefed the Commission on
the following areas: 1) what Commuter Computer is doing in
placing people in the ridesharing program; 2) efforts being
made with OCTD to service the Riverside to Orange County
commuters; and, 3) Commuter Computer's role is to make Route
91 a more effective corridor. In terms of placement
effectiveness, a survey was conducted by Commuter Computer
between July and September, 1987. A detailed report and
analysis of the survey will be presented to the Commission
in 90 days.
Kathy Gerwig continued and informed the Commission of
proposal by the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Regulation 15, which would require employers of 100 or more
employees to develop and implement a plan on ridesharing.
They are supportive of the intent of Regulation 15 and
through Commuter Computer's public policy committee will be
giving testimony at the public hearing before the District
for the December 11. At the State level, the Governor
repealed all existing rideshare tax credits retroactive to
January 1, 1987. They are currently working with different
organizations in the area to try and pursue legislation for
1988. At the federal 'level, bills have been introduced to
offer tax incentives and tax exemptions for employers
providing vanpooling vehicles and to provide an exemption
for subsidizing ridesharing fees such as through transit
passes.
Commissioner Mansfield commented that there are some people
that commute to Orange County that are now ready to listen
to ridesharing ideas. She asked if Commuter Computer have
agressively marketed buspooling whereby commuters could
leave their cars in a parking lot and buspool to Orange
County.
Kathy Gerwig said that Commuter Computer is working with the
Orange County Transit District in this area.
Steve Rathburn, Emergency Services Department, County of
Riverside, informed the Commission that 61% of County
employees participated in the RideShare Days exercise in
August which resulted in 51% reduction of downtown vehicles.
Also, 26% of City employees participated on a volunteer
basis. For the Rideshare Days, the Commission has provided
$500 to the County for incentives with a condition that the
funds also be utilized for continuation of rideshare process
throughout the year. He will meet with Higbee Hayslett to
determine how to most effectively use the remaining $$367 to
continue the rideshare process.
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
Commissioner Younglove commented that a private sector,
Security Pacific National Bank, had the best participation
during the Rideshare Days.
Steve Rathburn added that Security Pacific National Bank was
very cooperative from the inception of the program and, in
fact, provided the Rideshare Days flyers that were included
in County employees' paychecks.
Commissioner Cornelison asked the process for matching
employees interested in ridesharing.
Steve Rathburn said that the matchlist was prepared in
cooperation with Carla Newell of Commuter Computer, Ed
Studor of the Road Department, Higbee Hayslett of the
Administrative Office, and himself, and were provided to
employees requesting it.
Commissioner Beirich asked that next year if funding towards
ridesharing was to be increased to $5,000 if it would
increase participation ten times in direct correlation to
prizes and the number of employees participating.
Steve Rathburn said that there were approximately the same
number of prizes given out this year but the big difference
was the grand prize (2 round trip tickets to anywhere in the
United States donated by American Airlines). He added that
about 11-13% employees who participated has indicated a
desire to continue to rideshare.
Commissioner Younglove said that the existence of prizes is
very important to get the attention of employees to
participate but once that is achieved, he does not think
that adding more prizes would make that much difference.
6. RIVSAN Study Status Report and Initial Findings.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, said that the RIVSAN
Transportation Study, a study projecting traffic volumes for
the year 2010 and which identify the deficiencies in the
highway and major arterial system for Western Riverside and
San Bernardino Counties, will be completed within the next
2-3 months. SCAG will be distributing a draft report to the
cities and the County for review and comment. A final
report will be presented to the Commission for approval
after review and comment by local agencies.
Gil Hicks, Project Manager, SCAG, said that SCAG used in
forecasting traffic a computerized travel demand model which
takes in information relating to employment, population and
housing. The primary driving force of this effort are the
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
assumptions on population/employment growth of the area.
Using a chart, he showed the levels of growth and
population, and the trips made from 1984 to 2010 by major
areas. The traffic that the population growth will generate
has been ploted using a no -case scenario and with proposed
improvements scenario. They will also evaluate the impacts
of extending the proposed Cajalco Parkway as well as the
possibility of other corridors, and the feasibility of
commuter rail service along the Santa Fe line along Route
91.
Commissioner Cornelison asked if both models used do not, at
this point, include any change in the job/housing balance.
Also, she asked if consideration was made of Orange County
land use options in developing the alternatives.
Gil Hicks said that for San Bernardino County, they used
the '82 SCAG Modified Forecast which assumes some balance
but in Riverside County, they felt that SCAG '82 Modified
Forecast was just not going to happen. So they increased
the population level in Riverside County and kept the
employment level the same. So, there is some worsening
jobs/housing balance in the Riverside County section of the
study. With regards to land options in Orange County, Gil
Hicks said that there were no variations of Orange County
assumptions plugged in.
Commissioner Cornelison asked with the proposed Cajalco
Parkway, how much was taken into consideration of the
internal use.
Gil Hicks stated that he does not have any numbers for the
Commission on this today.
Jack Reagan, Executive Director, cautioned the Commissioners
from drawing any conclusion from the initial model run
because the purpose of the Cajalco Parkway study is to play
a lot of "what if" games in terms of other connections and
that the numbers may look a lot different.
Commissioner Beirich asked whether this information is
significantly different from what was discussed about before
in developing the expenditure plan for the proposed sales
tax measure.
Jack Reagan said that he is unsure whether this information
was used as the basis for putting together the expenditure
plan but this ought to be looked at in relationship to
priorities and projects.
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
Commissioner Beirich said that the '84 SCAG Modified
Forecast indicated that there were 300,000 people and
100,000+ jobs. The forecast for 2010 are 600,000 people but
only about 235,000 jobs. He asked what the reason is for
the employment growth. He also noted that with more people
coming into jobs, there would be more traffic internally.
Gil Hicks said that there is some improvement in the balance
but it is not as much. In reflecting the differences in the
household size, some of the people in the retirement
community would not be making as many trips and this is
factored into the model. In Riverside County, there is a
high level of retirement activity.
7. Local Sales Tax for Transportation - Riverside County Board
of Supervisors Request to Defer to November 1988.
Jack Reagan said that included in the agenda packet is a
letter received from Supervisor Walt Abraham, Chairman of
the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, requesting that
RCTC defer placing the local sales tax measure until the
November 1988 election. Staff felt that the decision be
deferred until its February 1988 meeting as there are some
additional information that needs to be considered before
the decision is made such as: 1) result 9f a survey of how
voters will respond; and, 2) what other issues will be on
the June and November 1988 elections.
With regards to the results of the San Bernardino County's
local sales tax measure, Jack Reagan said that
given
voter turnout which is a little less than 20% and the
composition of the voters, 45% voting for the measure is not
bad.
M/S/C (WILSON/MANSFIELD) to receive and file the
request from the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
to defer the local sales tax for transportation measure
to November 1988 and consider the request when the
final decision is made by the Commission in February.
8. Federal Aid Urban Program Amendments.
A. Route ill Widening (Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage).
Jack Reagan informed the Commission that the Cities of
Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage have requested amendments
to the FAU Program to reduce the local share and
increase the federal share of funds for widening
Highway 111 from 4 to 6 lanes between Bob Hope Drive
and Town Center Way. The proposed amendment was
reviewed by the FAU and the Technical Advisory
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
Committees and they proposed that: 1) the cities of
Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage should be allowed to use
their FY 1986-87 unobligated balances and FY 1987-88
allocations toward the project; 2) the Frank Sinatra
Drive project in Rancho Mirage should be deleted from
the program as requested, with funding transferred to
the Highway 111 project; and, 3) that Caltrans
contributions of the project costs should not be
increased.
Brenda Scarcella, Planning Associate, City of Indian
Wells, informed the Commission of Indian Wells concern
on the proposed project to widen Highway 111 to 6 lanes
between Bob Hope Drive and Town Center Way. She said
that if the Commission approved the project, it will
eventually affect Indian Wells in the future. She then
submitted a letter from Indian Wells to the Commission.
Dick Folkers, Public Works Director and City Engineer,
City of Palm Desert, said that Palm Desert feels very
strongly about the project because there is a definite
need for the street widening project through the area.
A study done during the Bob Hope Classics last year
indicated that within a 24 -hour period, there were
approximately 55,000 cars which travelled the 4 -lane
road. The project is to widen between Bob Hope Drive
and Town Center Way. The project has been reviewed by
Caltrans and the two cities. He requested Commission
approval of the staff recommendation.
M/S/C (BASKETT/MANSFIELD) to approve the
amendments to the Federal Aid Urban Program as
proposed by the FAU and Technical Advisory
Committees and direct staff to make necessary
revisions to the Transportation Improvement
Program.
B. Local Funding for Route 91 Preliminary Engineering.
Jack Reagan said that with the Commission's project
priorities on I-15, I-215, and Route 86, there is
little likelihood that a project could be funded on
Route 91 for 12 years or more unless the 1/2% sales tax
measure is approved by the voters. Given this
situation, the most reasonable course of action is to
get a Route 91 project "on the shelf" in anticipation
of voter approval of the sales tax measure. The most
expeditious way of moving a project on Route 91 would
be to commit local funding for engineering and the most
likely source of identifiable funds would be the FAU
funds. This would get the project into the STIP as a
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
special funded project. Staff is proposing that the
Commission dedicate FAU funds to initiate preliminary
engineering for a Route 91 project.
M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP) to approve the inclusion of
a preliminary engineering project on Route 91 on
the FY 88-89 FAU Program.
9. Proposed CTC Policy for Funding Airport and Port Access
Projects.
Eric Haley, SCAG, said that the proposed policy would
require fair share local match funds to' be provided by
either private or public sources for any significant access
improvements to airports and ports throughout California.
The reason for the proposed policy is the limit in funds,
expectation of declining federal funds, and the "deep
pockets" of both ports and airports. He said that ports and
airports in California has serious problems in terms of
meeting capital improvement needs for on -site and off -site
projects. SCAG feels that the fair share concept should be
developed further, and should be developed with in
cooperation of representatives from local governments, the
ctc, ports and airports communities. The language in the
proposed resolution exempts entities which have economic
impact on California. Smaller cities are not properly
exempted because they do not generate enough airport traffic
to have a meaningful connection. SCAG would like to see
that the policy be seriously considered and that loopholes
be tightened to address funding sources that look at the
institutional problems, look at the actual traffic problems,
establish some thresholds, and tighten the policy. SCAG
staff will be proposing to the Executive Committee that they
support the fair share project funding in concept for port
and airport access improvements and to authorize staff to
work with the CTC to resolve specific policy concerns.
M/S/C (WILSON/STUART) to oppose the California
Transportation Commission's proposed policy for funding
airport and port access projects unless amended in
accordance to SCAG recommendations.
10. Legislative Items.
Jack Reagan briefed the Commission on the following
legislative items:
SB 516 (Bergeson) - This bill would provide legislative
authority for Caltrans to contract out engineering work.
Included in the agenda is a report from Commissioner Bruce
Nestande explaning the need for SB 516. Staff recommends
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
that the Commission support SB 516.
SB 366 (Baker) - This bill was passed last September. It
establishes a $50 million State Highway Construction
Revolving Account in which local agencies funding highway
construction projects may borrow funds for up to two years.
Staff is proposing that the Commission direct staff to seek
amendment to identify engineering projects, such as
preliminary engineering project on Route 91, as an eligible
project for such loans. The amendment would lessen the
impact on more immediate FAU funded local road projects.
M/S/C (DUNLAP/WILSON) to support SB 516 and to direct
staff to initiate action to amend SB 366 and identify
engineering projects as eligible projects for such
loans.
11. Request Authorization to Recruit for Staff Positions.
Jack Reagan informed the Commission that the Staff Analyst
position is needed to fulfill existing and new
responsibilities such as TDA administration, and the Service
Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE) program, Also
being proposed is the addition of a part-time Clerk Typist
to assist in the increasing office work load. He noted that
the salary for the Clerk Typist position is $7.00-
$9.Q0/hour. The proposal for additional staffing was
previously reviewed with the Personnel Committee.
M/S/C (CORNELISON/TANNER) to approve the addition of a
Staff Analyst and a Clerk Typist and authorize staff to
initiate recruitment.
12. Executive Director's Report.
A. Request to Consider Consultant Assistance for Review of
Expenditure Plan.
Included in the agenda is a letter from D.J. Smith
recommending that the Commission retain a consultant to
review Caltrans' estimates of project costs and revenue
estimates shown in the preliminary expenditure plan.
He expressed the importance of having a fairly accurate
estimate of project costs, and State and Federal
revenues. He said that it is essential to determine
the final expenditure plan as soon as possible. In
San Bernardino County, SanBAG retained Arthur Young and
Associates, and Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, and
Douglas. Arthur Young has submitted a proposal which
would cost $34,000 ($10,500 for initial engineering and
analysis and $23,500 for review of the revenue
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
forecast). He feels comfortable with the initial
engineering and analysis cost but not with the cost to
review the revenue forecast especially since Arthur
Young will rely on staff to provide the estimates.
There is a need to determine a high and low range in
the financial estimates. He feels that this could
probably be done in-house or perhaps to amend D.J.
Smith's contract to assist staff.
Commissioner Beirich suggested that perhaps the
Commission should seek request for proposals from other
consulting firms to get a feel of how much it would
cost to do the job.
Jack Reagan noted the time constraints and said that to
expedite things he suggested augmenting D.J. Smith's
contract and work with him on revenue forecasting and
perhaps have PBD&Q as a subcontractor for D.J. Smith.
M/S/C (WILSON/STUART) to authorize the Executive
Director to solidify a proposal and bring it back
to the Commission at its next meeting in December.
B. Route 91 Ramp Metering.
Jack Reagan said that Caltrans has decided to defer the
ramp metering projects in Corona. For future ramp
metering projects, he suggested that the Commission
should develop a ramp meter policy on Route 91 rather
than looking at ramp meter projects on an individual
basis.
Commissioner Younglove said that the ramp metering
policy should be that the Commission support ramp
metering when a traffic congestion level (D,E,or F) is
reached unless local conditions dictate otherwise.
He suggested that staff should make a detailed analysis
on ramp metering and arrive at a policy to bring back
to the Commission.
Commissioner Deininger informed the Commission that the
City of Corona did not object to the whole ramp
metering program proposed on Route 91. The City
Council objected to metering the Maple Street ramp
because it would cause traffic to back up all the way
to Sixth Street. He suggested that Caltrans should
also look at a ramp meter project on the Route 71 ramp.
Stan Lisiewicz, Deputy Director of District 8, said
that Corona has raised some objections and Caltrans
will address them. They will also look at the
RCTC Minutes
November t, 1987
suggestion to meter Route 71 ramp.
Jack Reagan said that he had hoped that Caltrans will
have a technical analysis related to ramp metering on
Route 91. He would then like to review the information
with representative of affected cities such as Corona,
Norco, Riverside, and County of Riverside.
Stan Lisiewicz stated that the problem is that the
proposed ramp metering project is under the $250,000
limit in order to avoid going through the State
Transportation Improvement Program process where other
funds could be used. But when the scope of the project
is changed and only a part of the project is
constructed, the project may not accomplish what it set
out to do.
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff come
back with a policy on ramp metering.
C. Liaison with SCAG.
Jack Reagan informed the Commission of a need to have
an identified SCAG liaison at Commission meetings and
to work with local governments in Riverside County on
matters that relate to SCAG.
M/S/C (WILSON/DUNLAP) to authorize the Executive
Director to write a letter to Mark Pisano,
Executive Director of SCAG, to consider
designating a SCAG staff as the SCAG liaison.
D. California Transportation Commission Meeting in Palm
Desert.
Jack Reagan said that a tour of Route 86 is planned for
the State Commission in November 18 at 2:30 p.m. and a
reception, co -hosted by CVAG, Southern California
Automible Club, Route 86 Coalition and the Commission,
is scheduled at 6:00 p.m.
At this time, Chairman Dunlap informed the Commission that
Pat Murphy was elected as Vice Chairman of the California
League of Cities. Jean Mansfield was reelected for the
third term.
13. Proposed SunLine Transit Agency Short: Range Transit Plan
Amendment.
Jack Reagan said that he and Paul Blackwelder met with Lee
Norwine and Dick Cromwell to review the information to
RCTC Minutes
November 4, 1987
justify the recommended service change, and staff recommends
Commission approval. A public hearing on the recommended
service change is scheduled on December 19. Staff
recommends that SunLine staff make special efforts to inform
Line 20 patrons of the best possible transfers between Lines
20 and 19. Also, SunLine should closely monitor the Line 19
service and capacity.
Lee Norwine, General Manager, SunLine Transit Agency, said
that the SunLine Transit Agency has one major route, Line
19, that travels from Desert Hot Springs all the way through
the valley. Throughout the year, Line 19 has increased in
ridership. One the problems encountered is that there are
currently eight buses being used for the route and, each
year, there is less time to do the same route because of
traffic conditions. They are proposing the following: 1)
eliminate Line 20 service between Palm Desert and Indio
which duplicates Line 19 service; 2) eliminate Line 20
service in the northern portion of Indio; 3) increase
frequency of Line 20 service from 60 minutes to 40 minutes
between Palm Springs and Palm Desert; and, 4) service the
northern portion of Indio by extending Line 5.
Jack Reagan said that SunLine will still need to hold a
public hearing to fulfill the Commission requirement for
service changes. SunLine has indicated that they would like
to implement the change on November 22nd. In order to do
this, staff is proposing that the Commission approve the
service changes, in concept, and direct staff to testify at
the public hearing its concern that SunLine make special.
efforts to inform Line 20 riders of the best possible
transfer times between Lines 20 and 19, and the need to
closely monitor the Line 19 service ridership and capacity.
M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/WILSON) to approve the service change,
in concept, and direct staff to appear at the SunLine
public hearing and submit the Commission's concern
relating to transfers.
14. Adjournment.
At 4:07 P.M., with no other items before the Commission,
Chairman Dunlap adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
nk
Jack Reagan
Executive Director
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting No. 16-87
December 2, 1987
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation
Commission was called to order by Chairman Melba Dunlap at
2:05 p.m. on Wednesday, December 2, 1987, at the 14th Floor
Conference Room of the Riverside County Administrative
Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside.
Members present:
Kay Ceniceros Bill Edmonds
Susan Cornelison Roy Wilson
Melba Dunlap
Alternates present:
Don Baskett
Jack Clarke
Dick Deininger
2. Approval of Minutes.
Pat Murphy
Wayne Stuart
Ray Tanner
M/S/C (BASKETT/WILSON) to approve the minutes of the
November 4, 1987 meeting as submitted.
3. Public Comments.
There were no public comments.
4. Consent Calendar.
M/S/C (WILSON/TANNER) to:
A. SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan
Amendment - Lines 20 and 5 Service Changes.
Approve the amendment of the Riverside County
Short Range Transit Plan to incorporate the
changes on Lines 20 and 5, as proposed by the
SunLine Transit Agency.
B. Fiscal Audit - Local Transportation Fund.
Receive and file the audit of the Local
Transportation Fund for FY 86-87.
1
RCTC Minutes
December 2, 1987
C. Downscoping of SB 821 Project - City of Hemet.
1) Approve the request from the City of Hemet to
construct the bike path only along the
easterly side of Palm Avenue with SB 821
funding with the stipulation that the bike
path on the westerly side of Palm Avenue be
constructed by the developer or the City
within 6 months.
2) Disapprove the request to construct a bike
path only along the westerly side of State
Street and delete the State Street bike path
from the approved project.
D. Unmet Transit Needs Hearings.
Hold the unmet transit needs hearings in Palm Desert in
February and in Riverside and Corona in March, and
direct staff to locate appropriate facilities for the
hearings.
5. Proposal to Expand Citizens Advisory Committee for SB 498
Implementation.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, briefed the Commission
of the SB 498 requirement that a social service advisory
council, comprised of elderly handicapped individuals,
representatives of various social services agencies, and
social service transportation providers, be formed in
counties using a portion of their Transportation Development
Act funds for local streets and roads. The council would be
responsible for reviewing unmet needs testimony and
submitting its recommendation to the responsible
commissions.
The Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee, which meets on
a regular basis, is now responsible for making
recommendations on unmet transit needs and other
transportation planning issues to the Commission. The
membership of the Committee is composed of some of the same
individuals required for the council. Staff feels that the
most expeditious and appropriate way to comply with the SB
498 requirement is to revise and expand the make-up of the
current Citizens Advisory Committee. The terms of
approximately one-half of the existing Committee membership
are about to expire and it will be necessary to appoint or
reappoint members to the Committee. The Committee has
discussed the staff proposal and supports it. Staff will
RCTC Minutes
December 2, 1987
send letters to social service agencies requesting that they
submit nominees from their respective agencies for the
Committee.
Jack Reagan, Executive Director, stated that the Commission
may want to set up a screening committee to review the
applications.
M/S/C (CORNELISON/CENICEROS) to revise the composition
of the Citizens Advisory Committee and expand the
Committee to incorporate the required representatives
of elderly, handicapped, and low income individuals,
social service agencies, and social service
transportation providers.
Chairman Dunlap appointed Commissioners Baskett, Cornelison
and Wilson with Commissioner Stuart as the alternate, to the
Committee to review applications and make recommendation for
the Citizens Advisory Committee membership.
6. Proposed Consultant Services to Review Highway Project
Costs.
Copies of the proposals from Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, &
Douglas (PBQ&D), and from Bechtel Civil, Inc. were
distributed to members of the Commission.
Jack Reagan said that at the November meeting, the
Commission discussed the possibility of retaining a
consultant to review Caltrans' estimates of project costs
and revenue estimates shown on the local sales tax
expenditure plan. Staff was directed to negotiate with
potential consultants and bring back a specific proposal for
action in December. Staff received proposals from two
firms, PBQ&D and Bechtel Civil, Inc. He then gave a summary
of each firm's proposal. Although both firms are highly
qualified, staff recommended that the Commission select
Bechtel Civil, Inc. because of the higher number of hours,
involvement of higher level members of the firm, and
experience dealing with cost estimates for highway projects.
Jack Reagan also recommended that D.J. Smith's contract be
amended by $1500 for managing and administering the contract
with the engineering consulting firm, and to work with
Commission staff in reviewing and analyzing alternative
federal and state revenue assumptions.
Bill Edmonds agreed with the staff recommendation and said
that the Commission is very fortunate to have Bechtel Civil,
Inc.
"
R C T C M i n u t e s
D e c e m b e r 2 , 1 9 8 7
M / S / C ( B A S K E T T / C E N I C E R O S ) t o a p p r o v e a n a m e n d m e n t t o
t h e e x i s t i n g c o n t r a c t w i t h D . J . S m i t h A s s o c i a t e s , w i t h
t h e c o s t f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l s e r v i c e s e t a t $ 1 4 , 0 0 0 , t o :
1 ) O b t a i n t h e s e r v i c e s o f B e c h t e l C i v i l , I n c . t o
p r o v i d e c o s t e s t i m a t e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r h i g h w a y
p r o j e c t s i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r e l i m i n a r y e x p e n d i t u r e
p l a n ;
2 ) A s s i s t R C T C s t a f f t o d e v e l o p a l t e r n a t i v e r e v e n u e
a s s u m p t i o n s f o r t h e e x p e n d i t u r e p l a n ; a n d ,
3 ) A d m i n i s t e r t h e s e r v i c e s o f B e c h t e l C i v i l , I n c .
7 . R e n e w a l o f L e a s e - P r o p o s a l t o M o v e t o S u i t e 3 0 0 .
J a c k R e a g a n t o l d t h e C o m m i s s i o n t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g l e a s e f o r
t h e C o m m i s s i o n o f f i c e e x p i r e d o n N o v e m b e r 3 0 , 1 9 8 7 . T h e
r e n t w i l l i n c r e a s e f r o m $ 1 . 1 3 / s q . f t . t o $ 1 . 1 8 / s q . f t . ( f r o m
$ 1 0 1 3 . 5 8 t o $ 1 5 2 1 . 0 2 / m o n t h ) . H e p o i n t e d o u t t h e n e e d f o r
a d d i t i o n a l s p a c e t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e f i v e a u t h o r i z e d s t a f f
p o s i t i o n s . S u i t e 3 0 0 , t h e o f f i c e n e x t t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n
( 1 2 8 9 s q . f t . ) , i s v a c a n t a n d i s . a v a i l a b l e . T h e l e a s e w o u l d
r e m a i n a y e a r t o y e a r a g r e e m e n t w i t h a p r o v i s i o n t h a t r e n t
i n c r e a s e s w i l l b e n o g r e a t e r t h a n t h e L o s A n g e l e s / L o n g B e a c h
c o n s u m e r p r i c e i n d e x .
C o m m i s s i o n e r s C o r n e l i s o n a n d S t u a r t h a d t o u r e d t h e t w o
o f f i c e s a n d a g r e e d t h a t S u i t e 3 0 0 w o u l d b e m o r e w o r k a b l e
w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n a l s t a f f t h a t i s a n t i c i p a t e d .
M / S / C ( C O R N E L I S O N / W I L S O N ) t o a u t h o r i z e s t a f f t o
n e g o t i a t e w i t h M a g n o n / M a i n S t r e e t B u i l d i n g t o a c q u i r e
t h e e x i s t i n g v a c a n t S u i t e 3 0 0 f o r t h e R C T C o f f i c e s .
8 . S C A Q M D '