HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 October 31, 1988 Citizens Advisory040258
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1:30 P.M., MONDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER
14TH FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
4080 LEMON STREET, RIVERSIDE 92501
1. Call to Order.
2. Approval of Minutes ACTION
3. Route 91 Improvements. DISC/INFO
4. State Transportation Improvement Program DISC/INFO
Approved by the California Transportation
Commission.
5. Riverside County Callbox System DISC/INFO
A. Update
B. Accessibility
6. Draft RFP for Socal Service Brokerage Study. DISC/INFO
7. Other Items.
8. Adjournment.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Minutes of Meeting No. 7-88
August 29, 1988
1. Call to Order.
The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee was called to
order by Chairman Terry Allen at 1:41 p.m., at the Riverside
County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room,
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501.
Members present:
Terry Allen
Ace Atkinson
Cathy Bechtel
Michael Beggins
Rose Eldridge
Herb Krauch
Don Kurz
Others present:
Joanne Moore
Lori Nickel
Rena Parker
Chuck Schmitt
Don Senger
Bill Udell
Debra Astin, SunLine Transit Agency
Paul Blackwelder, RCTC
Hideo Sugita, RCTC
2. Approval of Minutes.
Debbie Astin noted a correction on Page 3, third paragraph,
fourth sentence, "...SunLine is proposing to purchase 9 non -
lift equipped buses." It should be 12 non -lift equipped
buses.
M/S/C (SENGER/MOORE) to approve the minutes of the
Citizens Advisory Committee's June 27, 1988 meeting as
corrected.
3. Measure A - Local Sales Tax for Transportation.
Paul Blackwelder, Assistant Director, informed Committee
members that the proposed half -cent local sales tax for
transportation measure will be on the November ballot. He
reviewed the: 1) Expenditure Plan and projects to be funded
by revenues of the measure; 2) Route 91 environmental and
engineering work to be undertaken jointly by the Riverside
and Orange County Transportation Commissions; and, 3)
projects proposed to the California Transportation
Commission for inclusion in the 5 -Year State Transportation
Improvement Plan.
" "
P a g e 2
P a u l B l a c k w e l d e r r e q u e s t e d C o m m i t t e e m e m b e r s o f g r o u p s
i n t e r e s t e d i n h a v i n g a p r e s e n t a t i o n o n M e a s u r e A t o c o n t a c t
s t a f f .
C h u c k S c h m i t t s p o k e r e g a r d i n g t h e i m p o r t a n c e a n d b e n e f i t s t o
b e g a i n e d b y t h e p a s s a g e o f t h e M e a s u r e A . H e i n f o r m e d
C o m m i s s i o n s t a f f t h a t t h e p e r s o n s w h o w i l l b e m a k i n g t h e
p r e s e n t a t i o n b e f o r e t h e h a n d i c a p p e d o r s e n i o r s c o m m u n i t y
s h o u l d b e w e l l b r i e f e d s o t h a t t h e y w i l l b e p r e p a r e d t o
a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s .
R e n a P a r k e r a s k e d t h e p r o c e s s o n w h i c h t h e C o m m i s s i o n w i l l
s e t p r i o r i t y w i t h r e g a r d s t o i m p r o v e m e n t s o n t h e 9 1 f r e e w a y
a n d t h e c o m m u t e r r a i l . S h e a l s o c o m m e n t e d t h a t t h e p r o p o s a l
t o a d d t w o l a n e s i n e a c h d i r e c t i o n o n R o u t e 9 1 w i l l
e n c o u r a g e m o r e d r i v e r s o n t h e f r e e w a y .
P a u l B l a c k w e l d e r s a i d t h a t p r i o r i t i e s w i l l b e s e t w h e n t h e
m e a s u r e p a s s e s .
H e r b K r a u c h s t a t e d t h a t t h e c o m m u t e r r a i l p r o j e c t i s g r e a t l y
n e e d e d i n R i v e r s i d e a n d a g r e e d w i t h f u n d i n g t h e p r o j e c t .
J o a n n e M o o r e a s k e d h o w R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y r e s i d e n t s w o u l d g e t
t o t h e i r p l a c e o f e m p l o y m e n t i n O r a n g e C o u n t y w h e n t h e y a r e
d r o p p e d o f f a t t h e e n d o f t h e r a i l l i n e .
P a u l B l a c k w e l d e r r e s p o n d e d t h a t t w o t e r m i n a l s a r e b e i n g
p r o p o s e d - F u l l e r t o n a n d I r v i n e . T h e r e w i l l a l s o b e s t o p s
a l o n g t h e w a y . H e a d d e d t h a t O r a n g e C o u n t y w i l l h a v e b u s e s
a t t h e t e r m i n a l s t o t a k e r i d e r s t o t h e a r e a o f t h e i r
e m p l o y m e n t , a n d t h a t v a n s a n d s h u t t l e s a r e p o s s i b i l i t i e s t o
h e l p e m p l o y e r s c o m p l y w i t h S C A Q M D R e g u l a t i o n X V
r e q u i r e m e n t s .
C h u c k S c h m i t t r e m i n d e d s t a f f t h a t w h e n t h e c o m m u t e r r a i l i s
b e i n g d e v e l o p e d , i t i s i m p e r a t i v e t h a t i t b e a c c e s s i b l e s o
t h a t h a n d i c a p p e d p e r s o n s w i l l b e a b l e t o u s e t h e s e r v i c e .
A c e A t k i n s o n s a i d t h a t a s t h e r e g i o n a l c e n t e r a n d s e r v i c e
p r o v i d e r s f o r p e r s o n s w i t h d e v e l o p m e n t a l d i s a b i l i t i e s a r e
m o r e s u c c e s s f u l i n f i n d i n g j o b s i n t h e c o m m u n i t y , t h a t i s
g o i n g t o e x a c e r b a t e t h e n e e d f o r d i a l - a - r i d e a n d p a r a -
t r a n s i t s e r v i c e s . H e u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t M e a s u r e A w i l l h e l p
e n s u r e t h a t t h e p l a n n i n g o f e x p a n s i o n o f t h e s e r v i c e s .
4 . 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 .
H i d e o S u g i t a b r i e f e d t h e C o m m i t t e e o n t h e s t a t u s o f
R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y ' s c a l l b o x s y s t e m d e v e l o p m e n t . T h e
C o m m i s s i o n h a s h i r e d a c o n s u l t a n t j o i n t l y w i t h S a n B A G .
T e c h P l a n i s t h e t h e c o n s u l t a n t h i r e d t o d e v e l o p a f i n a l
" "
P a g e 3
d e s i g n o f t h e s y s t e m t h a t w i l l d e f i n e t e c h n o l o g y t o b e u s e d
a n d a r e a t h a t c a n b e c o v e r e d i n e a c h c o u n t y b a s e d o n t h e
r e v e n u e s e x p e c t e d t o b e a v a i l a b l e . I n P h a s e I I , t h e y w i l l
d e v e l o p f i n a l s y s t e m s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . I t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 9 2 0 c a l l b o x e s a l o n g S t a t e r o u t e s i n t h e
u r b a n i z e d a r e a a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 4 8 c a l l b o x e s i n t h e r u r a l
a r e a s ( R o u t e s 1 0 , 6 0 , 1 5 , 7 9 , 8 6 ) w i l l b e n e e d e d t o m e e t
S t a t e s t a n d a r d s f o r s p a c i n g . C a l t r a n s ' g u i d e l i n e s s p e c i f y
t h a t a n A D T o f g r e a t e r t h a n 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 s h o u l d h a v e a s p a c i n g o f
1 / 4 m i l e , f o r A D T ' s b e t w e e n 4 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 , s p a c i n g s h o u l d
b e 1 / 2 m i l e , a n d l e s s t h a n 4 0 , 0 0 0 A D T , s p a c i n g s h o u l d b e 1
m i l e . B a s e d o n t h e r e v e n u e p r o j e c t i o n s , t h e C o m m i s s i o n w i l l
o n l y b e a b l e t o i n s t a l l 5 0 0 c a l l b o x e s . T o h e l p r e d u c e c o s t ,
t h e C o m m i s s i o n w r o t e a l e t t e r t o t h e C a l i f o r n i a H i g h w a y
P a t r o l f o r r e l i e f i n t h e c o s t o f d i s p a t c h i n g b u t t h e C H P h a s
r e s p o n d e d t h a t l e g i s l a t i o n w o u l d p r o h i b i t t h e m f r o m d o i n g
s o . T h e C o m m i s s i o n h a v e t o d e c i d e w h i c h h i g h w a y s s h o u l d b e
c o v e r e d , s p a c i n g i n u r b a n a n d r u r a l a r e a s g i v e n t h e h i g h w a y s
t o b e c o v e r e d , a n d w h e t h e r a d d i t i o n a l f u n d i n g s h o u l d b e
s o u g h t . O n e s o u r c e o f a d d i t i o n a l f u n d s t o h a v e c o m p l e t e
c o v e r a g e w i l l b e M e a s u r e A f u n d s .
5 . 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 .
H i d e o S u g i t a s a i d t h a t t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a d h i r e d a c o n s u l t a n t
t o c o n d u c t p r e l i m i n a r y f e a s i b i l i t y a s s e s s m e n t o f p r o v i d i n g
c o m m u t e r r a i l s e r v i c e f r o m R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y t h r o u g h t h e
S a n t a A n a C a n y o n t o t h e I r v i n e A m t r a k S t a t i o n . T h e
c o n s u l t a n t h a d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t i s f e a s i b l e a n d f u n d i n g
i n c l u d e d i n M e a s u r e A ' s 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 .
T h e s e r v i c e w i l l s t a r t f r o m t h e S e v e n t h S t r e e t s t a t i o n i n
R i v e r s i d e t o t h e I r v i n e A m t r a k S t a t i o n u s i n g e x i s t i n g r a i l
r i g h t s - o f - w a y . F o u r t r a i n s w o u l d t r a v e l a t 4 9 . 4 m i l e s p e r
h o u r w i t h 2 0 - m i n u t e h e a d w a y s i n t h e m o r n i n g a n d a f t e r n o o n .
F i v e s t o p s a r e b e i n g p r o p o s e d i n R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y - S e v e n t h
S t r e e t , M a d i s o n A v e n u e , L a S i e r r a A v e n u e , C o r o n a M a i n
S t r e e t , S e r f a s C l u b D r i v e . T h e O r a n g 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 i s p r o p o s i n g t h a t t w o o f t h e t r a i n s s h o u l d
p r o b a b l y g o t o F u l l e r t o n r a t h e r t h a n I r v i n e . T h e c a p i t a l
c o s t s e s t i m a t e r a n g e f r o m $ 7 8 . 3 m i l l i o n a n d $ 1 3 7 . 9 m i l l i o n
a n d t h e o p e r a t i n g c o s t s i s e s t i m a t e d a t $ 9 . 3 3 m i l l i o n / y e a r .
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 .
P a u l B l a c k w e l d e r s t a t e d t h a t i n c l u d e d i n t h e C o m m i t t e e ' s
a g e n d a p a c k e t w a s a r e p o r t t h a t w a s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e
C o m m i s s i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e S u n L i n e T r a n s i t A g e n c y ' s
q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r o r n o t a c c e s s i b i l i t y f e a t u r e s f o r
t r a n s i t v e h i c l e s r e q u i r e d b y t h e S t a t e u n d e r S e c t i o n 4 5 0 0 o f
t h e G o v e r n m e n t C o d e a p p l i e s t o t h e p u r c h a s e o f u s e d b u s e s
n e e d e d t o i m p r o v e o r e x p a n d s e r v i c e s . T h e C o m m i s s i o n h a s
a c c e p t e d t h e L e g a l C o u n s e l ' s o p i n i o n a n d s t a f f ' s
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s d o a p p l y .
" "
P a g e 4
7 . 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 .
P a u l B l a c k w e l d e r i n f o r m e d t h e C o m m i t t e e t h a t t h 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 s i n R i v e r s i d e , S a n B e r n a r d i n o ,
O r a n g e a n d L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t i e s a n d t h e t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s
h a v e b e e n m e e t i n g t o f i n a l i z e a p r o p o s a l t o r e d u c e t h e c o s t
a n d s u b s i d y o f t h e i n t e r c i t y l i n e s c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t e d b y t h e
S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a R a p i d T r a n s i t D i s t r i c t b y c o n t r a c t i n g
t h e m t o p r i v a t e o p e r a t o r s . T h e t w o l i n e s a r e L i n e 1 4 9
( R i v e r s i d e - A n a h e i m - L o n g B e a c h ) a n d L i n e 4 9 6 ( S a n B e r n a r d i n o -
R i v e r s i d e - L o s A n g e l e s ) . A t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n ,
R T A w i l l b e a c t i n g a s t h e l e a d a g e n c y f o r t h e p r o j e c t .
8 . 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 b u s i n e s s t o b e d i s c u s s e d , t h e m e e t i n g
w a s a d j o u r n e d b y C h a i r m a n A l l e n a t 3 : 5 1 p . m .
R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,
/ - f l
3 1 L s a .
a u ] B l a c k w e l d e r
A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r
n k
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission
FROM: Jack Reagan, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Report on CTC Staff Recommended STI? in Relation to
Measure A Program
As the Commission is aware, the 1988 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) cycle has been a "Good News"/"Bad
News" situation. The "Bad News" is that the State will run out
of money to match Federal funds in about two years; the existing
STIP shortfall is approaching $2 billion. The "Good News" is
that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) is
programming additional funds anyway, in response to the SB 140
mandate for a $1 billion per year highway capital program. At
its October 6, 1988 meeting, CTC will program an additional $467
million ($103 million North and $364 South).
RCTC's strategy has been to attempt to secure as much of this
additional programming as possible through a commitment of 50%
Measure A matching funds, assuming the measure is approved by
voters in November. It appears that we have succeeded in
convincing both CTC and Caltrans staff that our recommendations
should be supported. Of the $364 million for Southern
California, Riverside County is proposed to be programmed at
$53.6 million - or 14.7%; in comparison, our "county minimum"
share of southern California funds would be 5.9%.
The attached map illustrates the STIP and Standby List projects
recommended by CTC and Caltrans staff. Also included is their
recommended STIP Appendix, which will become the STIP for
Riverside County if Measure A is approved. The costs shown under
the Alternative Programming column are the State share only.
Measure A 50% matching funds would bring the total STIP Program
level to $107.2 million, the Standby List Program level to an
additional $183.7 million, and the Retrofit Soundwall Program to
$3.3 million - or double the amount shown. Every project
priority for the STIP and Standby List which we submitted to CTC
is included in the Alternative Program.
Credit for Caltrans and CTC staff support is due to both the
Route 36 Improvement Association and the Western Riverside County
Coalition for Better Transportation for raising awareness of the
need for Route 86 and 91 improvements. However, I am convinced
that offering prospective Measure A matching funds had a major
influence on this positive recommendation. I am confident that
CTC will formally approve this recommendation when they adopt the
1988 STIP on October 6th.
Agenda Item No. 6
JR:nk October 5, 1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PROPOSED FY 1989 - 1993 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
ASSUMES MEASURE "A" PASSAGE - FUNDING 50% LOCAL AND 50% FED/STATE
C( 11l( )NA
72,0
U
11111111
PALO) VE11I)E VALLEY X711
M AI IMO N I NANNIN(1
G1( 11Ir N/ I VAI I FY Dill on Road
7I,
SAN
.IA CI N 10
PAl M SPr11N(4S
CA II IFI111AI CIIY
11AN(:1 I() MINA( a
I� IS /86
----- CTC STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
• • • • • • STANDBY LIST
WES1E ITN COUNTY ---
- COAC11E1 I A VALLEY
STIP APPENDIX
Staff Recommendations
Alternative Programming
If Sales Tax Measure Passes in Riverside County
STAFF RECONMENUAT10NS
Route
86
Esc.
Project Description Coat
Expressway Indio
Bypass, Stage 6
91 Widening through
Santa Ana Canyon,
Orange Co-Rt 15
91 Ramp meters,
Magnolia-Rt 215
TOTAL
Standby List
91 Auxiliary lanes
W of Riverside,
Tyler -Van Ruren
111 Signal connections
in Palm Springs
86 Indio 3ypass Fwy,
Stages 4-6
$17.2
$32.8
$3.6
$53.6
$0.5
$43.6
ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMMING
Route
86
Project DescripcIon
Expressway 1ndin
Bypass, Stage 3
91 Widening through
Santa Ana Canyon,
Orange Co-Rt 15
91 Ramp meters,
Magnolia -(t 215
91 Auxiliary lanes
W of Riverside,
Tyler -San Buren
Esc.
Lost
$8.6
$16.4
$1.8
$0.6
111 Signal connections $0.5
in Palm Springs
86 Indio Bypass Fwy, $10.8
Stag'ie. 4
215 Widening E of
Riverside, between
Jcts with Rt 60
60 widening W of
Riverside,
Market-Rt 215
60 Widening W of
Riverside,
Valley -Market
$10.7
$4.2
$53.6
$5.8
86 Indio Bypass Fury, $13.5
Stages 5 and 6
60 Widening in Moreno $9.9
Valley, Rt 215 -
Redlands 131
Route
Project Description
5U Widening W of
Riverside,
Valley-Rt 215
215 Widening E of
Riverside, between
Jots with Rt 60
TOTAL
Retrofit Soundwalls
60 Marino Valley,
Graham-1leacock,
Roth sides
215 Riverside,
Rt 91 -Columbia,
Both sides
91 Riverside,
Adams -Central,
Both sides
Fan.
Cost
$20.1
$21.4
$91.7
$0.3
$0.7
$0.8
TOTAL $1.3
Fgc.
R;,ute t'roject 1)egcription Cont
79 Widening and
stratgtenin,g S of
Tlenumont, Rt 74-
Rt. 10
215 Fwy interchange,
Rts 91 and 50,
Riverside, Stage 1
74 Widening through
Ferris
215 Fwy interchange,
Rts 91 and 60,
Riverside, Stage 2
60 Marino Valley,
Graham-Heacock,
Both Rides
215 Riverside,
Rt 91 -Columbia,
Both sides
91 Riverside,
Adams -Central,
Both sides
60 Riverside,
Fairmount -Main,
Both sides
ORA-5 San Clemente,
Vaquero -de Estrella,
W (SB) side
LA -1O1 Agoura, Reyes
Adobe-Lindero Canyon,
N (WB) side
S11.3
$25.0
$4.9
$2U.H
$91.7
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
$0.1
$0.1
$0.4
$1.9
TI -11%:4 P tl
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
October 31, 1988
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Hideo Sugita ,
SUBJECT: Callbox Update
Attached is a copy of the Executive Summary of the Phase I Final
Report of the calibox study which was accepted by the Commission
at their meeting on September 7, 1988. The consultants, Techplan,
have started Phase II work, developing calibox equipment
specifications for Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for the
construction of the callbox system. We expect that the RFPs will
be released after the December holidays.
As part of the RFP development process, we will address the issue
of callbox accessibility for the handicapped. Staff has requested
Chuck Schmitt to participate on the BI -County SAFE Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) that is working with Techplan to develop
the RFPs.
There is one other item of note, staff and the consultants met
with representatives of a new company in the callbox equipment
business, U.S. Commlink, which is located in Mira Loma. In order
to demonstrate they are a vendor with a quality product they have
offered to install a 12 box demonstration project along I-215
between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Should this
demonstration project prove successful, we would have at least
three qualified bidders proposing on our project. Entry of a
third qualified firm into the market would help us to receive
better (lower) prices for the equipment.
We expect to receive their proposal in the next few days for the
callbox demonstration project, and to recommend approval by the
Riverside County SAFE at their meeting on November 9th.
SECTION 1.0 PHASE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TECHPLAN began Phase I of the Design and Implementation
of a Motorist Aid Call Box ystem (MAS) for San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties on May 4, 1988. As of September 7,
1988, we are prepared to proceed with Phase II of MAS
development for both counties.
During Phase I, TECHPLAN's primary goal was to
establish call box coverage and spacing across both counties
according to Caltrans guidelines to the extent that
projected revenues would permit. To date, San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties are the first counties to be in the
position of requiring more call boxes than projected
revenues can purchase. TECHPLAN has worked closely with
both counties using cost and coverage/spacing models to
examine alternatives for coverage and spacing that best meet
requirements and affordability limits. The two counties
were able to maximize call box coverage for projected
revenues by requesting that Caltrans relax their current
coverage standard guidelines and approve the following:
o San Bernardino: Modified Caltrans spacing with 1/4
mile spacing increased to 1/2 mile. Two mile
spacing in rural areas except on grades. Planned
coverage on Access 3 highways will be limited to
SR -71. Single call box per site on SR -71.
o Riverside: Modified CALTRANS spacing with 1/4 mile
increased to 1/2 mile, 1/2 mile spacing increased
to 1 mile. Two mile spacing East of Indio on I-10
except grades. Two mile spacing on SR -71 and
selected segments of SR -74, 79 & 86. Single call
box per site criteria in effect for two-lane
Access 3 highways.
However, both counties are required to have plans for
infilling to the current Caltrans standards by seeking
alternative funding sources for additional call boxes in the
future. Figures 1 and 2 summarize the highway miles and call
II Jill II Al II III .1I Ili .lid W err+ kid rad lima r..
County
r'
llSan Bernardino
Spacing
1 Mile
1/2 Mile
1/4 Mile
Totals
oxes
::Mlles.
810.0
Riverside
Boxes
232
Miles
29.1
Toi tfs
oxes {"Mlles
77.0
Full Ca lLrans Recommende d Guide line s fur Cover age/Sp acing
rrlailJl1 ulds■k■CANil
.
County
Spacing
2 Mile
Totals
:San Bernardino 11
•;Boxes :Mlles ..
462.,3
Riverside
Totals
Boxes
120
Miles
170.2
194.9
394.2
Boxes Mlles
6.
334.7::
125.3
10 ':'`;856.
SAFE Approve .) Alte rna tives fo r Cov erage/Spacing
boxes by spacing criteria for the required system and the
Board -approved system respectively.
Separate database listings for each county comparing
full recommended system versus Board -approved, affordable
alternatives are included as Appendices A and B respectively
of this report. These listings show each freeway under
consideration along with segment lengths, average daily
traffic (ADT), accident rates, vehicle miles traveled (VMT),
and the number of call boxes for each spacing increment
(1/2, 1 and 2 miles).
As of September 2, 1983, TECHPLAN's civil engineering
subcontractor, BSI Consultants Inc. has completed site
surveys for approximately 1,000 call box locations. Exact
highways and numbers of boxes are listed in Appendix C. The
remaining 400 call box sites will be surveyed and added to
plans in Phase II. BSI has also established site location
criteria. These criteria were used in San Diego and were
proposed as inputs to an upcoming revision to the statewide
MAS guidelines to be jointly released by Caltrans and CRP.
Although it too early to provide a detailed implementation
plan, we envision that the system would generally start on
the Orange and Los Angeles County borders and work eastward.
I-10 in San Bernardino and SR -91 in Riverside are logical
candidates for initial construction. This would allow the
new system to marry up with existing call box systems in
Orange and Los Angeles counties.
As TECHPIAN was completing Phase I for Riverside and
San Bernardino counties, the Orange County system
installation was nearing completion, while San Diego
County's installation was just beginning with the first Lot
of 20 call boxes scheduled for acceptance by August 31.
TECHPLAN will continue to monitor operations in both those
counties to apply lessons learned, particularly in preparing
the system RFP.
1-2
Phase I_ will encompass the system specification phase
of the Riverside/San Bernardino project. During this phase
the specifications and R.? will be prepared and the
procurement process will be completed. This includes
advertising, proposal evaluation, call box and system
testing, recommendation for contract award and contract
negotiations. We have studied current and planned cellular
coverage by both common ca•--",=rs: PacTel Cellular and LA
Cellular. Neither carrier will have full coverage throughout
the two -county area, necessitating the addition of some
other technology as part of a hybrid system. Potential
candidates are a private radio system or buried cable
telephones similar to those used in Los Angeles, but with
newer technology phones. For purposes of writing a system
specification, we recommend not excluding any particular
technology, but instead allowing all qualified vendors to
submit proposals for the Motorist Aid System.
For the private radio option, we are pursuing a course
that will seek to co -use new public safety radio systems
currently being procured in both counties. If successful,
this will simplify licensing for a call box system and
should prove
real area
approximately
to be a cost-effective solution to providing
coverage. This would result in sharing
two sites in San Bernardino and three sites in
Riverside with the respective communications departments.
Regardless of the hybrid system proposed, the vendors will
be required to make the call boxes functionally similar to
the cellular call box both for motorists and for CH?
operators.
The call box specifications will incorporate those
advanced features that have proven successful in both Orange
and San Diego counties and that have overcome all of the
operational shortcomings of the older Los Angeles system.These features include the following:
1-3
o Automatic identification to reduce CHP operator
workload in locating stranded motorists or the
scene of an accident
o Automatic and periodic maintenance calls to
provide an up-to-date summary of system call
statistics and of current system reliability
o Automatic notification to CHP of selected alarm
conditions such as pole tilt (knockdown or theft),
solar panel (theft) and inner door (theft)
o Automatic reprogramming of certain call box
features to allow system managers to operate the
MAS at maximum efficiency and to reduce operating
costs
o Anti -vandal mechanical design of the call boxes
and supporting poles
o Completely self-contained, solar power -recharged
battery system to eliminate dependency on
commercial power sources
o Crash -tested breakaway pole bases for maximum
motorist safety
o Simple one -button and handset control for the
motorist with aural indications as similar to
standard telephone as possible
Because the sophisticated solar powered cellular call
box system is a new item for motorists in California (and
nationwide), no one knows exactly what to expect in terms of
vandalism. Several months of statistics from Orange County
have shown higher than expected rates for vandalism.
TECHPLAN, Cellular Communications Corp, Orange County, and
San Diego County are all working together to solve this
problem. Knockdowns have also been higher than anticipated.
However, we do not expect as high a knockdown rate as Orange
County due to the increased spacing in the San
Bernardino/Riverside MAS. We are more concerned over
vandalism due to the vast remote areas in both counties and
the problem of responding to theft alarms in sufficient time
to apprehend a criminal. This problem will continue to be
addressed throughout Phase II.
1-4
�%
3 1 1
�%
�%
�%
�%
�%
4
�%
O r a n g e C o u n t y ' s s o l u t i o n t o t h e v a n d a l i s m p r o b l e m h a s
b e e n t o r o u t e s e l e c t e d a l a r m c o n d i t i o n s t o a c o m p u t e r
a n s w e r i n g d e v i c e t h a t a u t o m a t i c a l l y s e n d s a s y n t h e s i z e d
v o i c e a l a r m m e s s a g e t o t h e C H P . T h e C H P w i l l r e s p o n d t o s u c h
a l a r m s w i t h i n a n e s t a b l i s h e d p r i o r i t y . T h e a l a r m s y s t e m h a s
b e e n a c c o m p a n i e d b y a c o m p r e h e n s i v e p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s
c a m p a i g n . T h e r e s u l t s t h u s f a r h a v e b e e n e n c o u r a g i n g , w i t h
n o v a n d a l i n c i d e n t s r e p o r t e d s i n c e t h e n e w s y s t e m w e n t i n t o
e f f e c t .
D e m a n d o n t h e s y s t e m r e s u l t s f r o m t h e p r e d i c t e d d a i l y
c a l l r a t e , w h i c h i n t u r n i s d e p e n d e n t o n V e h i c l e M i l e s
T r a v e l e d . F o r e x a m p l e , i n L o s A n g e l e s , t h e d a i l y f r e e w a y V M T
i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . W i t h 1 , 9 0 0 c a l l s / d a y a v e r a g e , a
c a l l i s g e n e r a t e d a b o u t e v e r y 3 8 , 0 0 0 V M T . W e e s t i m a t e d a
f i g u r e o f 1 c a l l p e r 5 0 , 0 0 0 V M T t o a l l o w f o r t h e c u m u l a t i v e
e f f e c t s o f m o t o r i s t s l o w e r a c c e p t a n c e o f a n e w s y s t e m ,
i n c r e a s e d s p a c i n g a n d g r e a t l y r e d u c e d a v e r a g e t r a f f i c
v o l u m e s i n R i v e r s i d e a n d S a n B e r n a r d i n o c o u n t i e s c o m p a r e d t o
L o s A n g e l e s . B a s e d o n t h i s f i g u r e , t h e f o l l o w i n g c a l l
d i s t r i b u t i o n i s e s t i m a t e d , l i s t e d b y C H P d i s p a t c h c e n t e r
e x p e c t e d t o h a n d l e t h e c a l l s f o r i t s a r e a :
D i s z a t c h C e n t e r D a i l y V M T C a l l s / D a y
1 9 8 9 1 9 9 9
B a r s t o w 4 , 6 9 1 , 0 0 0 9 4 1 3 9
S a n B e r n a r d i n o 1 9 , 2 3 0 , 0 0 0 3 8 4 5 6 8
I n d i o 2 , 4 0 1 , 0 0 0 4 8 7 1
T O T A L 2 6 , 3 2 2 , 0 0 0 5 2 6 7 7 8
T h e n u m b e r o f c a l l s / d a y a r e e x p e c t e d t o g r o w a t a n
a n n u a l r a t e o f 4 % p e r y e a r a s s h o w n . T h e s e n u m b e r s a r e
s i g n i f i c a n t b e c a u s e t h e y d e t e r m i n e s e v e r a l a n n u a l o p e r a t i n g
c o s t c o m p o n e n t s :
o C H P o p e r a t o r s r e i m b u r s e d b y t h e S A F E s
v T a r i f f s p a i d t o c e l l u l a r c o m m o n c a r r i e r s
1 - 5
�%
o N u m b e r o f p h o n e l i n e s n e e d e d t o b r i n g c a l l b o x
c a l l s i n t o t h e t h r e e d i s p a t c h c e n t e r s
C H P o p e r a t o r s t a f f i n g i s a l s o v e r y s e n s i t i v e t o t h e
L e v e l o f S e r v i c e ( L O S ) e x p e c t e d b y t h e S A F E B o a r d s a n d t o
t h e d e g r e e o f a u t o m a t i o n p r o v i d e d i n t h e d i s p a t c h c e n t e r .
T h e C H P i s c u r r e n t l y p r o c u r i n g a s t a t e w i d e C o m p u t e r A i d e d
D i s p a t c h ( C A D ) s y s t e m a n d a d d i t i o n a l t e l e p h o n e p r o c e s s i n g
e q u i p m e n t t h a t w i l l r e d u c e c a l l p r o c e s s i n g t i m e .
I n s t a l l a t i o n d a t e s i n t h e t h r e e c e n t e r s a f f e c t e d b y t h i s
p r o j e c t a r e u n k n o w n b u t w i l l n o t b e e a r l i e r t h a n 1 9 9 0 . L e v e l
o f S e r v i c e i s d e f i n e d a s t h e t i m e f r o m c a l l a r r i v a l a t t h e
C H P s w i t c h b o a r d u n t i l a n o p e r a t o r a n s w e r s t h e l i n e . T h e
l o w e r t h e L O S i n t e r v a l , t h e g r e a t e r t h e n u m b e r o f o p e r a t o r s
r e q u i r e d , h e n c e g r e a t e r o p e r a t i o n a l c o s t s . W e r e c o m m e n d a n
L O S s t a n d a r d o f 6 0 s e c o n d s f o r c a l l b o x c a l l s , c o n s i d e r i n g
t h a t s u c h c a l l s h a v e p r i o r i t y o v e r g e n e r a l p u b l i c c a l l s
w h i c h i n t u r n h a v e a 6 0 s e c o n d L O S s t a n d a r d . T h i s s t a n d a r d
i s o n l y e r e c t e d t o b e e x c e e d e d d u r i n g c o n d i t i o n s o f
u n u s u a l l y h i g h t e m p o i n t h e d i s p a t c h c e n t e r s .
F o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n t h e s t a t e w i d e S A F E p r o g r a m ,
a f f o r d a b i l i t y o f a f u l l C a l t r a n s - r e c o m m e n d e d m o t o r i s t a i d
s y s t e m h a s b e c o m e a m a j o r i s s u e . M e a s u r e m e n t o f
a f f o r d a b i l i t y i s v e r y s e n s i t i v e t o a s s u m p t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y
a s s u m p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g s y s t e m c a p i t a l c o s t . B a s e d o n a b i d
u n i t p r i c e o f $ 3 2 5 0 p e r c a l l b o x i n S a n D i e g o , w e h a v e
e s t i m a t e d a u n i t p r i c e o f $ 3 5 0 0 e v e n t h o u g h t h e t w o - c o u n t y
s y s t e m i s l a r g e r t h a n S a n D i e g o ' s b y a b o u t 4 0 % . T h i s i s a
c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e , b u t j u s t i f i a b l e g i v e n t h e u n c e r t a i n
c o m p e t i t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t i n t h i s m a r k e t . O u r e f f o r t s i n
p r e p a r i n g t h e R F P w i l l b e f o c u s e d o n e n c o u r a g i n g m a x i m u m
c o m p e t i t i o n t o p r e c l u d e s i g n i f i c a n t c o s t g r o w t h . V e n t u r a
C o u n t y ' s b i d s w i l l p r o v i d e a n u p d a t e d d a t a p o i n t , b u t w i l l
n o t b e m a d e p u b l i c u n t i l e a r l y S e p t e m b e r . C o s t c o m p o n e n t s
a n d r e v e n u e g r o w t h a r e e s t i m a t e d - - t h e r e f o r e t h e e s t i m a t e s o f
a f f o r d a b l e s y s t e m s i z e w i l l v a r y a s a d d i t i o n a l d a t a b e c o m e
s
1 - 6
known for these factors. Only when bids are received from
vendors will the system size become stable.
Various methods of financing the required system can be
used, including cash purchase, vendor financing and
Certificates of Participation. Practically speaking, Revenue
Bonds are not possible, given the two-year limitation
(measured from initiation of DMV collection) on bond
issuance legislated by the Streets and Highways Code. This
two-year period expires in October 1988. Cash purchase is
the least cost option, but results in longer system
construction: 2-1/2 years for San Bernardino, and 4-1/2
years for Riverside. A cash purchase option is feasible
because of the revenue build-up through December 1989 in
both counties. With this option a minimum of 60% each of the
San Bernardino and Riverside systems can be built by the end
of 1989 with the following assumptions:
o A mid -August 1989 acceptance date for the first
Lot of call boxes
o A system build rate of 50 boxes per week
This would result in 530 call boxes in San Bernardino
County and 370 call boxes in Riverside County by December
1989. As more operating expenses are incurred with system
build-up, the rate of growth of the system slows
significantly, causing the extended project completion
dates.
One management option that could enhance the
attractiveness of cash purchase is to consolidate operating
expenses as much as possible. The ultimate solution in this
regard is to regionalize the SAFEs in the two counties,
providing for a single management entity. The precedent has
been set by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in
the Bay Area but such an option would require additional
legislation. As of the end of Phase I, cash purchase looks
promising enough to seriously consider its use for system
financing.
The choice between COPs and vendor financing will not
be fully clear until vendors propose a specific private
financing package as part of their formal Proposals. Market
conditions and leasing terms will determine the preferred
financing method if cash purchase is not selected. Vendors
will be asked to propose financing as part of the system
RFP. Accumulated revenues can be used to reduce capital
borrowing requirements, thus resulting in a significant
decrease in financing costs. For example, for the
alternative systems chosen by each county, this strategy
results in financing costs of approximately $260K each.
Carrying this financing for the system life (10 years) would
allow quicker construction of the interim system compared
to cash purchase. Similar results would be anticipated for
COP financing. If a COP issue is contemplated, planning
should begin a minimum of 14 weeks prior to the required
availability of funds.
In summary, the Motorist Aid System project for
Riverside and San Bernardino counties is ready to move to
Phase II --system specification and procurement. Figure 3
provides a simplified milestone chart for the key events in
Phases II and III. Although the currently approved coverage
in both counties falls short of the full required system, it
is considered adequate as an interim measure for the highway
conditions expected in both urban and rural areas. Caltrans
has approved the interim coverage standards, pending
additional funding sources and a plan for infilling. The
System Operational Plan, to be written in Phase III (system
implementation), will address the policy and procedures for
infilling. An open procurement policy allowing all
responsive vendors to propose an MAS concept is recommended.
However, the SAFEs should reserve the right to preclude
certain technologies should conditions warrant. The two most
�%
�%
p
a
3
C `
C '
P .
F C C L i c e n s i n g
Z 4 : 1 7 1 x
\ x I ) \
G \ _
\ \ c ^ n
. G - . . p p . . N C r _ ��
C ' . . . . . C \ L \ . / M " N
c o \ ( O C r N , . r '
0 0 _
N \ I t s
O C
v a t C N 4 y R
\ \ " " - . ^ . . " .
C . L
N L C L . . i G L ^ G
\ s v
a - 3 a ' . y
; . 4 . c �� y C = . .
_ G L .
L - ' L . v 1 ) C
- �� T C . y C ' ' c t ! I s L J G
G - - _ .
c o ' ) 2 + c o V . _ . . .
1 3
M ' - \ . . .
4 1 ) C O v ` - ��
a o �� - ' a
z c "
\ 0 ` %
_ . 0 0
> -
Q , . r
y - 4 > - y . . . �� y
4 2 0 C 1 = .
0 0 y L . G
0 C G L
\ V E - �� C C .
G
. 4
v ,
o f 0 =
. r L
y � " " a `
z
0 0
"
o w e
C . ' v
a
c i s
I
A l t D a t e s A s s u m e S A F E B o a r d M e e t i n g s F i r s t W e d n e s d a y O f M o n t h
" 4 c , , 1 L =
1 - 8 a
�%
�%
s
�%
�%
a t t r a c t i v e f i n a n c i n g o p t i o n s a p p e a r t o b e c a s h p u r c h a s e a n d
f i n a n c i n g w i t h r e d u c t i o n o f c a p i t a l b o r r o w e d t h r o u g h u s e o f
a c c u m u l a t e d r e v e n u e . E s t i m a t e d s y s t e m c o s t s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o
b e r e f i n e d t h r o u g h o u t P h a s e
a s a d d i t i o n a l
o r a l d a t a a r e
r e c e i v e d f r o m o b s e r v a t i o n o f o t h e r S A E s .
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
October 31, 1988
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Hideo Sugita
SUBJECT: Cailbox Accessibility
On October 19, 1988 the Riverside/San Bernardino Counties SAFE
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met to discuss the issues
related to callbox accessibility. Current callbox systems or
installations in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Orange Counties have
used State Architectural Code Standards for public telephones in
addressing accessibility. These entail installing the callbox at
a height not to exceed 54" and a telephone cord length no less
than 29".
Three main considerations, safety, technology and financial,
impact the design and feasibility of callbox accessibility.
Safety
The issue of safety is related to the inherent dangers associated
with persons walking on the freeway shoulder to access a motorist
aid callbox. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is not in favor
of any pedestrians on the freeway shoulder, and is especially
concerned about the dangers faced by the mobility impaired trying
to access a motorist aid callbox.
For your information, the recommended space requirement for lift
equipped vehicles is 9' for the vehicle and 5' to operate the
lift, a total of 14'. The state/federal standards for freeway
shoulder width is 12'. Given the recent practice of using median
and shoulder areas to increase capacity on the freeway system
the safety of mobility impaired persons becomes a more difficult
problem to address.
Technological
Potential solutions to service access of motorist aid callboxes
can involve a range of technology. Low end technology could be as
simple as a placard or lighted cone. A high end approach could
involve a.calibox signaling device similar to a garage door
opener. To date, callbox manufacturers have not incorporated
available technology into callbox design to address handicapped
access, nor have any SAFEs specified this requirement.
Financial
As you are aware, both the Riverside and San Bernardino SAFES are
unable to provide a full coverage motorist aid callbox sys�.;z in
either county due to limited financial resources. Incorporation
of any additional features to the motorist aid callbox system may
exacerbate our current financial situation, and may further limit
callbox coverage in each county.
Hi -County SAFE TAC Recommendation
The Bi-County SAFE TAC recommends that handicapped access be
defined as access to the service as opposed to physical access to
the equipment (callbox). Therefore, given the limitations and
concerns of safety, technology and financial, the Bi-County SAFE
TAC recommends that accessibility be defined as reasonable
accommodations to the callbox service. Additionally, the SAFE
will pursue accessibility, as defined, through the equipment
specifications developed for the callbox system Request For
Proposal (RFP).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
October 31, 1988
TO: Citizens Advisory Committee
FROM: Hideo Sugita, Staff Analyst4r
SUBJECT: Draft Social Service Brokerage Study Request For
Proposal
Attached is a copy of the draft RFP for a Social Service
Brokerage Study. As you are aware, as part of the Riverside
County Transportation Commission's FY 1988-89 TDA Unmet Needs
Findings, a recommendation was made to investigate the
feasibility of establishing a Consolidated Transportation Service
Agency to address social service transportation needs.
In November of 1987, the RCTC created the Transit Planning and
Coordinating Committee to develop the FY 1988-89 Overall Work
Program and to address transportation planning and coordinating
issues. The Committee is made up of the RTA and SunLine General
Managers and their Board Chairmen, and the RCTC Executive
Director and a Western County and Coachella Valley
representative of RCTC.
Part of the OWP process involves the development of planning
budgets and projects for RTA, SunLine and the RCTC to undertake
during the year. One item this committee is involved with is the
CTSA RFP.
At first, the RFP was designed as a CTSA alternatives analysis
and feasibility study which included a task to inventory social
service providers in Riverside County. The following is a
description of the meeting that took place on July 29, 1988.
Please note that the RCTC Transit Planning and Coordinating
Committee will be meeting on November 1, 1988 and your comments
on the draft RFP will be forwarded to the Committee.
On July 29, 1988 a meeting with Bill Durant, of Paratransit Inc.
from Sacramento was held in the RCTC offices. The following
people participated; Wes McDaniel, Executive Director SanBAG,
Dick Cromwell, Assistant General Manager SunLine, Barry Samsten
Senior Planner RTA, Cathy Bechtel, Transit Coordinator Inland
Regional Center, Dick Weeks, Office on Aging, Bill Udell,
Director of Meditrans, DJ Smith, RCTC Consultant and Paul
Blackwelder, Assistant Director RCTC.
This meeting was made possible by a suggestion and arrangements
by DJ Smith. Bill Durant is the Executive Director of Paratransit
Inc. which is a non—profit organization serving as the
Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) for the greater
metropolitan Sacramento area. Mr. Durant established, organized,
and operates Paratransit Inc. which has contributed greatly to
the consolidation, coordination and delivery of social service
transportation in Sacramento.
Paratransit Inc. is a transit concern operating
and delivering 160,000 rides annually to elderly and
clients. Additionally, Paratransit has contracts
agencies delivering 26,000 rides to similar
Paratransit Inc. has established its own vehicle
service which sells service to other agencies and has developed
and maintained good working relationships with social service
agencies.
53 vehicles
handicapped
with other
clientele.
maintenance
The purpose of the meeting was to share information with Mr.
Durant about the public transportation/social service
transportation situation in Riverside County and for him to share
his experience of developing a CTSA in Sacramento. Prior to the
meeting staff forwarded a copy of the draft CTSA
Feasibility/Alternatives Analysis Request for Proposal for his
review and comments.
In the meeting with Mr. Durant, part of the discussion was about
the usefulness of performing an inventory of social service
providers. Essentially, Mr. Durant felt that an inventory could
be useful in determining the amount and type(s) of service that
is available but there are negative aspects related to performing
such an inventory.
In performing the inventory, the RCTC could potentially do more
harm than good by delving into the operations of social service
transportation providers. First, we could not guarantee that the
providers would cooperate, given the potentially threatening
context of exploring the consolidation and coordination of social
service transportation in Riverside County.
Secondly, RCTC had performed such an inventory under AB 120 in
1980 which proved to be difficult, time consuming and while
resulting in satisfying the requirements of AB 120 through the
designation of RTA and SunLine as the CTSA in their respective
parts of the county, did little to consolidate or coordinate the
delivery of social service transportation other than to make the
delivery of such service more of a public transportation
responsibility. At that time, this result was appropriate and
addressed the relevant social service transportation delivery
issues.
Since that time, as federal and state budgetary policy reduced
social service and public transportation funding programs, we
find that social service transportation needs are competing for
scarcer public transportation dollars. This is further
exacerbated by the growth Riverside County has and will continue
to experience in the near future which will place further burdens
upon our public operators to provide adequate public transit
during a period of declining transportation funding.
The meeting ended with a consensus that instead of moving
forward with an inventory and alternatives analysis it would be
practical to redirect the RFP to establish a social service
transportation brokerage agency. In short, if a brokering agency
was established and the RCTC were to allocate up to 5% of the
TDA funds for Article 4.5 purposes to this agency to carry out
the requirements of AB 120, we could address the issues at hand.
The establishment of a program that has a dedicated source of
funding should eliminate our seemingly annual dilemma of making
having to determine what are public transportation and social
service transportation responsibilities.
In using AB 120 to define the operating characteristics of the
brokering agency should, over time, lead to better coordination,
cooperation, and consolidation of the delivery of social service
transportation. Additionally, it will require a maintenance of
funding participation from the current provider and the beauty of
this arrangement is the brokering agency will not have to
"meddle" with those agencies who do not want to participate.
Those that would like to participate will come forward to work
out an arrangement that is financially beneficial to their
interests while Riverside County can benefit by making progress
towards improving the social service transportation funding and
delivery system.
The study is directed towards arranging the operative structure
for a brokering agency. With this effort we would be establishing
a dedicated funding source and process for addressing social
service transportation needs and separating the issues of social
service/public transportation responsibilities. This will allow
the RCTC to use the TDA unmet needs process to better address the
public transportation needs of a growing community and assist the
social service community by creating a forum and process to
directly address their transportation concerns.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Prospective Bidders
Jack Reagan, Executive Director
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION "SOCIAL SERVICE
TRANSPORTATION BROKERAGE STUDY"
The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is
soliciting proposals from qualified consulting firms to conduct a
study to implement a brokerage system to coordinate and
consolidate the delivery of social service transportation.
The objectives of the study are to:
1) Develop definitions, by type and trip, those trips that are
social service transportation and public transportation
responsibilities, respectively. Identify opportunities for
mainstreaming social service clients onto public transit.
2) Develop a process, given the requirements of AB 120, and
identify appropriate agency(s) through which social service
transportation can be brokered.
3) Develop a procedure, that can be applied when opportunities
for coordination and consolidation exist, to determine how
these services should be subsidized. (who pays? and how
much?)
Ten copies of your proposal are to be submitted to RCTC by
(date):
To:
Mr. Jack Reagan
Executive Director
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4075 Main Street, Suite 302
Riverside, CA 92501
The timeframe for this project is as follows:
Proposals due at RCTC
Finalists contacted to schedule interview
Interviews, if necessary; selection
Execution of contract
Final report
December 5, 1988
December 9, 1988
December 15, 1988
January 4, 1989
May 1989
Please note that the Riverside County Transportation Commission
has not set a budget nor outlined a particular approach for this
project. The Commission will be evaluating the proposals on the
basis of organization, technical merit, study approach,
consultant experience with projects of this type and costs.
The RCTC reserves the right to negotiate with bidders on all
aspects of the proposed work, to reject all proposals and reissue
the RFP to others. If there are any questions concerning the RFP,
please contact Hideo Sugita at (714) 787-7141.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION BROKERAGE STUDY
The Riverside County Transportation Commission is inviting
proposals from qualified consultants to conduct a study to
develop and implement a social service transportation brokerage
system to coordinate and consolidate the delivery of social
service transportation in both the Coachella Valley and Western
Riverside County.
Background:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission was created by the
State Legislature in 1976. The Commission is responsible for the
oversight and development of Riverside County's transportation
system. The Commission works cooperatively with the Southern
California Association of Governments, other county
transportation commissions and Caltrans in making recommendations
to the California Transportation Commission and federal
transportation funding agencies.
On an annual basis, the Commission is responsible for
coordinating the development of the county -wide Short Range
Transit Plan (SRTP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The SRTP coordinates the short term planning of transit operators
providing public transportation and the TIP is a programming
document which schedules the planned expenditure of anticipated
highway, transit, and state aeronautics funding on transportation
projects.
As a precursor to the development of the SRTP and TIP the
Commission schedules Unmet (Transit) Needs Hearings through which
the public is provided an opportunity to identify unmet transit
needs that may exist in the county. The hearing process is a
requirement of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and must
be fulfilled prior to the Commission allocating TDA streets and
roads funds. Through the unmet needs, SRTP and TIP development
processes, the Commission has developed excellent working
relationships with the public transit operators in the county.
Through this process a repetitive cycle has occurred over several
years whereby the Commission is confronted with an annual
philosophical debate over what comprises public transit
responsibilities and what are social service transportation
responsibilities. At the root of this problem is a continual
reduction in state and federal funding for both human services
and public transportation. This funding shortfall has created a
situation whereby social service transportation needs are
competing for scarce public transit funding through the TDA unmet
transit needs process.
Due to the decentralized nature of paratransit/social service
transportation agencies, which allows responsiveness to
individual needs, the Commission is concerned that the
uncoordinated "free-market operation" of agencies and types of
services may be creating gaps and overlaps in the provision of
transportation to the social service community. Therefore, the
Commission is concerned that these agencies are not effectively
using or maximizing public benefit of existing social service
transportation resources.
These concerns outline the problems that AB 120 was intended to
resolve. The Commission's AB 120 action plan, which was completed
in January, 1982 identified SunLine and the Riverside Transit
Agency as the CTSA's in the Coachella Valley and Western
Riverside areas, respectfully.
For the purposes of this RFP the Commission is specifically
interested in an objective determination of how best to deliver
social service transportation in the Coachella Valley and within
the Western Riverside County areas. Each area has distinct
geographic, environmental and institutional differences which
require separate attention in the study and may result in
different recommendations for each area.
The purpose of this RFP is fourfold:
1) Develop definitions, by type of trip, those trips
that are social service transportation and public
transit responsibilities, respectively. Identify
opportunities for mainstreaming social service clients
onto public transit.
2) Develop a process, given the requirements of AB 120,
and identify appropriate agency(s) through which social
service transportation can be brokered.
3) Develop a procedure, that can be applied when
opportunities for coordination and consolidation exist,
to determine how these services should be subsidized.
(Who pays? and how much?)
4) Provide assistance in implementing procedure.
The following is a brief description of the Riverside County
transit setting.
Riverside County covers an area of 7,310 square miles and has an
estimated population of 946,100 as of January 1, 1988, according
to the State Department of Finance. Politically the County is
divided into twenty cities and the County. Geographically, the
County is divided into three distinct areas: Western Riverside
County, which includes the more densely populated urbanized area
and the Pass area; the Coachella Valley, which is the resort and
agricultural central portion of the County; and the Palo Verde
Valley, which is the agricultural area along the Colorado River
in the east end of the County.
Three primary joint powers agencies have been formed to provide
transit service in the three geographical areas of the County.
The Riverside Transit Agency is the major transit provider in
Western Riverside County, the SunLine Transit Agency is the major
operator in the Coachella Valley. Except in the City of Rancho
Mirage, SunLine provides service to the entire Coachella Valley
area. The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency is the only public
transit operator in the east end of the County.
In the Western Riverside County area, transportation for the
elderly and handicapped is provided by Meditrans Inc., Riverside
Special Services and dial -a -ride systems in the cities of
Banning, Beaumont and Corona. In addition there are general
public dial -a -ride systems operating in the cities of Hemet,
Norco, Perris , and Sun City.
Additionally, in each area there are social service agencies
operating or purchasing transportation services for their
respective clientele e.g. Office of Aging, Inland Regional
Center, American Cancer Society, Braille Institute, Senior
Centers, etc.
STATEMENT OF WORK
The consultant will be required develop definitions of what
constitutes social service transportation trips, what are public
transportation trips, and to identify social service clientele
that can be mainstreamed to use public transit. Develop a process
and identify appropriate agency(s) through which social service
transportation can be brokered. Develop a procedure, to be
applied when opportunities for coordination and consolidation
exist, to determine how these services should be subsidized.
The overall goal of the study is to create the institutional
framework and procedure(s) to implement opportunities to
coordinate and consolidate the delivery of social service
transportation.
The project will include the development of several sample model
contracts for inter -agency social service transportation
coordination and an implementation plan to allow the affected
agencies to directly use any revised administrative and operating
procedures within the existing institutional framework.
This study will be conducted during the annual development of the
Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan, which includes the TDA
process of soliciting public input regarding unmet transit needs.
Should an opportunity to apply the brokerage procedure arise
through the unmet needs/SRTP development process, the consultant
will be required to provide assistance during implementation of
the developed procedure.
In any case, the RCTC, at such time that an opportunity to apply
the brokerage procedure arises, will require the consultant to
provide assistance in implementing the developed procedure.
Review of interim products and draft and final products will be
conducted by RCTC staff, staff of affected agencies and the
Commission's Citizen Advisory Committee/Social Service Advisory
Council. Approval of the final report will be the responsibility
of the Riverside County Transportation Commission.
SCHEDULE
Begin consultant work, January 1989
Report on definitions - public/social service February 1989
transportation
Report on identification of coordination March 1989
consolidation opportunities
Report on procedure and identify agency(s) to
broker social service transportation April 1989
Report on analysis and findings of how brokered April 1989
services should be subsidized
Report on alternative model contracts May 1989
Final Report May 1989
Provide assistance in implementing
brokerage procedure
MEETINGS
The consultant should plan to present oral progress reports,
deliver products, and receive general direction at monthly
Commission meetings. The consultant should also plan to make
three presentations of the final report at the discretion of the
RCTC Executive Director.
CONSULTANT SELECTION TIMETABLE
Closing date for receipt of proposals December 5: 1988
Selection of finalists December 9, 1988
Interviews, if necessary, and
selection of consultant December 15, 1988
Execution of contract January 4,, 1989
CONTENT OF PROPOSAL
The approach/content of the proposal will be the foundation for
determining which firm is most knowledgeable in the area of
identifying opportunities for and brokering social service
transportation. Proposal content and completeness are most
important and, although no page limitation will be imposed,
clarity and succinct expression are essential and will be
considered in assessing the Proposer's capabilities. In order to
simplify the review process and to obtain the maximum degree of
comparability, we request that the proposal be organized in the
following manner:
A. Transmittal Letter
B. Title Page - Show the RFP subject, the name of the
proposer's firm, local address, telephone number, name of
contact person and the date.
C. Table of Contents - Include a clear identification of the
material by section and page number.
D. Overview and Summary - This section is the most important
part of the proposal. In this part the consultant should
convey a clear understanding of the institutional issues and
transportation requirements for the project and the approach
to be taken. This section should include, but is not limited
to the following:
o Purpose of the study
o Organization of the study effort
o Description of proposed approach
E. Detailed Work Plan
This section should include the following:
1. Task Description: A full description of the steps to be
followed in carrying out the work. The work should be broken
down to a sufficient level of detail (tasks, subtasks, etc.)
to demonstrate a clear understanding of the work and
proposed approach.
2. Deliverables: A description of the format, content, and
level of detail that can be expected in each deliverable.
3. Schedule: A schedule should accompany the work description
delineating the expected sequence of tasks and subtasks.
Important milestones should be shown on the schedule.
F. Management Plan
The consultant will describe their approach to management of the
work. If the proposal is a team effort, the distribution of work
among the team members should be identified. The management plan
should describe the following:
o Organization, including a chart depicting team
relationships
o How the work assignments are structured
o Staffing: The names of key personnel, resumes should be
included in an appendix. Staffing assignments should be
specific enough to demonstrate understanding of skills
required and commitment of proper and adequate resources.
o Management approach: Role of the prime and
subcontractors, if any, and any specific features of the
management approach that require explanation. If the use
of subcontractors is contemplated, list their specific
responsibilities and describe how the subcontractors will
be supervised.
I
G. Costs
An FAA Form 4400-2 (Cost and Price Analysis) has been attached
to this request for proposal and should be completed by the
proposer as thoroughly as possible. The cost breakdown should
include, but is not limited to:
1. Task Budget: A breakdown of expenses by task and key
personnel conveying a full understanding of the
resources committed to this work.
2. Billing Rates Breakdown: A breakdown of billing rates,
direct, labor, overhead, fee, etc..
Use supplemental tables and figures as necessary. All travel
costs are to be estimated and included as part of the
consultant's proposal and should include detailed per diem and
mileage rates.
The RCTC has not identified a specific cost for the proposal,
however, cost and cost justification, will be a consideration in
the evaluation of the proposal.
The Riverside County Transportation Commission shall not, in any
event, be liable for any pre -contractual expenses incurred by the
Proposer. The Proposer shall not include any such expenses as
part of the price as proposed in response to this RFP.
Pre -contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by the
Proposer in: 1) preparing the proposal in response to this RFP;
2) submitting that proposal to the Commission; 3) negotiating
with the Commission on any matter related to this proposal; 4)
any other expenses incurred by the Proposer prior to the date of
the award, if any.
The consultant shall prepare thirty five (35) copies of each
product, draft final product and fifty copies (50) of the final
report.
H. Summary of Qualifications
Provide a short description of previous projects that
significantly relate to your qualifications for this project.
Provide a list of clients for whom your firm has performed
services similar to those described in this request for proposal.
Identify the supervisors and key technical personnel who will
work on the project. Resumes for each supervisory and key
personnel to be working on the project should be included in an
appendix.
"
P R O P O S A L E V A L U A T I O N A N D B I D D E R S E L E C T I O N P R O C E S S
U p o n r e c e i p t o f t h e p r o p o s a l s , a t e c h n i c a l e v a l u a t i o n w i l l b e
p e r f o r m e d . E a c h o f t h e m a j o r s e c t i o n s o f t h e p r o p o s a l w i l l b e
r e v i e w e d a n d e v a l u a t e d w i t h t h e c r i t e r i a d e s i g n e d t o h e l p j u d g e
t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e p r o p o s a l . E v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a w i l l i n c l u d e
s u c h c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a s :
o u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e b a c k g r o u n d a n d r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e
p r o j e c t ,
o t h e a p p r o a c h t o b e f o l l o w e d a n d t h e t a s k s t o b e p e r f o r m e d ,
o t h e r e l a t i v e a l l o c a t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s , i n t e r m s o f q u a l i t y
a n d q u a n t i t y , t o k e y t a s k s i n c l u d i n g t h e t i m e a n d s k i l l s
o f p e r s o n n e l a s s i g n e d t o t h e t a s k s ,
o c o s t a n a l y s i s a n d j u s t i f i c a t i o n ,
o e x p e r i e n c e
p r o c e s s e s ,
i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n n i n g , l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t
o e d u c a t i o n a n d s p e c i f i c e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e p r o j e c t t e a m
A n i n d e p t h a n a l y s i s o f a l l p r o p o s a l s , c a r e f u l l y e v a l u a t i n g e a c h
o n e a g a i n s t t h e e s t a b l i s h e d e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a w i l l b e
p e r f o r m e d . I n f o r m a t i o n m a y b e s o u g h t f r o m r e f e r e n c e s .
A s e l e c t i o n p a n e l w i l l t h e n e n t e r t a i n f o r m a l o r a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s ,
i f n e c e s s a r y , f r o m t h e t o p c a n d i d a t e s , t o p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l
i n p u t i n t o t h e e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e s s . S p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s w i l l b e
p r o v i d e d t o e a c h f i n a l i s t , a n d e q u a l t i m e w i l l b e p r o v i d e d f o r
e a c h p r e s e n t a t i o n . P r e s e n t a t i o n s w i l l b e f o l l o w e d b y q u e s t i o n a n d
a n s w e r p e r i o d s d u r i n g w h i c h m e m b e r s o f t h e p a n e l m a y q u e s t i o n t h e
p r o s p e c t i v e c o n s u l t a n t s a b o u t t h e i r a p p r o a c h e s .
F i n a l l y , t h e s e l e c t i o n c o m m i t t e e w i l l d e c i d e w i t h w h i c h
c o n s u l t a n t s , i f a n y , i t w i s h e s t o e n t e r i n t o n e g o t i a t i o n s .
C O N F L I C T O F I N T E R E S T
C o n s u l t a n t s s u b m i t t i n g p r o p o s a l s i n r e s p o n s e t o t h i s R F P m u s t
d i s c l o s e t o R C T C a n y a c t u a l , a p p a r e n t , o r p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t s o f
i n t e r e s t t h a t m a y e x i s t r e l a t i v e t o t h e s e r v i c e s t o b e p r o v i d e d
u n d e r c o n t r a c t f o r c o n s u l t a n t s e r v i c e s a w a r d e d p u r s u a n t t o t h i s
R F P .
I f t h e c o n s u l t a n t h a s n o c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t , a s t a t e m e n t t o
t h a t e f f e c t s h a l l b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r o p o s a l .