Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
05 May 19, 2003 Plans and Programs
((A/3 -7s - RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 12:00 P.M. DATE: May 19, 2003 LOCATION: UCR CONFERENCE ROOM 1201 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, ROOM 207 RIVERSIDE *** COMMITTEE MEMBERS *** Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert, Chairman Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco, Vice Chairman Gregory Schook/John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Jeff Miller/Jeff Bennett, City of Corona Matt Weyuker/ Greg Ruppert, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin ReeserLowe/Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd/Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Frank West/Charles White, City of Moreno Valley Jack van Haaster/Warnie Enochs, City of Murrieta Will Kleindienst/Chris Mills, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District 1 Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V *** STAFF *** Eric Haley, Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning & Policy Development *** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY *** State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program New Corridors Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare) Air Quality and Clean Fuels Regional Agencies, Regional Planning Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs Congestion Management Program The Committee welcomes comments. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, p/ease complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board. RECORDS 6,q5/5 THE MAY 19, 2003 PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE AT THE UCR CONFERENCE ROOM, 1201 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, ROOM 207, RIVERSIDE. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 12:00 p.m. Monday, May 19, 2003 UCR CONFERENCE ROOM 1201 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, ROOM 207 RIVERSIDE In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the clerk of the Commission at (909) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 28, 2003) 5. ROUTE 91 PROJECT PLAN PER AB 1010 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Draft Route 91 Project Plan; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Pg. 1 6, RECONSIDERATION OF THE HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CETAP CORRIDOR Pg. 4 Overview Plans and Programs Committee Agenda May 19, 2003 Page 2 This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve acceleration of the CETAP internet east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document; 2) Direct staff to seek federal legislation identifying the CETAP internal east -west corridor as Ramona/Cajalco, south of Lake Mathews; 3) Direct staff to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on budget, schedule and implementation; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. STATUS REPORT ON THE WINCHESTER TO TEMECULA CETAP CORRIDOR Pg. 8 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the status report on the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. UPDATE ON THE MORENO VALLEY -SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CETAP CORRIDOF Pg. 9 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the update on the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. FY 04 — FY 06 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 26 1) Review and approve, in concept, the FY 04 — 06 Short Range Transit Plans for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency and RCTC's Regional Rail program, as presented; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda May 19, 2003 Page 3 10. PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY — UNMET NEEDS HEARING TESTIMONY AND RESPONSES Pg. 33 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Make a finding that based upon a review of the requests for services received through the "Unmet Transit Needs Hearing" process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, there are no unmet transit needs remaining which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley area; 2) Reaffirm the Commission's definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" standards; 3) Adopt Resolution No. 03-026 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission adopting a finding that there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area;" and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. FY 04 MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATION FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Pg. 42 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 04 minimum fare revenue to operating expense ratio of 17.4% for the Riverside Transit Agency and 16.11% for SunLine Transit Agency; 2) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; 3) Request Caltrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for FY 04; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. CITY OF BEAUMONT'S REQUEST TO REALLOCATE CAPITAL TO OPERATING FUNDS Pg. 46 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Reallocate $25,168 in Local Transportation Funds from Capital to Operating for the City of Beaumont's Transit Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda May 19, 2003 Page 4 13. FY 03 TRANSIT OPERATORS' SECOND QUARTER REPORT Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the FY 03 mid -year Transit Operators' Report; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Pg. 47 14. FY 03/04 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS Pg. 51 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize payment of $1 ,175/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 to the existing Riverside, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore and Mira Loma buspools; 2) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 15. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Pg. 58 1) Receive and file Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 16. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 17. ADJOURNMENT Plans and Programs Committee Agenda May 19, 2003 Page 5 The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 12:00 p.m., Monday, June 23, 2003, Board Chambers, 1St Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, April 28, 2003 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chairman Dick Kelly at 12:01 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Members Absent Marion Ashley Daryl Busch Bob Buster Frank Hall Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Robin Lowe Jeff Miller Gregory V. Schook Jack van Haaster Frank West Percy L. Byrd Greg Ruppert Roy Wilson 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests from the public to speak. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 24, 2003 M/S/C (Busch/Ashley) to approve the March 24, 2003 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Miller, Schook, van Haaster Plans and Programs Committee Minutes April 28, 2003 Page 2 5. REPROGRAMMING OF STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (STIP) FUNDING Shirley Medina, Program Manager, reviewed the request to reprogram STIP funds from the City of Blythe's Hobsonway Project to Planning, Programming, and Monitoring activities. Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development, added that the funds will be used for the Orange County -Riverside County Major Investment Study and CETAP work, should the CTC approve the programming of these funds. M/S/C (van Haaster/Miller) to: 1. Approve reprogramming $1.875 million in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds from the City of Blythe's Hobsonway Project to Planning, Programming, and Monitoring activities in order to utilize funding capacity in Fiscal Year 2003- 2004; and, 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. 6. FISCAL YEAR 2003 AMENDMENT TO CITY OF CORONA'S SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN TO REALLOCATE FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF BASE RADIO COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT Cathy Bechtel reviewed the City of Corona's request to amend their FY 2003 Short Range Transit Plan in order to purchase base radio communication equipment. M/S/C (Lowe/van Haaster) to: 1. Amend the Fiscal Year 2003 Short Range Transit Plan for the City of Corona's Transit Program; 2. Reallocate $12,000 in Local Transportation Funds from the bus replacement line item for the purchase of base radio communication equipment; and, 3. Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. MEASURE "A" SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM: ANZA VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. Cathy Bechtel reviewed Anza Valley Community Services, Inc.'s request to disburse the remaining Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds from the Plans and Programs Committee Minutes April 28, 2003 Page 3 termination of their service to other non-profit agencies in the Anza Area as well as the transfer of a vehicle to Riverside Transit Agency. M/S/C (Hall/Miller) to: 1. Authorize Anza Valley Community Services, Inc. to disburse approximately $4,000 of Measure "A" Specialized Transit Funds to four non-profit agencies serving the Anza area; 2. Reassign ownership of the 12 -passenger Ford Van purchased in part with Measure "A" Funds to the Riverside Transit Agency; and, 3. Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. CARE -A -VAN TRANSIT, INC.'S REQUEST TO APPLY EXCESS MATCHING FUNDS FROM FISCAL YEARS 2000 AND 2001 TO FISCAL YEAR 2002 Cathy Bechtel stated that this item is a request from Care -A -Van Transit to apply excess matching funds from FY 2000 and 2001 to FY 2002. M/S/C (Lowe/van Haaster) to: 1. Apply $12,229 in excess matching funds from Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 to cover Care -A -Van Transit, Inc.'s match requirement for Fiscal Year 2002; and, 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. 9. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager, reviewed the proposed Metrolink Budget for FY 2003-04, highlighting the proposed Riverside County service levels, the operating subsidy increase, and the system -wide operations. In response to Commissioner Bob Buster's question regarding station parking availability, Stephanie Wiggins responded that the North Main Corona Metrolink Station opening has resulted in greater parking availability at the West Corona Metrolink Station. M/S/C (Schook/van Haaster) to: 1. Adopt the preliminary Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Metrolink Operating and Capital Budgets; Plans and Programs Committee Minutes April 28, 2003 Page 4 2. Allocate RCTC's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in an amount not to exceed $3,948,500, comprised of: $3,056,300 of Local Transportation Funds for train operations and maintenance -of -way, and $892,200 of FTA Section 5307 for capital projects; and, 3. Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. DEFERRAL OF THE VAN BUREN METROLINK STATION M/S/C (Lowe/Schook) to: 1. Defer the construction of the Van Buren Metrolink Station until after 2010, at which time the Commission can re -consider proceeding with the development of the Station; and, 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. 11. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Karen Leland, Staff Analyst, provided an update on the Commuter Rail Program, noting decreases in ridership and on -time performance for the month of March on all lines. In response to Commission Buster's concern regarding delays, Karen Leland provided a detailed explanation of the causes for the delays noting the majority were factors outside of Metrolink's control. Eric Haley, Executive Director, requested Steve DeBaun, Commission Legal Counsel, provide the Committee with the disposition of the Placentia Metrolink Accident Case. Steve DeBaun stated that an agreement has been drafted between Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF), and Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) related to the settlement of the Placentia Accident Liability that includes language that does not expose the Commission to any additional exposure and the recklessness defense remains available to the Commission. He also noted that the agreement specifically prohibits BNSF from using the existence of this settlement agreement against citizens as proof that there was not reckless behavior by BNSF. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes April 28, 2003 Page 5 M/S/C (van Haaster/Buster) to: 1. Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item; and, 2. Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. 2003 UPDATE TO LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 03-023, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING AND ADOPTING LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (PUB. RESOURCES CODE §§ 21000 ET SEQ.)" M/S/C (van Haaster/Lowe) to adopt: 1. The 2003 Update to Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2. Resolution No. 03-023, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending and Adopting Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.)"; and, 3. Forward to the Commission for final action. 13. COMMISSIONERS / STAFF REPORT A. Chairman Dick Kelly informed the Committee that Commissioner Percy Byrd has been hospitalized at John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital. B. Eric Haley noted: • The funding efforts for the SR 60/SR 91/1-215 Interchange Project. • The California Transportation Foundation Awards will be held on May 21st in Sacramento. The Commission will be honored for its Measure "A" Outreach Program and he will be honored as "Person of the Year". C. Commissioner Buster commended Cathy Bechtel for her efforts at the public information meeting for the Victoria Grove Residents regarding the Hemet to Corona -Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes April 28, 2003 Page 6 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting adjourned at 12:46 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled to be held at 12:00 p.m., Monday, May 19, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Deputy Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: John Standiford, Director of Public Information THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Route 91 Project Plan Per AB 1010 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the Draft Route 91 Project Plan; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Assembly Bill 1010 (Correa), which was signed by Governor Davis last year, enabled the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to purchase the 91 Express Lanes from the privately held California Private Transportation Company (CPTC). The main purpose of the legislation was to affect a change to public agency ownership of the toll roads that would eliminate a non -competition clause that prevented improvements to the public non -toll portions of State Route 91. The non -compete area extended far beyond the boundaries of the toll facility to encompass an area that reached all the way to 1-15 in Corona. The elimination of the non -compete clause would then free Caltrans, RCTC and OCTA to be able to pursue a number of transportation improvements along the corridor. As part of the AB 1010 legislation, OCTA is required to adopt a plan of improvements for the Route 91 area. Legislators inserted the language in order to ensure that the change in ownership would actually result in action to improve the highway. Another concern was how toll road revenues would be spent. The legislation severely limits how toll revenues can be spent to the payment of debt service on the acquisition and on needed transportation improvements along the freeway corridor. By requiring a plan, the Legislature would be assured of a publicly adopted list of improvements that could possibly be funded through the toll revenues. The legislation requiring the plan is quite clear in that it mandates OCTA to adopt the plan and to work cooperatively with RCTC and Caltrans in developing the plan. Yet another entity overseeing the plan is the bi-county Route 91 Advisory Committee that was created by AB 1010 and is comprised of representatives of RCTC and OCTA, as well as Caltrans and an ex -officio member from SANBAG. 1 The very first work toward identifying potential projects was completed as a joint effort by Caltrans Districts 8 and 12 and resulted in the completion of an Alternatives Analysis that was presented to the Commission in February. OCTA has sought to refine this information and complete a more comprehensive plan and retained the services of a URS, a nationally -recognized engineering firm. URS' Project Manager Doug Smith will provide an oral presentation of the plan process and results for this meeting. Adoption of the plan by the Commission is not required by law, but staff has brought the item to the Committee and the entire Commission because of its importance and impact on the county's transportation network. ADDITIONAL PROGRESS ON THE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR In April, the California Transportation Commission approved $4.94 million in funding to add a westbound travel lane on Route 91 between the Riverside County Line and the State Route 241 toll road. Adding this previously "dropped" lane will benefit westbound travelers from Riverside County. Caltrans is also working to extend the benefit of this project all the way to Green River Road. What is proposed is a re - striping that would change the configuration of the double HOV Lanes and ease congestion at this crowded chokepoint. A groundbreaking for the entire project is planned for late June when the project is expected to begin construction. ROUTE 91 ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES The Route 91 Advisory Committee has met monthly since January and has proven to be an effective forum for discussion of transportation issues between elected officials in Riverside and Orange County. RCTC's representatives on the Committee include Chairman Ron Roberts, Corona Councilman Jeff Miller, Lake Elsinore Councilman Robert Schiffner and Supervisors Buster and Tavaglione (who was elected as the Vice Chairman of the Advisory Committee). Riverside City Councilman Anneal Moore serves as an alternate. The main issue that confronted the Advisory Committee during its first few meetings was the issue of whether or not to allow carpools of three or more to travel for free in the Express Lanes. This provision was included in the original franchise with the state but has transitioned to a half-price policy because the toll road's revenues fell short of necessary debt coverage. During the effort to approve AB 1010 a number of OCTA Board Members indicated support for eliminating the HOV fee for carpools of three or more and some, including OCTA Chairman Tim Keenan voiced their support. However, a presentation was made to the Advisory Committee that indicated potential concerns with the impact that allowing free carpools might have on the flow of the Express Lanes. Of particular concern was the impact that it might have on the eastbound early evening rush hour. After a delay to allow for additional information the Advisory Committee approved a suggestion to allow carpools of three or more to use the Express Lanes for free at all times with the exception of 4-6p.m., Monday 2 through Friday. This action was approved by the OCTA Board of Directors in April and began taking effect on May 19. During those two hours on weeknights, carpools will continue to be able to travel for half of the posted toll. The Advisory Committee will continue to meet on a regular basis and will have significant involvement with efforts to study a new transportation corridor between the two counties. While the Committee is only advisory, the level of communication between the two counties has been productive and has the potential for aiding consensus on future transportation policy matters. 3 AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION , DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Reconsideration of the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve acceleration of the CETAP internal east -west corridor work to a project level environmental document; 2) Direct staff to seek federal legislation identifying the CETAP internal east -west corridor as Ramona/Cajalco, south of Lake Mathews; 3) Direct staff to return to the Commission in 90 days with an action plan including details on budget, schedule and implementation; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) began almost four years ago as part of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). When the RCIP began in 1999, it was undertaken as a way to expedite the construction of infrastructure improvements while being cognizant of the importance of quality of life issues for our residents, including open space and conservation of the environment. The RCTC, as the transportation planning agency for the county, was charged with identifying the locations for four new multi -modal transportation facilities under the process known as CETAP. The four priority corridors currently under study are Winchester to Temecula, Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County and Riverside County to Orange County. This agenda item will focus on the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (HCLE). A draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/REIR) is currently being prepared for the HCLE corridor. Ten alternative alignments are being considered with the alignments generally grouped along Ramona/Cajalco/EI Sobrante in the north and along SR74 in the southern 4 portion of the study area (14 alternatives were considered in the draft environmental documents; four were dropped prior to the start of the SEIS/REIR preparation). A total of seven public hearings were held to receive public comments on the draft environmental documents and proposed alternatives. Through those hearings, as well as continued public comment received after the formal close of the comment period, much focus has been placed on the alternatives along Ramona/Cajalco/EI Sobrante. In particular, RCTC has received numerous requests for consideration of an alignment south of Lake Mathews. Currently there are four alternatives which travel along Cajalco (la, 1 b, H1 and H3). The alternative which traversed south of Lake Mathews was actually removed from consideration by the Commission very early in the CETAP alternatives analysis process (June 2000) due to potential conflicts with the existing Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Reserve, which covers much of the area just east and south of Lake Mathews. Subsequent to that alternative being eliminated, substantial biological analysis and transportation studies have been completed and public comment received for the 14 alternatives that were studied in the Draft EIR/EIS for the HCLE Corridor. Our reports have always noted that the alternatives which provide the greatest transportation benefit are those grouped along Ramona/Cajalco. However, staff has continued to have concerns with the engineering challenges of constructing a large transportation facility along the north side of the Lake Mathews dam. Additionally, we have heard many community concerns regarding construction of a major transportation facility north of the lake and the potential adverse impact it would have on area residents, including displacement of many new residences in this area. The public and local jurisdictions have expressed support for transportation improvements, but recommend they be done south of Lake Mathews. The requirements of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan must be recognized; its Implementation Agreement provides for transportation improvements as long as there is acquisition of occupied SKR habitat to replace disturbed habitat. Back in early 2000, when the RCIP was in its infancy, improvements to Cajalco through the SKR Reserve were thought to be absolutely out of the question. Given the work on the MSHCP and the significant reserve structure that will be formed, additional transportation improvements through this reserve beyond those currently permitted appear to be possible. Staff has been exploring options to determine how best to respond to requests from the public and our member agencies to consider an alternative south of Lake Mathews. If we were to introduce a new alternative into the environmental process at this point for a Tier 1 analysis, the federal NEPA/404 process would require that the new alternative be analyzed at the same level as the other 10 alternatives. This would require an extension to our current schedule (from February 2004 to at least February 2005) and an estimated additional $1 .5M to 5 complete the analysis. Additionally, while this alternative could be added if we have the support of our partner federal agencies (Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife, and the Army Corps of Engineers), there would be no guarantee that this new alternative would be selected as the preferred alternative for right of way preservation in this Tier 1 environmental process. As you will recall, in order to be eligible for future federal dollars for construction, the federal agencies must concur with the preferred alternative. As mentioned earlier, the original reason for CETAP was to expedite the construction of transportation corridors. The Tier 1 process was undertaken to identify needed right of way until funding and support was available for future completion of a Tier 2, project level environmental document. Through the public hearing process we heard a great deal of testimony stating that we have significant transportation problems that need fixing today, not 10-20 years from now. The Ramona/Cajalco corridor was identified in our transportation modeling as the corridor that would provide the greatest transportation benefits, and support for improvements along that corridor has been voiced by the public and a number of local jurisdictions. Given the need to make transportation improvements sooner versus later, coupled with RCTC's recent reauthorization of Measure A which identifies some future funding for the CETAP corridors and the Western County's initiation of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) which includes improvements to Ramona/Cajalco, staff is recommending an acceleration of the CETAP process right into a project level NEPA document. Congressman Calvert has expressed support for sponsoring federal legislation which would identify the Ramona/Cajalco alignment, south of the lake, as the CETAP east -west corridor. This would mean the other 10 alternatives would no longer be considered under CETAP and work on the east -west corridor would focus solely on the new alignment. Legislation would be helpful in concentrating the work of the Federal Resource Agencies on the Ramona/Cajalco alignment south of the lake as we move forward on development of a project level environmental document. Currently, this alternative is not identified as a Covered Activity under the draft MSHCP. We must work closely with the County and Resource Agencies to develop language for inclusion in the proposed plan which would outline requirements for coverage of this alternative and/or recognize plans for a future plan amendment. Additionally, an action plan including details on budget, schedule and implementation will be developed and presented for the Commission's consideration in the new few months. 6 CETAP has long been a model for environmental streamlining, and as such, has received recognition under President Bush's Executive Order 13274 for Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews. The work completed to date on CETAP for the east -west corridor has been very helpful in identifying the location for much needed transportation improvements. We believe this recommendation to accelerate into a project level document is consistent with the original goal of CETAP and the President's Executive Order --to construct needed transportation corridors in an expedited fashion, while balancing the needs of the community and environment. 7 AGENDA ITEM 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Status Report on the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the status report on the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The work on the draft final environmental documents for the Winchester to Temecula CETAP Corridor is progressing on schedule. In order to allow the Federal Highway Administration to take all actions to allow issuance of a Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Winchester to Temecula Corridor by August 15, 2003, a number of key actions must occur over the next few months. Our current schedule identifies completion of the final EIS/EIR by May 30, 2003. We are completing a joint federal and state environmental document under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RCTC is the lead agency for CEQA and will need to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). While this was originally scheduled to occur at the June 11, 2003 Commission meeting, staff is now scheduling this action for the July 9, 2003 Commission meeting. This will allow time for RCTC to meet its legal requirements under CEQA to provide written proposed responses to public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR (PRC 21092.5). The Federal Highway Administration is scheduled to publish the Notice of Availability of the final EIS on June 20, 2003. A 30 day public comment period on the document will be provided with the comment period closing on July 22, 2003. This will lead us to completing all work required to allow issuance of a federal Record of Decision by August 15, 2003. 8 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development FROM: THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Update on the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the update on the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Attached for your information is a copy of the Notice of Preparation to start the California Environmental Quality Act work on the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor. This notice has been sent out to over 500 agencies and individuals to inform them of the start of the CEQA work for this CETAP corridor and to solicit their comments by June 10, 2003. Included in the transmittal letter was a notice of two public scoping meetings. Meetings will be in an Open House type format and run from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00pm. The meetings will be held on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at the City of Loma Linda Senior Center and on Thursday, June 5, 2003 at the City of Moreno Valley City Hall. Additionally, newspaper advertisements regarding the NOP and the upcoming public scoping meetings were included in the May 12th editions of the Press Enterprise and the San Bernardino County Sun and on May 16th in La Prensa. Attachments: Transmittal Letter Notice of Preparation Public Notice 9 Moreno Valley to Son Bernardino County Corridor Governments SANBAG Working Together May 6, 2003 Subject: Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Dear: Responsible Agencies, Elected Officials, and Interested Parties Attached is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) or a public notice of availability of the NOP for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County transportation corridor in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor (Corridor) study was initiated through the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). The main purpose of the Corridor study is to identify specific transportation solutions that can help improve mobility between State Route 60 and Interstate 10. The study is a joint effort between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). The purpose of the NOP is to describe the proposed project, solicit input regarding the scope and content of the analysis in the Draft EIR, and describe the potential environmental impacts that the Draft EIR will evaluate. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15060 and 15063, an Initial Study is not required and is not included with the NOP. The Draft EIR will be prepared as a Program EIR (CEQA Section 15168) to provide analysis sufficient to support the preservation of right-of-way for transportation facilities in the circulation elements of the appropriate local General Plans. A more detailed level of environmental evaluation resulting in a Focused or Supplemental EIR will be required prior to construction of the Corridor. The RCTC and SANBAG would appreciate your comments, suggestions, or concerns regarding potential environmental impacts related to the proposed project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but no later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please submit your comments by June 10, 2003. In your response, please note the primary contact person for your agency or organization. Written comments regarding the NOP may be sent via regular mail or fax to the following: 10 Riverside County Transportation Commission Ms. Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Fax: (909) 787-7920 Or San Bernardino Associated Governments Mr. Ty Schuiling, Director of Planning and Programming 472 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92401-1421 Fax: (909) 885-4407 In addition, public scoping meetings have been scheduled at two locations in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The meetings will be held from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The dates and locations are as follows: Wednesday, June 4, 2003 City of Loma Linda Senior Center 25571 Barton Road Loma Linda, CA 92354 Transit access available from RTA Bus Route 25 and Omnitrans Bus Routes 2 and 200. Thursday, June 5, 2003 City of Moreno Valley City Hall 14177 Frederick Moreno Valley, CA 92552 Transit access available from RTA Bus Route 16. Thank you in advance for any comments. If you have any questions about the proposed project or the environmental review process, please contact Ms. Cathy Bechtel at (909) 787-7141 or Mr. Ty Schuiling at (909) 884-8276. Sincerely, Cathy Bechtel Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development Riverside County Transportation Commission Ty Schuiling Director of Planning and Programming San Bernardino Associated Governments Attachment: Notice of Preparation or Notice of Availability of the NOP 11 Govern Wien is Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor TrlaRrOW•4411.0 C1.1,170.41. SANBAG 4Yoriing Tt ether PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS FOR THE MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CORRIDOR EIR WITHIN WESTERN RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES WHAT'S BEING PLANNED? The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) intend to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study. The main purpose of the study is to identify specific transportation solutions that can improve mobility between State Route 60 (SR -60) and Interstate 10 (I-10). Due to the fast pace of development in this area, opportunities are being lost to preserve land for new or expanded transportation facilities. The objective of the proposed EIR is to provide environmental analysis and disclosure of potential impacts related to proposed transportation improvements within the area generally bounded by I-10, Riverside Avenue (west of Interstate 215), and SR -60 to allow agencies to proceed with the preservation of transportation facilities within local planning documents. Actual construction of the improvements may be a number of years away. More detailed environmental analysis and supplemental environmental documentation will be required prior to construction of any new or expanded facilities identified through this study. WHY THESE MEETINGS? This is the first step in completing the draft EIR document. SANBAG and RCTC invite interested individuals, organizations, State, and local agencies to provide information about the project area as well as to give them an opportunity to discuss issues or questions they may have about the proposed facilities. An information packet describing the purpose of the project, the project location, and the environmental study area is being mailed to relevant federal, State, regional, and local agencies. Information will be available to the public at the scoping meetings on June 4 and 5, 2003. Information packets may also be requested by contacting Cathy Bechtel (RCTC) or Ty Schuiling (SANBAG). If you would like to be placed on the project mailing list, please send your name and address to Cathy Bechtel (RCTC) or Ty Schuiling (SANBAG). Ms. Bechtel's and Mr. Schuiling's contact information is provided below. WHERE YOU COME IN Public Comments: Comments should focus on specific social, economic, or environmental concerns. Written comments on the scope of project and impacts to be considered in the EIR document should be submitted to Cathy Bechtel (RCTC) or Ty Schuiling (SANBAG) 12 by June 13, 2003. Written comments may also be submitted at the public scoping meetings on June 4 and 5, 2003. Public comments received will become part of the public record, and each comment will be considered in the environmental document. People with special needs should contact Cathy Bechtel (RCTC) or Ty Schuiling (SANBAG) at the contact information below. The meeting locations are accessible for people with disabilities. WHAT, WHEN AND WHERE The public scoping meetings for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor EIR will be held in an "open -house format," and project representatives will be available to discuss the project throughout the meetings. No formal presentations will be made at the meeting. Informational displays and written materials will be available at the scoping meetings or by request from Cathy Bechtel (RCTC) or Ty Schuiling (SANBAG). The date, time and location of the scoping meetings: Wednesday, June 4, 2003, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. City of Loma Linda Senior Center 25571 Barton Road Loma Linda, California 92354 RTA Bus Route 25 Omnitrans Bus Routes 2 and 200 Thursday, June 5, 2003, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. City of Moreno Valley City Hall 14177 Frederick Moreno Valley, California 92552 RTA Bus Route 16 Please contact Riverside Transit Agency for bus times at 1.800.800.7821 or contact Omnitrans at 1.800.966.6428 CONTACT INFORMATION Cathy Bechtel, RCTC P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502-2208 Phone: 909.787.7141 FAX: 909.787.7920 cbechtel@rctc.org Ty Schuiling, SANBAG 472 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bemardino, CA 92401-1421 Phone: 909.884.8276 FAX: 909.885.4407 TSchuiling@sanbag.ca.gov NOTICE OF PREPARATION of an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) for the MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CORRIDOR in RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Lead Agencies: Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) Governments SAN BAG Working Together May 2003 13 NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CORRIDOR STUDY Introduction This document is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for transportation improvements between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The purpose of the NOP is to describe the proposed project, the location of the project, the probable environmental effects of the project that will be evaluated in the EIR, and solicit input regarding the scope and content of the analysis to be included in the EIR. This NOP is being issued in accordance with Section 15082(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Background The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor (Corridor) Study was initiated through the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) being undertaken jointly by the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). CETAP is one component of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), which also includes the Riverside County General Plan update and a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for Riverside County. The main purpose of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study is to identify specific transportation solutions that can help improve mobility between State Route 60 (SR -60) and Interstate 10 (I-10). The study is a joint effort between RCTC and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). A Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Policy Advisory Committee, involving RCTC, SANBAG, the Counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, numerous resource agencies, and the Cities of Banning, Colton, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Moreno Valley, Perris, Redlands, Rialto, Riverside, San Bernardino and Yucaipa, has been established to help guide the study efforts. Two public information meetings were held in Moreno Valley and San Bernardino County in April 2001 to obtain input from residents, businesses, and other stakeholders in the area. The input from these meetings was used to define the alignments to better avoid and minimize impacts to the community and the environment. Two public scoping meetings will be held during the NOP public comment period (one in each County) to solicit input from the public on the scope of significant issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR. According to current projections by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and SANBAG, the Inland Empire's population is expected to reach over 5.5 million by 2025, and employment is expected to more than double. Due to the fast pace of development, opportunities are being lost to preserve land for transportation facilities. Therefore, an important goal of this effort is to complete environmental documentation on a schedule sufficient for use in preserving right-of- way for regional transportation facilities. 14 1 The objective of the proposed EIR is to provide environmental analysis of transportation improvements within the area generally bounded by 1-10, Riverside Avenue (west of Interstate 215 [I-215]), and SR -60 to allow agencies to proceed with the protection of right-of-way for the proposed alignments. The EIR will be piepaied as a Program EIR (CEQA Section 15168) to provide analysis sufficient to support the preservation of right-of-way for the improvements by inclusion of the proposed alignments in the circulation elements of the appropriate local General Plans. Portions of the proposed transportation improvements may already be included in local General Plans, but portions of their alignments may need to be refined to coordinate with the location of the core facility. Identification of the alignment in a General Plan does not suggest that funding is available for such facilities, nor does it suggest the sequencing or phasing of their construction. A more detailed level of environmental evaluation resulting in a Focused or Supplemental EIR will be required prior to construction of any of the improvements. Actual construction of the improvements may be a number of years away, but it is important to make these decisions early to be certain that the facilities will be constructed to allow land development to take place in an orderly, efficient, and predictable manner. According to SCAG's 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for fiscal years 2002/2003-2007/2008, there are several improvements planned on 1-10, 1-215, SR -91, and SR -60 within the vicinity of the proposed Corridor. • • • • • SR -60: two High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are proposed from I-215 to Redlands Boulevard (Project ID #46360). SR -91: HOV lanes are proposed through the City of Riverside from Mary Street to the junction of SR -60/I-215 (Project ID #RIV010212). There are several interchange improvements proposed on I-10, including modifications to the interchanges at Riverside Avenue, Pepper Avenue, Tippecanoe Avenue, and California Street. In addition, one mixed flow lane is proposed in each direction on I-10 from Orange Street to Ford Street (Project ID #47440). The Riverside I-215 Corridor Improvement Project proposes to widen I-215 from six to eight lanes from the junction of SR-60/SR-91/I-215 to the split of SR -60/1-215, including mainline/interchange improvements, HOV lanes, auxiliary lanes, and a southbound truck climbing lane (Project ID #0121D). Portions of the project are already complete. The I-215 North in San Bernardino from 1-10 to SR -30 will add two HOV lanes and operational improvements. I-215: proposed HOV flyovers connecting SR -60 and I-215. At this time, the general project limits extend along 1-215 from just south of the existing I-215/SR-60 interchange in Riverside to Orange Show Road, north of the existing I-215/1-10 interchange in San Bernardino. These improvement projects are independent of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study, and the environmental effects of these projects have been or will be addressed in separate environmental documents for each project. 15 2 Project Goals and Objectives The goal of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study is to accomplish the objectives listed below to the extent possible within the financial and physical constraints that exist in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. • • • • • Improve safety on the existing highway network between Moreno Valley and San Bernardino County - Reduce travel times between Moreno Valley and San Bernardino County Improve the projected future vehicle Level of Service (LOS) and reduce the amount of existing and future congestion on north -south arterials between Moreno Valley and San Bernardino County Improve access to employment centers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties (March Air Reserve Base, San Bernardino International Airport, Loma Linda medical complex, etc.) Improve transit opportunities between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Implement transportation facilities that will support the vision and land use plans within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Implement transportation facilities that will protect the environment and community character between Moreno Valley and San Bernardino County Preserve right-of-way and secure concurrence from appropriate local, regional, and State agencies sufficient to include the proposed alignments m the circulation elements of the appropriate local General Plans Project Location Figure 1 depicts the regional location, surrounding vicinity, and project location for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor. The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor study area focuses on the area generally bounded by I- 10, I-215, and SR -60. The project study area encompasses portions of the Cities of Rialto, Colton, Grand Terrace, San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Redlands, and Yucaipa in San Bernardino County and the Cities of Moreno Valley, Calimesa, and Riverside in Riverside County. The Cities of Rialto, Colton, San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Redlands, Yucaipa, and Calimesa are located along the I-10 freeway, beginning west of I-215 at the City of Rialto, traveling east towards the City of Calimesa at the Riverside County line. The City of Grand Terrace is located along I-215, south of the 1-10/1-215 interchange. The City of Riverside encompasses the junction of I-215/SR-60/SR-91, and the City of Moreno Valley is located along SR -60, east of I-215. 16 3 z Ri alto �w r Colton Figure 1 Riverside LEGEN D mo■ Core Facility (Expressway) Tunnel Section �" Arterial Improvements H UNTS LN San Bernardino 1 1 •'� 1 �' 1 to 1 c' Grand Terr ace • 16 . i MAIN ST ♦ Riverside County• Landfill Box Springs Mountain Reserve Core Facility Study Area BARTON RD cn a. PO SAN San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill Redlands Tj Moreno Valley C Los Angeles CCm1N Y ucaipa Sa n Bernardin o County Riverside County Calimesa San Ben menus Couaty R3versidc, Cou niyy,; Proj ect Location San Di ego County Gov er nm ents SAN B AG W orking Tog ether /n,pr i ai Cuaurn X i C o �tt+a 1-- Eia+rrs�fsie,Ca+n ntt r n apnrta:h o Cr nassi saaon 11 I" 0 n0 0 3 Kilometers 2 M iles Project Locatio n Moren o V alley to San Bernardino Co unty Corridor /:LS4 ''foreno to 58 CounoMegionaLcdr (5/6/03) Project Description The Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor includes the preservation of right-of-way for a "core facility" and "arterial improvements." The core facility includes a new transportation corridor that connects the SR -60/I-215 interchange in Box Springs (at the west side of Moreno Valley) with Barton Road, connecting to I- 10 via existing planned California Street, between the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands. The arterial improvements include connections -to the core facility from other arterial roadways within the project study area. The core facility and arterial improvements are described in more detail below. Core Facility The core facility is proposed as a limited access expressway from the 1-215 to Barton Road. The expressway begins at the SR -60/I-215 interchange and generally follows Morton Road north to the Box Springs Mountain Reserve. A four lane tunnel (two tubes of two lanes each) approximately 2.98 kilometers (1.86 miles) in length and 12 meters (40 feet) wide would be constructed under Box Springs Mountain, north of Moreno Valley. The expressway travels east of the closed Riverside County Landfill, crossing the San Bernardino County line on the west side of the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill. As shown on Figure 1, the shaded area is the Core Facility study area where the core facility will be aligned from the Riverside County line to a connection at Barton Road. This portion of the alignment will be determined through the public scoping process associated with this NOP. The expressway will have intersections or interchanges at Pigeon Pass Road, Reche Canyon Road, and Barton Road. At -grade intersections may be built at intersecting arterial streets between I-215 and I-10 in an early phase, with interchanges constructed when traffic demand warrants. In addition, it is possible that the section from Pigeon Pass Road eastward could be built in an initial phase, with the section from Pigeon Pass Road to I-215 reserved for a later phase, due to the high cost of the tunnel portion. The expressway will be designed as a rural -type cross section (no curbs) consistent with local and/or Caltrans standards. The design will include narrowing in the tunnel and mountainous sections of the expressway to reduce costs and to integrate with the environment. The maximum right-of-way width required in the expressway section will be approximately 120 feet plus additional width for cut and fill. The area to be studied for the expressway would be in the range of 300-1,000 feet to allow for flexibility in future alignment decisions that best accommodate facility design features and that avoid and minimize potential impacts. RCTC, SANBAG, and local governments will work actively with property owners within the study area to minimize the environmental study areas so that the actual alignment can be more accurately identified during the scoping period. The limited access expressway section will be four lanes (two lanes in each direction), with additional lanes as needed at intersections or interchanges. The arterial section along California Street will contain six lanes with turn lanes sufficient to accommodate projected left and right -turning traffic. The expressway sections will include landscaped medians, excluding the tunnel section under Box Springs Mountain Reserve. The arterial section of the core facility along California 18 5 Street will be designed in compliance with cross-section standards of the City of Loma Linda. The expressway will provide for habitat connectivity and wildlife crossings at appropriate locations, where feasible. No through trucks will be allowed on the expressway. The desired speed is 65 mph, with 55 mph allowable in areas of difficult topography. Access will not be provided to the expressway in areas where no development is planned. In general, any access will be at intersections with other roadways, with no direct access to adjacent properties in areas along the expressway section. Access to businesses will be provided along the California Street section. Arterial Improvements Arterial improvements that connect to the core facility are proposed as controlled access arterials (i.e. private driveways will be redirected to a possible frontage road and enter at a traffic signal, to the extent possible). These elements include the preservation of right-of-way along Riverside Avenue and other existing arterial roadways in the Reche Canyon area, such as Reche Canyon Road, Reche Vista Avenue, and Pigeon Pass Road. The proposed arterial improvements include the widening of the existing arterials to four lanes and will include signalization and intersection improvements consistent with local and/or Caltrans standards. Each arterial improvement is described in more detail below, and is shown on Figure 1. Pigeon Pass Road. Pigeon Pass Road will be widened, paved and realigned to a four lane arterial at the north end of Moreno Valley. The arterial will connect to the core facility southeast of the closed Riverside County Landfill and north of the Box Springs Mountain Reserve (see Figure 1). If the tunnel section of the core facility is not constructed until a subsequent phase, improvements to Pigeon Pass Road southerly toward SR -60 may need to be considered as part of the interim solution. Reche Canyon Road North. Reche Canyon Road will be widened to a four lane arterial from its connection at the core facility to Barton Road in the City of Colton. The arterial will be realigned across from Hunts Lane and will continue north on Hunts Lane to its existing connection with I-10. Reche Vista Drive. Reche Vista Drive will be widened and realigned to a four lane arterial from Perris Boulevard at the north end of Moreno Valley to Reche Canyon Road. Reche Vista Drive intersects Reche Canyon Road north of Moreno Valley. The existing Reche Canyon Road will be widened to a four lane arterial from its intersection with Reche Vista Drive to its connection with the core facility. Riverside Avenue. Riverside Avenue will generally proceed from the core alignment across or around the closed Riverside County landfill, circumvent the Spring Mountain Ranch development on the north, connect to Main Street in the community of Highgrove in unincorporated Riverside County, proceed westerly across I-215 to Riverside Avenue, and follow Riverside Avenue north to I-10. In addition, La Cadena Drive will be realigned to allow an elevated intersection with 19 6 the Pigeon Pass -Riverside Avenue arterial west of I-215. Signalization would be required. However, this does not assume a new interchange with 1-215 at this location. The realigned portion of La Cadena would match the existing La Cadena roadway. Environmental Review Process This section discusses the environmental review process necessary for the completion of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor EIR. Since RCTC and SANBAG, have committed to prepare an EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15060 and 15063, an Initial Study has not been completed for this NOP. This NOP contains a description of the environmental issues and analysis proposed to be provided in the EIR. A Program EIR will be prepared for the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The EIR will evaluate potential project related impacts anticipated to result from implementation of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor, and will include preliminary mitigation measures to minimize the identified impacts. The EIR is intended to provide the necessary CEQA clearance for the proposed facilities so that the proposed alignments may be included in the circulation elements of the appropriate local General Plans. The EIR analysis will be based on conceptual engineering design (i.e., a facility centerline, typical cross section, and right-of-way line), including plan and profile. Subsequent environmental evaluation will be required prior to construction of the project to address construction -level impacts. The CEQA Guidelines require preparation of objective analysis and documentation to inform decision makers, the general public, and responsible agencies of the direct and indirect environmental effects of a proposed action and mitigation measures that reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts. RCTC and SANBAG are serving as the joint Lead Agencies for CEQA. Caltrans, the County of Riverside, the County of San Bernardino, and the affected Cities are Responsible Agencies for the EIR. After its publication, the Draft EIR will be available for public review and comment, and multiple public hearings will take place. After all comments have been responded to, RCTC and SANBAG may certify the Final EIR. If the project were given environmental approval under CEQA, RCTC and SANBAG, in cooperation with the Responsible Agencies, could move forward with the preservation of right-of-way for all or part of the project, and proceed with the next phase of engineering and environmental studies. Local jurisdictions can also use the Final EIR as the CEQA documentation for their General Plan Amendments. Probable Environmental Effects The following explanation of probable environmental effects of the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor Study is provided to help guide the analysis in the forthcoming EIR document and to provide information to the public and agencies reviewing this NOP. 20 7 Aesthetics Construction of the proposed transportation facilities will change the overall visual character within the project study area. Visual impacts may include cut and fill areas on Reche Canyon Drive as well as a large bridge structure near the Box Springs Mountain Reserve. In addition, roadway embankment areas may be highly visible in the Reche Canyon area within and from the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands. A preliminary visual analysis will be prepared to address potential visual impacts of the proposed project. The analysis will describe the existing visual characteristics of the proposed facilities and the surrounding area and will identify any significant visual resources or scenic vistas within the facilities. Impacts will be assessed in terms of modifications to land forms and other visual features, as well as any light and glare that may result from project implementation. Key issues to be considered in this analysis are removal of vegetation (trees, etc.), the alteration of significant landforms, and the construction of roads and highway improvements where none presently exist. Air Quality Regional and local air quality may be affected by the construction of the proposed transportation facilities. An air quality analysis including a carbon monoxide (CO) hot spot analysis will be prepared to identify potential impacts to regional and local air quality. The air quality analysis will discuss both short-term impacts resulting from construction, as well as long-term impacts resulting from project operation. The analysis will be based on regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to determine if the proposed facilities would result in any exceedance of SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District) established emission thresholds. Biological Resources The proposed facilities may impact sensitive biological resources, such as plant life, wildlife, and sensitive natural communities. Potential impacts include direct loss of habitat from grading or other construction activities, direct loss of animals and plants by project construction, loss or disruption of wildlife movement corridors, and habitat fragmentation. The construction of the core facility will result in direct impacts to biological resources, specifically in undeveloped areas such as the "Badlands" (near San Timoteo Canyon) and the Box Springs Mountain Reserve. The construction of the proposed auxiliary tunnel through the Box Springs Mountain Reserve will require significant cut and fill, resulting in a direct loss of wildlife habitat. Biological resources in the Blue Mountain area will also be impacted by the proposed arterial improvements along Pigeon Pass Road and Reche Vista Drive. A biological resources assessment will be prepared to identify biological resources (including sensitive species and habitat types) known to exist and potentially occurring within the Corridor and will include a discussion of habitat linkage and wildlife corridor issues. The assessment will also identify areas that potentially qualify as wetlands and other jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The results of the biological resources assessment will be summarized in the EIR. The EIR shall discuss consistency with relevant local, regional, and State habitat conservation plans. Portions of the facilities are proposed within the Riverside 21 8 County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Riverside County MSHCP is presently in draft form and is scheduled for adoption in mid -2003. A San Bernardino Valley Wide MSHCP is currently in the preliminary planning stages, and no specific schedule is available regarding its implementation. Measures will be taken to ensure that the proposed improvements are consistent with any newly adopted plans related to the each MSHCP. Impacts to biological resources will be estimated in the EIR based on the relationship of the proposed improvements to known biological resources as identified in the Riverside County MSHCP and any San Bernardino Valley environmental initiatives. The analysis will identify linkage crossings, core crossings, and edge impacts related to the MSHCP. Within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, mitigation for impacts to habitat areas may be provided through the proposed conservation areas defined in the existing and proposed biological reserves. Cultural Resources The proposed improvements have the potential to affect both prehistoric and historic cultural resources. Potential impacts include direct loss of resources from grading or other construction activities, as well as indirect effects resulting from construction of new transportation facilities that may affect the historical context of a particular resource. Potential impacts to cultural resources will be identified in a cultural resources assessment. The assessment will include the results of a records search conducted through the Archaeological Information Center at UC Riverside and the San Bernardino County Museum. The records search will be used to determine the location of known archaeological sites and any prehistoric resources that are listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Due to varying transportation improvements and geologic formations in the project area, there is a high likelihood that the proposed facilities will impact paleontological resources. A paleontological assessment will be prepared to analyze potential impacts to fossil resources. Geology and Soils A geotechnical report will be prepared to discuss potential geological impacts of the proposed project. In addition, a preliminary geotechnical feasibility report will be prepared to identify potential geotechnical, geologic, hydrogeologic, and seismic hazards related to the construction of the proposed tunnel. The results of the reports will be summarized in the EIR and will focus on the increased potential for landslides and/or seismic hazards. The EIR will also discuss the increased potential for soil erosion and impacts on mineral resources. Hazards and Hazardous Material A hazardous waste Initial Site Assessment (ISA) will be prepared for the proposed facilities. A records search of agency databases will be conducted to determine whether the proposed project would impact known hazardous waste sites; a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 will be reviewed. Field surveys will be conducted as necessary to determine the potential 22 9 presence of unknown hazardous wastes within the corridor that could be impacted by construction of the proposed project. Potential hazardous waste impacts could occur from soil or groundwater contamination that exists within properties to be acquired for the project or where contamination on an adjacent property would pose a health risk to construction workers. Potential impacts related to hazardous materials identified in the ISA and potential safety hazards related to the construction of the proposed facilities will be summarized in the EIR. Hydrology and Water Quality A surface water hydrology technical report will be prepared to evaluate the location of the proposed facilities in relation to existing watershed drainage areas and defined blue line streams. The evaluation will initially focus on opportunities to avoid impacts to surface water, where feasible, by shifting alignments. Existing flow control structures will be identified, and the facilities will be examined for their position within the watershed in relation to the continuity of the riverine corridors affected. Potential impacts to water quality include the direct effects of dredging or filling of streams, rivers, and lakes, as well as indirect effects to water resources resulting from increases in runoff from impervious surfaces (roads, bridges, etc.). A water quality technical report will be prepared to evaluate potential impacts to water resources and will identify the location of impaired stream segments and water bodies in relation to the proposed facilities. The report will identify designated beneficial uses of stream segments affected by the proposed project and areas of significant slope (> 15 percent), which may contribute to erosion and water pollution as a result of uncontrolled runoff. The proposed project may affect federally designated floodplains. A floodplain evaluation will be prepared to identify the existing floodplain setting, and evaluate potential floodplain impacts and encroachments. The determination of the affected floodplains will be based on the latest available Flood Insurance Rate Maps for incorporated and unincorporated areas of Riverside and San Bernardino County. Land Use and Planning The proposed facilities may have an impact on the residential population and local business community within the project area. A community impact assessment will be prepared to evaluate the potential impacts related to land use and planning within the project study area. Construction of the core facility in undeveloped areas in the cities of Loma Linda, Colton, and Redlands may conflict with local plans and regulations. The analysis of land use compatibility associated with the project shall address consistency with relevant local, regional, and State regulations and plans. Discussions of environmental justice, right-of-way displacements, relocation assistance, business impacts, neighborhood cohesion, and fiscal impacts will be included and summarized in the EIR. The community impact assessment will also evaluate impacts to agricultural resources, including the identification of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Corridor. 23 10 Noise Noise impacts will be limited to developed areas and sensitive land uses along the proposed facilities. The construction of the proposed facilities may result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels within the Corridor, specifically in the cities of Moreno Valley, Loma Linda and Redlands. Residential areas and areas of sensitive land uses, such as Canyon Springs High School along Pigeon Pass Road, will experience increased noise levels during project construction. Existing noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed facilities will be documented in the EIR. A noise study will be conducted to assess potential noise impacts, including increased noise exposure resulting from increased vehicular traffic within the Corridor. Construction impacts would result from noise generated by construction equipment such as graders and pile drivers. Population and Housing A community impact assessment will provide a description of housing, employment, and population conditions within the regional vicinity, local communities, and project study area. The preservation of right-of-way for the proposed facilities may result in residential and commercial displacements within the project study area. Residential displacements may occur along Reche Canyon Road, Reche Vista Drive, and Pigeon Pass Road as a result of the proposed arterial improvements. In addition, areas along Riverside Avenue and California Street may experience residential and/or commercial displacements. Discussions of environmental justice, right-of- way way displacements, relocation assistance, business impacts, neighborhood cohesion, and fiscal impacts will be included in the community impact assessment and summarized in the EIR. The proposed facilities may indirectly induce economic or population growth through the extension of roads and construction of transportation facilities in previously undeveloped areas. A discussion of potential growth -inducing impacts as a result of the proposed project will be included in the EIR. Public Services and Utilities The EIR will discuss the potential for adverse impacts to public services (fire, police, schools, and other public facilities) and utilities (gas, water, electricity, solid waste, and wastewater). Potential impacts to public services include delays to emergency vehicles during construction, effects on schools, and access to public facilities. Several schools within the project area, such as the Immanuel Baptist School and Canyon Springs High School, will experience indirect impacts as a result of noise from increased vehicular traffic, and may be directly impacted if land acquisition is required. Potential impacts to public utilities include direct impacts where the project may require relocation of existing utilities. For example, a set of three tower electric transmission lines that cross the core facility at the County line north of the San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill may require relocation as a result of the proposed improvements. Potential impacts to existing public services and utilities will be discussed in the EIR. 24 11 Recreation Impacts to designated parks/recreation areas within the Corridor may occur Neighborhood parks such as Colony Park and the Hidden Springs Community Park may experience increased noise levels during construction of the proposed arterial improvements. The Box Springs Mountain Reserve will be directly impacted by the proposed tunnel and its connection to the core facility. In addition, equestrian trails in the Reche Canyon area may directly impacted by the proposed improvements along Reche Canyon Road. A recreational resources technical report will be prepared and incorporated into the EIR to assess potential impacts to recreation areas. The report will include an evaluation of impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. Transportation/Traffic While the proposed facilities are expected to have a beneficial effect on regional traffic circulation, the EIR will analyze the effect of the facilities on both regional and local traffic conditions. Adverse impacts may occur on other facilities where traffic volumes are increased as a result of the capacity increase provided by the proposed facilities. A traffic impact analysis will be prepared to evaluate both the beneficial and adverse impacts to transportation and circulation. Cumulative Effects The implementation of the proposed facilities will result in physical impacts to the surrounding natural and urban environment. These impacts, when combined with other existing and/or planned projects in the study area, may result in a cumulative impact to specific resources. The EIR will address the potential cumulative impacts for each of the environmental topics discussed above. 25 12 It -1 3`75 ADDITION TO 6/23/03 PLANS & PROGRAMS AGENDA ITEM #8 Characteristics Smaller Bus: Blue Bird CSFE 27 Foot Larger Bus: Blue Bird Xcel 102 35 Foot Passengers 25 - 2 wheelchair positions 35 — 2 wheelchair positions Length 27 feet overall length 35 feet overall length Wheelbase 146 inches 217 inches Gross Vehicle Weight 26,500 lbs. 36,200 lbs. Useful Vehicle Life 10 years 12 years Fuel 40 gallons CNG equivalent i 90 gallons CNG equivalent Fill Rate Needed every 150 miles Needed every 350 miles AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council and Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development SUBJECT: FY 04 — FY 06 Short Range Transit Plans CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Review and approve, in concept, the FY 04 - 06 Short Range Transit Plans for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency and RCTC's Regional Rail program, as presented; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FY 04 - 06 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) covers the three apportionment areas of the county and is comprised of plans for the municipal operators, the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, the Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and RCTC's Regional Commuter Rail program. This item is requesting that the SRTPs be approved in concept as requests for FY 04 financial allocations will be made at the June Committee and July Commission meetings. The SRTPs were presented to members of RCTC's Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) at their May 8, 2003 meeting. After review of the proposed service changes, members of the CAC/SSTAC recommended approval of the FY 04 SRTPs. Following is a summary of service highlights proposed for FY 04: City of Banning: The City of Banning's Municipal Transit System (Banning) provides fixed route, ADA complementary paratransit, and senior and persons with disabilities Dial -A -Ride service. Service is provided to the City of Banning, Cabazon, and the commercial area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians' Reservation. The primary uses of these services are 26 for transportation to medical appointments, workshop programs for persons with disabilities, shopping areas, employment and connections with other transit agencies. City of Beaumont: The City of Beaumont's Municipal Transit System (Beaumont) provides fixed route, and ADA complementary paratransit services for seniors and persons with disabilities. Although Beaumont's fixed route service is relatively new (implemented February, 1999) it averages approximately 11 passengers per hour. Combined Note for the Cities of Banningand Beaumont Transit Services: In April of 2000, the Pass Area cities of Beaumont, Banning and Calimesa requested and received funding to implement a regional transit system feasibility study to determine if a single transit system to serve the Pass Area was needed. The consulting firm of Nelson/Nygaard was hired to conduct the study and a Transit Task Force was formed to oversee the work performed. The Task Force was made up of elected representatives from the Cities of Banning, Beaumont and Calimesa, as well as staff from the County of Riverside, RCTC, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency and Morongo Band of Mission Indians. In December, 2001, the Transit Task Force accepted Nelson/Nygaard's first report entitled the "Pass Area Existing Conditions and Transit Needs Assessment Study." At the same time, the Transit Task Force recommended that the contract with Nelson/Nygaard be terminated and that staff from the Cities of Banning and Beaumont compile an implementation plan for review by the Transit Task Force. That plan was completed, reviewed by members of the task force and approved by both Banning and Beaumont's City Councils. Unfortunately, due to staffing issues, problems with driver recruitment, fueling capacity issues and a change in policy board representation, the only change implemented during FY 03 was the elimination of the need for residents to transfer from one Dial -A -Ride system to another. The FY 04 SRTP for both Banning and Beaumont proposes the following service changes to implement the plan that was approved in FY 03: • A single user-friendly ride guide containing all transit services in and through the Pass Area. Date of proposed implementation 7/03; • Extended local service hours to better coordinate with regional services provided by SunLine Transit Agency and Riverside Transit Agency. Date of proposed implementation: 10/03; • Creation of a fixed route trunk line connecting the Beaumont, Banning and Cabazon commercial areas. Date of proposed implementation: 10/03; • Fixed route deviations to provide service to major employers. Date of proposed implementation: 7/03; and 27 • Style standards that will give the Banning and Beaumont transit systems a single system appearance. Fares, transfers and passes will be standardized between the two public providers. Style standards will be developed for exterior bus graphics (and interior colors on future vehicle purchases), bus stop signs, bus stop benches and amenities. Proposed date of implementation: 7/03 — first phase to consist of bus logos. The Pass Area Transit Task Force met in April to ensure that the plan approved in FY 03 is implemented during FY 04. It is anticipated that the task force will continue to meet until all changes are implemented. City of Corona: The City of Corona (Corona) operates a general public Dial -A -Ride program as well as a fixed route service known as the "Corona Cruiser" which consists of two routes. Corona closely coordinates all transfers with both RTA and RCTC's Commuter rail services. During FY 04, Corona is proposing the initiation of Saturday service on the Corona Cruiser. If approved, the service will operate from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The proposed Saturday service is in response to an on -board survey as well as two public meetings. Corona's Dial -A -Ride currently operates from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. In addition, effective July, 2003, both of the Corona Cruiser routes will serve the new North Main Corona Metrolink Station. At the same time, service to the West Corona Metrolink station will be discontinued based on higher demand for service at the new station. City of Riverside — Special Services: Riverside Special Services (Riverside) operates a Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Dial -A -Ride. Service is provided within the Riverside city limits. The Special Services Program functions as an alternative to the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) fixed route system for seniors and persons with disabilities unable to use fixed route service. All services operated by Riverside are closely coordinated with RTA. Riverside is proposing to add one additional vehicle to their service to accommodate Inland Regional Centers' ADA riders. Since the City of Riverside annexed additional square miles, requests for services continue to increase and the number of ADA riders continues to grow. As a result, Riverside Special Services is requesting approval to eliminate same day service. This change, if approved, would be consistent with RTA's ADA service. 28 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency: The City of Blythe recently hired a full-time Transit Manager to monitor and manage the day-to-day transit operations of the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA). Prior to that time, the position was held by the City Manager with the Finance Director providing budgetary oversight and development of the SRTP. PVVTA is planning the following major service improvements during FY 04: Re-routing of the Go/d Line (commonly referred to as the College Shuttle) to include additional pick up points and expanded hours; • Implementation of a second fixed route: Blue Line. This will be a city circulator providing riders with access to shopping, education, social service and recreational areas within Blythe; If approved, both of these services would run from Monday through Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. Weekend service (8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) would also be added. • Implementation of a third fixed route: the Red Line will provide intercity service between the Coachella Valley and the City of Blythe. This service will provide transportation for residents traveling to the Palm Desert VA Outpatient facility or VA Hospital in Loma Linda. If approved, the Red Line would operate three days a week (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Service will connect with SunLine's SunLink service; • Dial -A -Ride (DAR) service will change from a general public DAR to a Seniors and Persons with Disabilities system. A general public DAR service will be available for the unincorporated county areas including Mesa Verde, Ripley and Palo Verde; Bus stop amenities (benches, bus signs, etc.) will be ordered. Currently, there are no bus stop amenities; passengers interested in riding the fixed route system have to "flag the bus to stop"; and • A public outreach program including the development of a web -site which will provide both route and schedule information together with the creation of comment cards will be implemented. A Transit Information Center will also be designed in an effort to better serve the public. Riverside Transit Agency: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides both local and regional transportation services with 35 fixed route and demand response Dial -A -Ride services. RTA is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency for western Riverside County and is 29 responsible for coordinating transit services throughout the approximately 2,500 square mile service area. During FY 04, RTA is proposing the following changes: • Improved on -time performance and reliability; • Less congestion in the Downtown Bus terminal by continuing to allow buses to board and de -board passengers at the Terminal, but re -directing several of the layovers to occur at a nearby location beyond the Terminal; • Creation of new transfer points which can develop into future prominent transit hubs; • Improved service hours: earlier start times and later end times for selected routes based on customer comments; and • Improved circulation and increased bus stops to eliminate long walking distances. To accommodate the hours for the improved services, schedule adherence and modest frequency improvements, a 15.5% system wide increase in hours on the Directly Operated routes is projected. Additional hours added for the same improvements to the Contracted routes results in a 17.5% projected increase. Lastly, additional hours projected for Dial -A -Ride services are an increase of 31%. If approved, these planned improvements are expected to generate a 12.5% increase in ridership in FY 04. SunLine Transit Agency: The SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) provides both local and regional transportation services with 12 fixed routes and demand response Dial -A -Ride services. Sunline is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency and is responsible for coordinating transit services in the Coachella Valley. SunLine's service area consists of approximately 1,120 square miles. Following are the highlights of SunLine's proposed FY 04 SRTP: • No changes are planned in service delivery; and • The service area that SunLine serves went from two small urbanized areas to one large area (population over 200,000). As a result, SunLine will receive an increase in federal funding which will be spent on capital purchases. Examples of purchases planned include: 1) purchase and development of eleven (1 1) acres of land immediately north of SunLine; 2) replacement of three support vehicles; and 3) installment payment for the acquisition of property on Varner Road (boarders SunLine's property). 30 As a result of a fare increase in FY 02, SunLine experienced a decline in reported ridership during FY 03. This decrease may have been caused by a lack of consistent operator procedures in fare box operations. During FY 04, SunLine will continue to monitor ridership and projects that ridership will rebound during the year. Regional Commuter Rail: RCTC's Commuter Rail consists of the Riverside to Los Angeles Line, the Inland Empire to Orange County Line (IEOC), and the Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton Line (91 Line). Following are the highlights of the Commuter Rail's STRP: • To accommodate demand, during FY 04, an additional route has been scheduled to run off peak on the IEOC line; • Parking at the La Sierra and Downtown Riverside Commuter Rail station will be expanded to accommodate the growth in rail ridership; and • New cars have been ordered and are expected to go on-line during FY 04. Projected Ridership and Operating Costs: The following table provides projected FY 04 ridership and operating costs per hour: Summary of Ridership and Operating Costs FY 04 Operator Fixed Route Unlinked Passenger Trips Fixed Route Operating Costs per Hour Paratransit Unlinked Passenger Trips Paratransit Operating Costs per Hour Banning 247,292 $66.31 10,000 $42.92 Beaumont 90,000 $43.42 35,000 $47.33 Corona 127,900 $44.32 73,520 $44.76 Commuter Rail 2,388,992 Not Available* Not Applicable Not Applicable Riverside Special Services Not Applicable Not Applicable 182,692 $38.67 PVVTA 11,797 $40.13 22,044 $46.57 RTA 7,761,986 $63.16 284,008 $34.89 SunLine 3,620,506 $98.84 110,587 $61.52 Total/Average 14,248,473 (total trips) $59.36 (average cost) 717,851 (total trips) $45.23 (average cost) 31 It is projected that during FY 04, a total of 14,248,473 passenger trips will be provided on fixed route services. Projected operating costs for fixed route services range from a low of $40.13 (PVVTA) to a high of $98.84 (SunLine). A total of 717,851 paratransit trips are projected to be provided during FY 04. Costs for these trips range from a low of $34.89 (RTA) to a high of $61 .52 (SunLine). *Operating cost per revenue hour information is not available for the Commuter Rail program. Expenses incurred by Commuter Rail are driven by "train miles" or "hours of service" by the train crews, not by vehicle hours. It is projected that operating costs per train mile during FY 04 will be $38.40. Attachments: FY 04 SRTPs 32 AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council and Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development SUBJECT: Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency — Unmet Needs Hearing Testimony and Responses CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Make a finding that based upon a review of the requests for services received through the "Unmet Transit Needs Hearing" process, review of existing services and proposed improvements to the available services, there are no unmet transit needs remaining which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley area; 2) Reaffirm the Commission's definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet" standards; 3) Adopt Resolution No. 03-026 "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission adopting a finding that there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Palo Verde Valley Area;" and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State law requires that prior to making any allocations of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) not directly related to public transit, the Commission must identify the unmet transit needs in the area and determine those that are reasonable to meet. At least one public hearing must be held to solicit comments on unmet transit needs. The only area that this determination of unmet needs is applicable to is the Palo Verde Valley where it is anticipated that not all funds will be needed for transit. In the Western County and Coachella Valley, all available local transit funds are being used for transit service. 33 The Commission held a public hearing in Blythe on March 6, 2003. Commissioners Robert Crain, Dick Kelly, George Thomas and Roy Wilson, together with Chris Millen, CAC/SSTAC member, acted as the hearing board. Notice of the hearing was advertised in the Desert Sun, Palo Verde Valley Times and the Riverside Press Enterprise. Notices of the hearing were mailed to social service agencies in the area, the local college, medical facilities, and the public. Flyers in both English and Spanish were posted on the transit vehicles and made available to the riders. Six (6) people provided comments at the hearing and one (1) person provided a written comment regarding the service needs in the area. Attachment 1 is a summary of the comments received. Staff worked with The City of Blythe to determine what improvements were reasonable to meet based on the projected productivity. Requests for improved transportation to the college with additional pick up points, additional transportation (other than Dia/-A-Ride service), increased Dial -A -Ride service, and coordination of transportation services to the veterans' hospital and/or Palm Desert were requested at the unmet transit needs hearing. The following information provides an up -date as to possible implementation of additional transit services in the Palo Verde Valley: • Request for improved transportation to the college with additional pick up points: In FY 03, PVVTA was approved to reroute the college shuttle. Implementation of that revised route is scheduled for May, 2003. In addition, PVVTA is requesting approval to implement two additional fixed routes. If approved, there will be three fixed routes that will operate between the college and Blythe, to Palm Desert or Loma Linda and within Blythe. • Request for additional transportation other than Dial -A -Ride services: With the implementation of the two fixed routes and the re-routing of the college shuttle, evening and weekend service will be available. In addition, the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) will be promoted in FY 04. The TRIP program provides mileage reimbursements to volunteer drivers for people unable to use other transportation services. • Request for more Dial -A -Ride services: Additional Dial -A -Ride services are planned during FY 04. If approved by the Commission, Dial -A -Ride services will be enhanced and promoted between Ripley, Palo Verde and Blythe. 34 • Request to coordinate transportation services to the Loma Linda Veterans Hospital and/or Palm Desert: PVVTA plans to implement, during the month of September, bus service from Blythe to the Loma Linda Veterans Hospital and/or to connect with SunLink in Coachella Valley. PVVTA staff will work with passengers traveling to scheduled appointments within the timeframe of the bus schedules to return home. In addition, PVVTA staff will develop a card so that a veteran can show the doctors' office that he/she is a PVVTA/SunLink rider and needs to be on the bus by a certain time. The City of Blythe recently hired a full-time Transit Manager to monitor and manage the day-to-day transit operations of PVVTA. Previously, the position was held by the City Manager with the Finance Director providing budgetary oversight and development of the Short Range Transit Plan. As the need for additional transit service increased in the Palo Verde Valley, it became more difficult to meet the demands required to operate an effective transit service. Since the position has been filled, implementing the above services should not pose too difficult a challenge; however, RCTC staff will work closely with PVVTA staff to provide assistance as needed. Information on the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing was presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) at their May 8, 2003 meeting. After review of the proposed service changes for FY 04, members of CAC/SSTAC recommended approval of this agenda item. Prior to allocating any Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for street and road purposes, the Commission must adopt by resolution a finding that there are no unmet transit needs that can be reasonably met by existing or proposed service contained in the Short Range Transit Plan for Riverside County. The Commission previously adopted a definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet." The definitions are as follows: "Unmet Transit Needs are, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded." "Reasonable to meet shall include the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required fare box ratios." 35 Based upon the above definitions, the implementation of the increased services identified above, and the recommendation by the CAC/SSTAC, staff recommends that the Committee make a finding that there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley. Attachment: Summary of Testimony (Word) Resolution No. 03-026 36 RESOLUTION NO. 03-026 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ADOPTING A FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE PALO VERDE VALLEY AREA WHEREAS, the Commission has identified the transit needs of residents in the Palo Verde Valley area, including the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities and the transit dependent; and WHEREAS, the Commission has held a properly noticed public hearing on March 6, 2003, and solicited written comments, to gather information to assist in identifying unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area; and WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "Unmet Transit Needs" as, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded; and WHEREAS, the Commission has defined "reasonable to meet" as including the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required fare box ratios; and WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code section 99401 .5, the Commission has consulted with the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council regarding the transit needs of the Palo Verde Valley area; and WHEREAS, an analysis of the existing public transportation services (Dial -A - Ride and Fixed Route) in the Palo Verde Valley has been completed, and with the planned improvements that will be included in the FY 04 - 06 Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan, was found to be adequate to meet the needs of seniors, persons with disabilities, the transit dependent and the general public. 37 NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves: That the Commission adopts the finding that there are no unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley area of Riverside County that are reasonable to meet. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 11th day of June, 2003. Ron Roberts, Chairperson Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 38 Attachment 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FY 04 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING Blythe City Hall March 6, 2003 Summary of Oral Testimony, Written Testimony and Staff Responses NAME/ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS SUMMARY OF COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE Max Schroenrock Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment Need for improved transportation to the college with additional pick up points. Need for transportation to Loma Linda and/or Palm Desert. Request for additional transportation other than Dial -A -Ride services. The current College Shuttle will be rerouted and hours increased. In FY 04, there will ultimately be three fixed routes that will operate between the college and Blythe, to Palm Desert or Loma Linda and within Blythe. TRIP will also be promoted in FY 04 for rural residents that do not have access to public transit. William Densmore Riverside County Department of Veterans' Services Thanked the Unmet Transit Needs Panel and staff for firming up plans for transportation from Blythe to the Veterans' Medical Center in Loma Linda and Palm Desert. Stressed the need to coordinate transportation services with the clinic schedules at the medical center. New intercity bus service between Blythe and Palm Desert or Loma Linda will be implemented in September, 2004. Staff will work with passengers encouraging them to schedule appointments within the time frame of the bus schedule. Also, a card will be developed that a rider can show to the doctors' office indicating that he/she is a PVVTA/ SunLink rider and needs to be on a bus by a certain time. 39 1 NAME/ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS SUMMARY OF COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE Tom Henry Riverside County Veterans Advisory Committee, District 4 Member Reinforced William Densmore's comments regarding the need for Transportation to the Veterans' Medical Center in Loma Linda. Stressed the need to coordinate transportation with the specialty clinics. New intercity bus service between Blythe and Palm Desert or Loma Linda will be implemented in September, 2004. Staff will work with passengers encouraging them to schedule appointments within the time frame of the bus schedule. Also, a card will be developed that a rider can show to the doctors' office indicating that he/she is a PVVTA/ SunLink rider and needs to be on a bus by a certain time. Rudolfo Pinion Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment Requested the development of a consistent, comprehensive fixed route transportation system. Requested that a feasibility study be explored to identify transportation needs. The current College Shuttle will be rerouted and hours increased. In FY 04, there will ultimately be three fixed routes that will operate between the college and Blythe, to Palm Desert or Loma Linda and within Blythe. TRIP will also be promoted in FY '03-04 for rural residents not accessible to public transit. A feasibility study was recently conducted. As a result, expanded service including weekend hours is proposed for FY 04. 40 2 NAME/ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS SUMMARY OF COMMENTS STAFF RESPONSE Margit Chiriaco Rusche Requested transportation from Blythe to Indio/Indio to Blythe During FY 04, a fixed route will be implemented which will provide service from Blythe to Indio. Mary Evans Requested that fixed route public bus service be available on Saturday and Sunday. The new fixed route services are scheduled to operate on Saturday and Sunday. The new service will be implemented in FY 04. Joe Strepy Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment Requested low cost public transit services between Ripley and Blythe to access jobs, shopping and schools. Dial -A -Ride between Ripley, Palo Verde and Blythe will be enhanced and promoted in FY 04. When Dial -A -Ride is not operating, TRIP will be available to residents in those unincorporated areas. 41 3 AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development SUBJECT: FY 04 Minimum Fare Revenue Ratio for the Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the FY 04 minimum fare revenue to operating expense ratio of 17.4% for the Riverside Transit Agency and16.1 1 % for SunLine Transit Agency; 2) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; 3) Request Caltrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for FY 04; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) serve both urbanized and non -urbanized areas of Riverside County. Therefore, their minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio required by State law falls somewhere between the 10% requirement for non -urbanized area services and 20% requirement for urbanized area services. The Commission is responsible for calculating the intermediate ratio. The methodology used to calculate the minimum ratio required was developed by the Commission and originally approved by the State. The methodology is still applicable and is attached for your review. Calculations used consist of the following: R = .1Cn+.2Cu Cn + Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Costs of Services in Non Urbanized Areas Cu = Costs of Services in Urbanized Areas 42 The costs for new or expanded services are exempted from the calculation for the first two full fiscal years of operation. Using the above formula and the RTA and SunLine Short Range Transit Plans, the minimum required ratios for RTA and SunLine in FY 04 are 17.4% and 16.11% respectively. Upon adoption of the required ratio by the Commission, Ca!trans must also approve the ratios. The ratios are then fixed for the year and cannot be changed even though actual revenues and expenses may differ from the SRTP estimates. Attachment: Rules and Regulations for Determining Required Fare Revenue 43 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DETERMINING REQUIRED FARE REVENUE TO OPERATING COST RATIOS FOR TRANSIT OPERATORS SERVING BOTH URBANIZED AND NON -URBANIZED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY I Based on the latest annually adopted Short Range Transit Plans for Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission with the cooperation of the transit operator will determine separately the operating cost of those transit services provided in non -urbanized areas and the operating cost of those services in urbanized areas. 1) For the purpose of this calculation, the operating cost in the urbanized areas shall include the cost of fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within an urbanized area. The operating cost in the non -urbanized area shall include the cost of all fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within a non -urbanized area. 2) For fixed route lines operating partly within an urbanized area and partly within a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to the urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the route miles in the non -urbanized area and the route miles in the urbanized area. 3) For demand response systems serving both an urbanized area and a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the population of the urbanized area served and the population of the non -urbanized area served. 4) The costs of extension of public transit service pursuant to Section 99268.8 of the PUC shall not be included in any of these calculations. II . The required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost in compliance with PUC Sections 99268.3 and 99268.4 shall be calculated as follows: R = .1 Cn + .2 Cu Cn + Cu R is the required ratio Cn is the operating cost in non -urbanized areas Cu is the operating cost in urbanized areas. 44 III. Annually, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall calculate the required revenue to operating cost ratio for each transit operator serving both urbanized and non -urbanized areas and submit this calculation to Caltrans. Caltrans shall approve the required ratio prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and the ratio shall not be subject to change. AGENDA ITEM 12 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development SUBJECT: City of Beaumont's Request to Reallocate Capital to Operating Funds STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Reallocate $25,168 in Local Transportation Funds from Capital to Operating for the City of Beaumont's Transit Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City of Beaumont's (Beaumont) financial audit for FY 02 indicates that there is an operating deficit in the amount of $25,168 as a result of operating expenses exceeding revenue. To cover the deficit, Beaumont is requesting that unused capital funds previously awarded be reallocated to operating funds. The capital funds are available since actual costs came in less than anticipated. Following is an itemized list of unused capital funds: $ 3,154 Radio Station $ 855 Bus stop signs $ 277 Bus stop benches $20,882 Dial -A -Ride vehicles $ 25,168 Total This request was reviewed and approved at Beaumont's City Council meeting on March 18, 2003. 46 AGENDA ITEM 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development SUBJECT: FY 03 Transit Operators' Second Quarter Report STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the FY 03 mid -year Transit Operators' Report; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Under Public Utility Code Section 99244, the Commission must annually identify, analyze, and recommend potential productivity improvements, which could lower the cost of transit operations. Part of that process includes the review of ridership data from the public operators. The attached report represents county -wide public transportation ridership, operating and financial information for the first two quarters of FY 03 for the eight public operators. As part of the Triennial Performance Audit, a Transit Operator Performance Improvement Program (PIP) was developed and includes the following eight performance indicators: 1) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour - should increase no more than CPI; 2) Farebox Recovery Ratio — per RCTC policy and PUC requirements; 3) Subsidy per Passenger — should increase no more than CPI; 4) Subsidy per Passenger Mile — should increase no more than CPI; 5) Subsidy per Revenue Hour — should increase no more than CPI; 6) Subsidy per Revenue Mile — should increase no more than CPI; 7) Passengers per Revenue Hour - percentage increase consistent with population growth or national average, whichever is greater; and 8) Passengers per Revenue Mile - percentage increase consistent with population growth or national average, whichever is greater. The first two performance indicators: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour and Farebox Recovery Ratio are mandatory per the Public Utilities Commission. For FY 03, transit operators have prepared tIeir SRTP's to meet a minimum of three of the remaining six performance indicators. As outlined in the PIP, ridership reports are presented to the Commission a minimum of twice a year. Attachment 1 provides data and performance statistics for all eight of the public operators for the period July 1 through December 31, 2002. It should be noted that not all of the operators are tracking all of the performance indicators since, per the PIP, operators have the option of selecting three of the six indicators to track performance. Items not tracked are indicated with an "--"; items that don't apply or where information was not available are indicated as "Not Available" or "Not Applicable". The following table provides summary data on ridership and operating costs per operator: FY 03 Mid -Year Summary of Ridership and Operating Costs July 1, 2002 — December 31, 2002 Operator Fixed Route Unlinked Passenger Trips Fixed Route Operating Costs per Hour Paratransit Unlinked Passenger Trips Paratransit Operating Costs per Hour Banning 116,476 $65.39 4,541 $45.05 Beaumont 32,963 $42.08 14,314 $44.13 Corona 48,095 $37.32 34,939 $38.97 Commuter Rail 1,090,865 Not Available* Not Applicable Not Applicable Riverside Special Services Not Applicable Not Applicable 78,296 $48.07 PVVTA 4,081 $14.79 10,614 $37.22 RTA 3,353,776 $66.44 110,531 $41.16 SunLine 1,661,993 $89.11 51,465 $55.93 Total/Average 6,308,249 (total trips) $52.52 (average cost) 304,700 (total trips) $44.36 (average cost) The total number of public transportation trips provided by fixed route (bus and rail) and paratransit for the first six months of FY 03 was 6,612,949. Of those trips 6,308,249 (95%) were fixed route and 304,700 (5%) were paratransit trips. Operating cost per revenue hour for fixed route service (excludes the cost of commuter rail*) averaged $52.52 per hour. Operating costs ranged from a low of $14.79 (Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA)) to a high of $89.11 (SunLine Transit Agency). Operating cost per revenue hour for paratransit services averaged $44.36. Costs ranged from $37.22 (PVVTA) to $55.93 (SunLine). *Operating costs per revenue hour information is not available for the Commuter Rail program. Expenses incurred by Commuter Rail are driven by "train miles" or "hours of service" by the train crews not by vehicle hours. During the first two quarters, the operating cost per train mile was $39.45. Attachment: Data and Performance Statistics tics RIVERSIDE COUNTY TR ANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT Attachment 1 FY 03 FIXED ROUTE - ANNU AL ACTUALS July, 2002 through March, 2003 Data Elements - System Wide T otal Unlinked Pa ssenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours To tal Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Collisions To tal Re venue Vehicle System Failures Total Valid Pa sse nger Complaints Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled Total Actual On -Time Revenue Ve hicle Trips Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenues Net Operating Expanses (Subsidies) Perfo rmance Statistics - System Wide Oparoling Cost Per R evenue Hour Fare box Recovery Ratio Subsloy per Pa ssenger pubsidy per Passenger Mile slily per Revenue Hour bsidy per Revenue Mile Passengers per Revenue Hour Passen gers per Revenue Miles Revenue Miles Between Collisions % Trips On -Time Complaints per 1,000 Passengers Total Mlles Between Road calls City of Banning Transit City of Beaumont Transit City of Corona Transit Commut er Rail - Riverside Line Co mmuter Rail - IEOC Line Commuter Rail - 91 Line Palo Verde Valley Tr ansit Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency Total - All Providers 716,476 5,290 76,444 78,908 0 29 9 46,567 34,926 5329,850 $47,601 5282,249 32,983 4,055 53.045 5170,746 510,557 $160,079 46,095 163,176 7,456 93,981 102,441 1 7 4 3,950 3,336 5278,229 524,745 5253.484 626,790 20,031,952 90,849 55,416,350 52,740,482 52,677,888 377,916 12,713,250 100,567 53,981,360 52,012,136 51 069,212 186,157 5,729,187 70,911 5948,100 5643,553 5304,247 4.081 1.150 18,637 19,147 517,013 $3,460 513,553 3.353,776 19,296.592 189,016 2,937,041 3,243.528 10 440 378 181,012 164,711 12,557,718 2 ,646,360 9,911,358 1,661,993 12,373,610 72,576 1,126,029 1.157,969 0 141 211 79,961 75,562 6,467,114 1,238,359 5,2'28,755 6,308,249 70,309,767 279,546 4,567,704 4,601 .993 11 617 602 311,500 278,535 530,156,470 $9,367,685 520,800 .605 565.39 14.20% 52.69 556. 10 53.88 20.86 1. 44' 113,386 72% 0.00006 2,545 542.08 6.25% 54.86 539.45 53.02 8. 12 0. 62 0. 00000 537.32 8.89 % 55.27 534.00 $2.70 6.45 0.51 93,981 0.00008 13,426 The Southern Califoml a Regional Roll Authority is in the process of fina izing FY 02 Fin ancial statements and as a result, Is reluctant to provide operating costs for Com muter Rail prior to finaliz ation of any audit adjustme nt s. 514.79 20 .34% 53.32 511.79 3.55 0.00000 566.44 21.07 % 52.96 50.51 $52.44 $3.37 17.74 1.14 293,704 91.0 % 0,00011 589.11 19.15% $3 .15 50 .42 572 .05 54.64 22.90 1 .48 1,126,029 94,50% 0.00013 5/12/200310;55 AM RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORT ATION COMMISSION TRA NSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT FY03 ADA/PARATRANSIT - ANNUAL ACTU ALS July, 2002 through March, 2003 Data Elements - System Wide Total City of Banning Transit City of Beaumont Transit City of Corona Transit City of Riverside Specialized Transit ' Palo Verde Valley Transit Riverside Transit Agency SunLine Transit Agency Total - All Providers Unlinked Passenger Trips 4,541 14,314 34 .939 78,296 10,614 110,531 51,465 304,700 Passenger Miles - -- 144,360 339,620 - 1,108,626 1,083,375 2,675,981 Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours 1,019 3,558 7,014 19,270 2,772 54,516 23,406 111,555 Total Actual Ve hicle Revenue Miles 17,374 37,173 109,893 334,070 -- 974,471 400,194 1,873,175 To tal Actual Vehicle Miles 18,462 - 118,638 336,554 20,692 974,471 458,022 1,926,839 Collisions 0 1 2 - 2 0 5 Total Revenue Vehicle System Failures 2 3 22 -- 43 38 108 Total Valid Passenger Complaints 2 6 0 -- 43 76 127 Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 4,259 -- 6,786 81,570 -- 109,045 45,411 247,071 Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips i 4,191 - 6,680 78,265 -- 103,016 42,077 234,229 Total Operating Expenses $42,788 $157,01 6 273,325 891,918 $103.180 2,244,048 1,309,080 $5,021,355 Total Passenger Fare Revenues $3,587 $15,770 42,100 79,108 $13,240 77,294 104,401 $335,500 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) $39,201 $141,246 231,225 812,810 $89,940 2,166,754 1.204,679 $4.685.855 gprf ormance Statistics - System Wide Oeerating Cost Per Revenue Hour _ $45.05 $44.13 $38 .97i $48.071 $37.22 $41.16 $55.93 Farebox Re co ve ry Ratio 7. 93% 10.04% 15.40% 8.95 % 12.83% 3 .44 % 7 .98%% Subsidy per Passenger $9.26 $9 .87 $6.62 $10 .69 $8.47 $19 .6D $23.41 Subsidy per Passen ger M ile -- -- $1.60 $2 .45 -- $1.951 $1.11 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $41.47 $39.70 $32.97 $43 .76 $32 .45 $39.75 $51.47 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $2.39 $3.80 $2.10 $2 .51 -- $2 .22 $3 .01 Passengers per Revenue Hour 4. 48 4.02 4.98 4 .09 3 .83 2.03 2.20 Passengers per Revenue M iles 0.26 0. 39 0.32 0 .24 - 0.11 0 .13 Rev enue Mlles Between Collisions -- -- 109,893 250,324 -- 487,236 400,194 % Trips On -Time 98. 0% -- 98.4% 95 .80% - -- 92.66% Complaints per 1,000 Passengers 0.00045 0.00000 0.00017 0.00000 0 .00000 0 .00039 0.00148 Total M iles Between Roadcalls 27,514 -- 36,631 20,860 - -- 5/12/20r -6 AM AGENDA ITEM 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Edward C. Gonzalez, Staff Analyst THROUGH: Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Programs and Public Affairs SUBJECT: FY 03/04 Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize payment of $1,175/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 to the existing Riverside, Moreno Valley, Lake Elsinore and Mira Loma buspools; 2) Continue the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments; and 3) Forward to Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their home to work commutes along the Route 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 ($25/seat/month) in support of commuter buspool operations. The subsidy rate has not changed since inception of the policy. To provide additional guidance, the Commission established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 or below and seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool's subsidy. To further accommodate riders, the current contract providers, Tourcoach and Odyssey Coach, have provided buses to transport 47 riders each and have accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. To renew its annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to request in writing continuation of funding from the Commission for the new fiscal year. Included as Attachment 1 are the FY 03/04 request letters from the existing buspools. 51 The Buspool Data Table below shows just how successful the buspools have been this current fiscal year as each one far exceeds the minimum ridership level of 25 passengers. The Commissions' subsidy is the shot in the arm that makes these buspools more attractive as an alternative to driving in their single occupancy vehicles for the 130 plus round trip work commute. BUSPOOL DATA RIVERSIDE BUSPOOL MORENO VALLEY BUSPOOL MIRA LOMA BUSPOOL LAKE ELSINORE BUSPOOL Start Date June 1995 February 1996 August 2001 September 2002 Park and Ride Stops Tyler Mall, Corona Moreno Valley Mall Mira Loma, Corona Elsinore WalMart, Corona Monthly Fare — _ $170, $175 $170 $165 RCTC Subsidy $25 $25 $25 $25 Fare with RCTC Subsidy $145 $150 $145 $140 Fare with RCTC and Employer ($21) Subsidies $124 $129 $124 $119 MONTHLY RIDERSHIP LEVEL - Average _ 44 42 44 37 Highest 44 43 45 ` Lowest 40 38 44 _ ,,0 Like all commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage commuters to use alternative modes of transportation, the Measure A $25/seat/month subsidy is administered as a "user side subsidy." Unlike all of the other incentives, which have a 3 month term, the buspool subsidy is on -going. This annual subsidy remains cost-effective in comparison to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 80%. While the monthly cost of each existing buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy represents an average subsidy rate of 15%. When taking other factors into consideration such as the reduction of vehicles on Route 91 during morning peak periods, the number of vehicle miles saved and the elimination of mobile source emissions, the annual buspool subsidy is an effective use of Measure A commuter assistance funds. The four existing buspools have completed all requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including submittal of: 1) monthly ridership reports; 2) semi- annual operations status reports; and 3) annual funding continuation requests. These reports allow staff to monitor the activities of the buspools to track ridership levels, monitor marketing efforts, and ensure availability to persons with disabilities. 52 The proposed FY '03/04 RCTC budget contains a line item in the amount of 884,600 to provide buspool subsidies. Based on the established monthly 81,175 buspool subsidy policy, the funds are sufficient to support the four existing buspools and two new start-up buspools if needed. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget 1 Y Year: FY 2003-04 Amount: $84,600 Source of Funds: Measure "A" funds Budget Adjustment: N GLA No.: 226-41-81030 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/19/03 Attachments: Letter from Angela Abruscato, Riverside Buspool Coordinator Letter from Harlan Alpert, Moreno Valley & Mira Loma Buspool Coordinator Letter from Sandra Daley, Lake Elsinore Buspool Coordinator 53 May 08 03 03:15p Raytheon Systems Company (310)647-9291 p. 1 ANGELA ABRUSCATO Riverside Buspool 2565 W. Irvington Ave. San Bernardino, CA. 92407 May 7, 2003 Attn.: Edward Gonzalez, Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA. 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Gonzalez, in compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), 1 am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 for the "Riverside" to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this buspool from 'Tourcoach is $170 per rider. RCTC provides a $25 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $145 is provided between the riders and their employers. Ridership on this buspool has averaged 44 passengers per month over the last year. The following is the Riverside to El Segundo buspool schedule: AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival Galleria at Tyler, Riverside Corona Park & Ride Lot Raytheon, El Segundo Raytheon, El Segundo Corona Park & Ride Lot Galleria at Tyler, Riverside 4:20 a.m. 4:30 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 3:20 p.m. 4:30 p.m. 4:45 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Aerospace Corporation and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators - Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincerely, Angela A.1 ruscata Riverside Buspool Coordinator 54 05/08/2003 THU 09:45 FAX 310 336 1208 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT tI002 HARLAN ALPERT Send correspondences to: Aerospace Corporation 2350 E. El Segundo Blvd. El Segundo, CA 90245-4691 May 7.2003 Attn.: Frlwarrl f;nnzalr.z, ,Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA. 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Gonzalez, In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), 1 am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2003 to Tune 30, 2004 for the Moreno Valley to El Segundo Commuter Buspool_ T am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this buspool from Tourcoach is $175. RCTC provides a $25 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining 5150 is provided between the riders and their employers. Ridership on this buspool has averaged 42 passengers per month over the last year. The. following is the Moreno Valley Buspool Schedule; AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival Moreno Valley Mali Raytheon, El Segundo Raytheon, El Segundo Moreno Valley Mall 4:00 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 3:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Aerospace Corporation and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive; this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincerely, Harlan Alpert Moreno Valley Buspool Coordinator 55 05/08/2003 THU 09:45 FAX 310 336 1208 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT X001 HARLAN ALPERT Send correspondences to: Aerospace Corporation 2350 E. El Segundo Blvd_ El Segundo, CA 90245-4691 May 7, 2003 Attn.: Edward Gonzalez, Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA. 92502-2208 Deor Mr. Gonzalez In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 for the Mira Loma/Corona to El Segundo Commuter Buspool. I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer_ The monthly cost to operate this buspool from Tourcoach is $170. ROTC provides a $25 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining $145 is provided between the riders and their employers. Ridership on this buspool has averaged 44 passengers since it started in August 2001. The fallowing is the Mira Loma/Corona Buspool schedule: AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival Mira Loma Park & Ride Lot 4:15 a.m. Corona Park & Ride Lot 4:30 a.m. El Segundo 5:30 a.m. J1 Segundo Corona Park & Ride Lot Mira Loma Park & Ride Lot 3:00 p.m - 4:30 p.m. 4:45 p.m. information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Aerospace Corporation and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program Harlan Alpert Mira Loma/Corona Buspool Operator • 56 SANDRA DALEY 4203 }avenridge Drive Corona, CA. 92883 May 9, 2003 Atm.: Edward Gonzalez, Staff Analyst Riverside County Transportation Commission P.D. Box 12008 Riverside, CA. 92502-2208 Dear Mr. Gonzalez In compliance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), I am requesting an extension of funding for the period of July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 for the Lake Elsinore/Corona to El Segundo Commuter Bospool_ I am the buspool operator and coordinate this buspool independently from any employer. The monthly cost to operate this buspool from Silver State Coaeh is $165, RCTC provides a $25 monthly subsidy per seat and the remaining 5140 is provided between the riders and their employers. Ridership on this buspool has averaged 37 passengers since it started in September 2002. The following is the route schedule: Schedule AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival AM Departure Lake Elsinore WalMart Corona Park & Ride Lot El Segundo El Segundo Corona Park & Ride Lot Lake Elsinore WallVtart 4:30 a.m. 5:10 a.m. 6;05 a.m. 4:15 p.m. 5:15 p.m_ 5:40 p.m_ Information on this buspool is available with rideshare programs at Raytheon, Aerospace and the Los Angeles Air Force base. Employees receive this information through direct mailings, newsletter articles and electronic messaging from these employers. These employer rideshare programs also share this information with other local employee transportation coordinators. Thank you for your support of this buspool program_ S' ly, dra Daley Lake Elsinore/E1 S: _ ndo Buspool 57 AGENDA ITEM 15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 19, 2003 TO: Plans and Program Committee FROM: Karen Leland, Staff Analyst Stephanie Wiggins, Rail Department Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning Development and Policy SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of April averaged 4,095, a 6% decrease from the month of March. The Line has averaged an overall decrease of 9% from a year ago April 2002. April on -time performance averaged 92% inbound (-5% from March) and 98% outbound (+17% from March). Inland Empire -Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of April averaged 3,499, a 2% increase from the month of March. The line has averaged an overall increase of 25% from a year ago April 2002. April on -time performance averaged 81 % inbound (-6% from March) and 86% outbound (-4% from March). 91 Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of April averaged 1,678, a 3% increase from the month of March. The Line has averaged an 58 increase of 1,439% from a year ago April 2002 due to the addition of peak -period service on the 91 Line in May 2002. April on -time performance averaged 82% inbound (-3% from March) and 82% outbound (-8% from March). Rideshare 2 Rails (R2R) Program Rideshare trs Rideshare Incentives: As of April 30th, active enrollment totaled 165 (Riverside -Downtown 49, Pedley 11, La Sierra 36, West Corona 21, North Main Corona 48), freeing up 83 spaces for new riders. RTA Express Bus Shuttle: Ridership for the month of April averaged 21 one-way trips per day, a 1% increase from the month of March. Station Activities La Sierra Metrolink Station: On April 21St, 130 spaces were opened to Metrolink passengers. The shuttle service provided by RTA from the AMF Bowling Center to the Metrolink station was discontinued on Friday, April 18th, and the parking spaces at the Bowling Alley have been restored to original status. North Main Corona Station — "Welcome to Our Neighborhood" Demonstration Project: During the months of February, March and April, six local businesses offered discounts to Metrolink passengers who board at the station. In exchange, these businesses were supplied with train schedules at their locations and have been designated as Station Community Partners. Approximately 1,200 coupon booklets containing discounts were distributed to Metrolink passengers at North Main Corona. The results of the promotion are as follows: # of Cou . ons Redeemed Neighborhood Partner Burger King .50 Off Coupon 1.00 Off Coupon Lamppost Pizza Main Street Brewery Fender Museum Jitterccinos A-1 Transmission Feb Mar Apr Total 17 41 37 18 50 3 0 7 0 0 17 41 37 18 50 10 0 Total Coupons 166 7 0 173 % of Total Distributed 14% As indicated, coupons for Burger King, Lamppost Pizza, and the Main Street Brewery were good through February 28, 2003. Coupons for Jittercinnos and A-1 Transmission were good through March and April respectively. Since there were no coupons redeemed at A-1 Transmission, RCTC inserted into the Spring 2003 edition of Station Update approximately 59 450 coupons good towards a discount on a smog check. In addition to the 50 coupons redeemed, the Fender Museum also held a drawing for a free Fender guitar. RCTC Metrolink Station Daily Activities: Daily activities are recorded by station security guards. Attached is summary data covering April 2003. Attachments: Metrolink Performance Summaries (April 2003) RCTC Metrolink Stations Daily Activity Report (April 2003) 60 METROLINK PERFORMANCE SUMMARIES April 2003 .e. M ETROLINK 0 41.E 1- gx w z v) Y Z Q- J O � a Mw w w W,//1%:////#77EZZA W/77/,77//7/1 PAW/ /// ".#77,M teWZ/Z /FZZZA PW///, • mi7 mis,/, .,/A P/W/77/7/FA rF/7/71/7/ZZ//r;/rZA N 0, 0, N c) M ID M 0) ID 0) M M tW///7/f/A !Wfitff/1/77//7:1/4 zf/f/1/7/KZ/AilA 0) M M 7, fig. r 1°" � iI. • N N M rr"////NJZ/ZZZFZZZJZZA fl 0 0 10 O 0 M 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 O M 0 0 0 00 0 0 N 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N PERCENT PASSENGERS ON -TI ME vs TR AINS ON -TIME * 100.0% 95.0% -- 0) W 90. 0% --- 85.0% 80.0% May Jun Jul Aug Sap Oct Ap 02 * Within 5 -Minutes Of Schedule Includes Weekend Service f• No v Dec Passenger OTP% 17 Train OTP% Jan Feb Mar Ap 03 3 METROLINK ON -TIME PERFORMANCE Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months) 95% 94% 96% 94% 96% 93% 95% 92 % 92% May 02 Jun 02 Jul 02 Aug 02 Sep 02 Oct 02 Nov 02 Dec 02 Jan 03 Feb 02 Mar 03 Apr 03 t ®% Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time r 4 OT-13MoNew % of Train Delays By Re sponsibility April 2003 UPRR Vandalism SCR Contractor 4% 2% 6r - °l0 4°'0 Other 6% OP Agree 2% Includes Weekend Service Mechanical 9% 67% SIG -Contractor 8% SCRRA 9% Includes Weekend SeMce 6% % of Train Delays By Responsibility 12 Month Period Ending April 2003 Vandalism 4% 2% Mechanical 10% PERFORMANCE CH ARTS BACK-UP 110111 METROLINK �r METROLINK AVER AGE WEEKD AY PASSENGER TRIPS THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED ROUTE -> Ventura County < _ Antelope Val ey Say Bernardino Burbank ', Turns RW $1de< Oran;a County. fl Empl OC Rv}ulII :>.:L. .. .SYST ;TOTAL M '° Qlange;, Vs 'rFor Mai Apr 02 3,441 4,913 10,124 507 4,524 5,848 2,791 109 32,257 -3 % May 02 3,565 5,597 10,039 525 4,288 5,794 2,916 847 33,571 4% Jun 02 3,781 5,694 10,286 533 4,202 5,651 2,982 1,165 34,294 2 %,, Jul 02 3,664 5,840 9,817 510 4,159 5,519 2,958 1,292 33,759 -2% Aug 02 3,506 5,694 9,688 524 4,047 5,556 3,092 1,378 33,485 -1% Sep 0 3,689 5,495 10,141 531 4,222 5,432 3,053 1,546 34,109 2% Oct 02 3,770 5,704 10,328 541 4,380 5,465 3,140 1,584 34,912 2% Nov 02 3,759 6,011 10,411 532 4,444 5,372 3,139 1,492 35,160 1% Dec 02 3,402 5,437 9,516 497 4,031 4,802 2,730 1,617 32,032 -9% Jan 03 3,673 5,253 10,112 536 4,393 5,148 2,997 1,596 33,708 5% Feb 03 3,727 5,370 10,248 551 4,559 5,540 3,360 1,633 34,988 4% Mar 03 3,919 5,384 10,546 553 4,377 5,655 3,414 1,624 35,472 1 %, Apr03 3,880 5,584 10,652 598 4,095 5,599 3,499 1,678 35,585 0% % Change Apr 03 vs M ar 03 4% 1% 8% -6% -1% 2% 3% 0% % Change Apr 03 vs Apr 02 13% 14% 5% 18% -9 -4% 25% 1439% 10% 7 ADR Mo Table AVER AGE D AILY METROLINK MONTHLY PASSHOLDERS ON A MTRAK THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW au Apr -02 Jun -02 Jul -02 weekday RANGE COUNTY Sa turday Sure day Weekd -VENTURA CO turd Weekday tUr• lrtday change vs pro, rnanth: Wedgy terdai; unsay 96 (1) (1) 11 (1) (1) 107 (1) (1) -12% (1) (1) 86 (1) (1) 10 (1) (1) 96 (1) (1) -10% (1) (1) 95 (1) (1) 10 (1) (1) 105 (1) (1) 9°,e0 (1) (1) 86 74 422 (1) (1) 99 (1) (1) 33 9 8 48 (1) (1) 23 (1) (1) 8 95 82 470 (1) (1) 122 (1) (1) 41 -10% -14 % 473% (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) V) 0o Nov -02 Dec -02 Jan -03 Feb -03 M ar -03 556 102 73 64 26 15 620 128 88 32% 5% 115 % 726 159 128 81 71 101 806 230 229 30 % 80 % 160% 692 119 82 73 23 22 765 142 104 -5% -38% -55% 797 128 98 88 15 18 885 143 116 16% 1% 12% 848 865 284 199 137 194 89 85 22 47 7 24 936 951 306 246 144 218 6% 2% 114% -20% 24 % 51% Apr -03 951 253 122 108 18 10 1059 271 132 11% 10% -39% 9•PL___ 70 ld lye Apr 03 vs Mar 03 10% 27% -37% 27% -62% -58% 11% 10% -39 % % Change Apr 03 vs Apr 02 891% (1) (1) 882% (1) (1) (1) Prior to Rail 2 Rail, Amtrak Step-Up/No Step -Up program was only good on Amtrak weekday trains. (2) Rail 2 Rail program started September 1, 2002. (3) Missing data has been adjusted by using the lowest ridership count for the respective train, day of week and month. 890% (1) (1) 8 perf sum m-Ralf 2 Rafl5/6/2003 METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS INCEPTION TO DATE 39,000 FY 02/03 36,000 30,000 27,000 D 411110 24,000 21,000 18,000 ` 15,000 X 12,000 9,000 6,000 Jul Mar Apr May Jun Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb A FY 00/01 FY 98/99 FY 97/98 FY 96/97 nFY 95/96 ~X�4x FY 94/95 FY 93/94 9 ADR MoNew.xls Avg Daily Riders Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr -03 Apr -02 May Note: Sept Includes L.A. County Fair Riders' Jun San Bernardino Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Jul Avg Daily Riders 3500 3000- 2500- 2000 - 1500- 1000- 500 - Note: Sunday Service Began 06/25/00 San Bernardin o Line Sunday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr -03 In n, n„uvo.. ahI .. Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service Average Daily Passenger Trips i 2500 N v OC 2000 p 1500 rn Q 1000 Apr -02 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr -03 11 METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUM MARY Percent age of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes of Scheduled Time LATEST 13 MONTHS taute => Ventura . COOVV: rtv Out ..` n ei 0e-1 lE In Deaf Sa n a Liar lnt7: it t tai HO*Ka r3s 1 tJii avers de In -:b -.&:„:,,:,'. flr ge i t oanty Cu. '111 0. ,:So rpiCl.P. No t jn Iti i Jut �. atc stern In '. 014 Total apr02 99% 100% 97% 93% 98% 95% 100 % 99% 94% 98% 91% 96% 97% 94% 95% 95 % 96 % 96% 96% wlay 02 99% 97% 98% 98% 97 % 96% 100 % 98% 96% 92 % 89% 87% 87 % 92% 87% 83% 95% 94% 94% Jun 02 99% 98% 98% 99% 98% 96% 99% 97% 95% 97% 93% 96% 94% 90% 95% 90% 97% 96% 96% Jul 02 99% 99% 98% 95% 98 % 99 % 100% 99% 99% 96 % 91% 95% 93% 90 % 92% 92 % 97 % 96% 96% 4ug 02 100% 97% 99% 96% 96% 91% 100 % 99% 97 % 95% 89% 91% 92% 90% 91% 90% 96 % 94 % 95% 3eE02 98% 99% 95% 94% 94% 91 % 98% 98% 96% 98 % 85% 92 % 94 % 84% 89% 92% 94% 93% 94% act 02 99% 98% 99% 99% 96% 95% 98% 95% 95 % 96% 92 % 96 % 93 % 93 % _ 92 % 96 % 96 % 96% 96% '+Jov 02 4 Fri 98% 97% 98% 97% 94% 84% 100% 99% 97 % 98 % 88% 89% 92 % 95% 86% 94% 94 % 93% 94% Dec 02 98% 97% 98% 97% 97% 91% 99% 100% 97% 97% 96% 97% 90% 93% 93% 96% _96% 95% 96% Jan 03 99% 98% 89% 89% 95% 85% 97% 97% 93% 97% 94% 97% 90% 89 % 92% 98% 94% 93% 93 % Feb 03 97% 96% 95% 92% 95% 95% 100% 96% 95% 91% 96% 93% 93 % 93% 91% 92% 95 % 94% 95% Mar03 97% 99% 88% 92% 94% 94% 99% 97% 97% 81% 87% 93% 87% 90% 85 % 90% 92% 93 % 92 % Apr03 98% 97% 96% 97% 97% 94% 99% 99% 92% 98% 76% 85% 81% 86%' 82 % 82%, 91 % 93 % 92 % eak Pe rio d Trains Arriving Within 5 Minute s of Scheduled Time 1pr 03 eak Period Trains V EP1 Rtnitd 99% 99% ::�v€.<Route 96% 95% 99% 93% I 100% :':"Turns 99% IV Rdrite': 92% 99% OCf Raute :< 1rli: npl00'Routa... ; Ri!tJ JtLA ° 74% 83%I 82% 86% 75% 86°/_ *Tot1 sd T' t`Outbd Tot Syst: 89% 93%I 91 % to adjustments have been made for relievable delays. ' erminated trains are considered OT if they were on -time at point of termination. Annulled trains are not included h the on -time calculation. tiverside route OTP represents on -time performance against schedules temporarily modified fo r the UPRR tie replacement program. OTP against regular schedule is 73 % inbound and 85% outbound. 12 OT•13MoNe w CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS APRIL 2003 PRIMARY CAUSE OF TRAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES CAUSE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC INL/OC R/F/L TOTAL % of TOT Signals/Detectors 1 0 5 0 1 4 4 1 16 7% Slow Orders/MOW 0 1 2 0 0 0 5 1 9 4% Track/Switch 0 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 8 3% Dispatching 1 0 2 0 7 62 24 31 127 54% Mechanical 1 2 15 0 0 2 0 1 21 9% Freig WTrain 2 .1 1 0 0 2 0 1 7 3% Amtrak Train 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 2% Metrolink Meet/Turn 0 10 1 1 0 1 1 0 14 6% Vandalism 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2% Passenger(s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% SCRRA Hold Policy 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 3% Other 1 0 3 0 1 9 5 1 20 8% TOTAL 11 18 31 2 13 83 43 36 237 100% Saturday SNB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saturday AVL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sunday SNB 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 6 13 0304CAUS FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION APRIL 2003 MINUTES LATE: VEN AVL SNB BUR RIV OC IE/OC RIV/FUL TOT AL % of TOT NO DELAY 403 414 515 226 221 278 187 130 2374 79.2% 1 MIN - 5 MIN 26 96 114 14 12 59 34 32 387 12.9% 6 MIN - 10 M IN 7 8 14 2 5 34 16 10 96 3 .2 % 11 MIN - 20 MIN 3 8 7 0 6 38 17 13 92 3.1 % 21. .p IN - 30 MIN 1 1 5 0 1 5 4 9 26 0.9% GREATER THAN 30 MIN 0 1 5 0 1 6 6 4 23 0.8% ANNULLED 0 0 0 0 18 1 0 0 19 0.6% TOTAL TRAINS OPTD 440 528 660 242 246 420 264 198 2998 100% TRAINS DELAYED >0 min 37 114 145 16 25 142 77 68 624 20.8% TRAINS DELAYED > 5 mir 11 18 31 2 13 83 43 36 237 7 .9% 14 0304FREQ Orr.. (..7.opirmt*rrircorr • Daily Activity Report Metrolink Stations Generated from 4/1/2003 to 4/30/2003 Riverside Pedley La Sierra W. Corona N. Corona Total 1 - Standard Procedures 1 A- RCTC Staff on Site 2 0 2 0 1 5 1B - Customer Assistance 13 12 13 13 13 64 1 C - Ambassador on Site 17 15 2 0 3 37 Total 32 27 17 13 17 106 2 - Criminal Incidents 2D - Criminal Behavior 1 0 0 0 0 Total 1 0 0 0 0 4 - Maintenance/Repairs 4B - TVM / Validator Machine 3 2 2 2 2 11 4C - Elevator 0 0 0 1 0 1 4D - Station Cleaning 4 3 3 4 2 16 4E - Landscaping 7 6 1 4 0 18 4F - Dumpster/Porta Potti 1 4 1 2 0 8 5 - Miscellaneous 5A - Miscellaneous Activity Total 15 15 7 13 4 54 4 0 14 2 2 22 Total 4 0 14 2 2 22 6 - Parked Overnight * 6A - Parked Ovemight 24 2 11 5 6 48 7 -Overflow * 7A - Veh. In Overflow Total 24 2 11 5 6 48 0 0 58 0 0 58 Total 0 0 58 0 0 58 9 - Empty Spaces * 9A - Empty Spaces 79 0 0 292 0 371 91 - R2R Vehicles * 91A - R2R Vehicles 92 - Vehicles Parked * 92A - Vehicles Parked Total 79 0 0 292 0 371 9 1 8 1 7 26 Total 9 1 8 1 7 26 33 0 0 0 409 442 Total 33 0 0 409 442 75 * Value is averaged over the data entry days Friday, May 09, 2003 pow worra doCe nopty TirrhspotYofluw Comma' slon Riverside - Downtown Activity Detail Report Metrolink Stations Date Time Acti vity Log # Description Activity} Type Activity Subtype # Vehicles 4/7/2003 6:07pm 68277 2 vehicles were broken into 2 - Criminal Incidents 2D - Criminal Behavior 0 Friday, May 09, 2003 Page 1 of I 41RItadtrans NA NO T TO SCALE YORBALINDA 1 C HINO HILLS 1 ORANGE COUNTY End Proje ct l 1 • , 1 GREEN RIVER GOLF CLUB 1t 1 COAL CANYON CONTRACTI Scope: Widen WB SR -91 in Orange County Limits: Orange County/Riverside County Line to SR -241 Programmed Cost: $6.7million Funding : 2002 - 2003 F.Y. STIP Proposed Schedule: Open to traffic Jan 2004 Project length 1. 2 miles State Route 91 Improvements 1_ 1 1 1 7n 0 't O 0 10 San Bdn o Co _— Riverside Co 1 IS, O{ GREE N RIVER RD RIVERSIDE COUNTY P RAD O D AM SPILLWAY CORONA CONTRA CT 2 Scope: Restripe the WBD SR -91 transition area between SR -71 and Orange County/Riverside County Line To provide Aux -lane Programmed Cost: $340,000 Funding: 2003 - 2004 F Y. S H.0 P.P. (State H ghway Operation & Protection Program) Proposed Schedule: Open to traffic Jan 2004 Project Length: 2 1 miles Revision: 05/2003 Prepared for: tela Rat 11111001011111100111 linOrange County Transportation Authority OCTA In Association with: W Rirers ide Connty 'j'irrns�orfariap Commisslon Department of ?transportation Districts 8 and 12 �" i i siseq ienuue ue uo pepdn aq o} ueld+ EOO Aq yjo Aq paidope aq $31 ueid uogewawaldwi ue saainbaa ooI. PJMJO anow MOU ue3 1.6-aS 01 sivawanoadwI soo Annuer ui sauei ssaadx3 1,6 peseqoind yi301.&> oo u! passed 01.01. 9V' PUflO1'OhiOBO uoissiwwo3 uogepodsueal Awno3 apisaania t: Aijoqjny uogepodsueal Awno3 a6ueap Z 131•IiSKI sueMe°< 8 misia sueme3 lihl�1.100IL1IIOIOAOU 13OIOid ueid azDeuu.,t jndu! pue nnainaa JO; ueid uogewawaidwi aaedaad (wej -6uoi pue `piw `poys) amid Aq spa(oad AJ!juepl. lad qijM spa(oad Ie!luelod pue vonn snovaid nnainaa v;• SSOOOld APIIiS sanleuaaid IepouaRInIN aWenIen3 04 Apn4S 4onpuoO A uno3 aplsaania - sluauaanoadual uoije4s pue a3Inaas )lulioa4aW :tiZ 'oN Ajuno3 e6ueap - SWOUJOAMICILUI uol4e4S pue a3Inaas )Iulloa4alAI :CZ ' 0N ulu.r ,due aoelck 61. 1!SS0.13.10A0 peon aanla uaaa j :yo —or LL -HIS 0� UUZ-HS wag am Aaelllxnd 83 :Z1. '0N aS o� aun R4uno3 woJJ aue-1 adpis-a8 :1.1. '0N aun Aluno3 o4 �tiZ -EIS wail eue-I Aaelllxnd 8M pua4x3 :01 ' 0N sele3S �Ional w semi AJelllxnd punoggse3 :L '0N dwell aoueaw3 1.6 -HS 8M o4 anuany Malna)Ie1 as Ampow :g 'oN sani}�uaa��� waa1. -6uol SIW sapnioui .; . uogona}suoo JO u6isep ao1. Apee s}30oad .;. SUOIIIRU 60 11 spo3 wea6oad ieioi .,• SPOOK' auiN ueid maii-anu ueld waal-uogS Short Term Protects LOS ANGELES COUNTY • • Bre a 10I� e E is Akd_ltia Tait PA Ka lolL' 5 Improvem ents Legend: 0 LakevieMW B Ramp 0 Reslripe&W BPax Exlenson 0 H endr k Slalion(Rrversde) OTruck Scale Imixoernenls O EB Aux Al 0 WB Aux E1enswn Q rk edink S611m(Orange) • • • • Yorha Irn l,, An ahe im • SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY I La Sarlil. .3 Gr•4 Tit Chino Hills co 0 u i 10 • ORANGE COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY I D 4 Al I Nnrcn 1 I 1 2 Approximde Scale in Miles 4 F 1'4 h: 91 SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Short Term Improvement Projects O CTA Efr i6 •uogoaa!a u3e3 u! (AOH ao esodind !eaeue) eue-1 419 e 6ulppv Aq pails e3ae!d of LL-aS WO4 L6 -8S 8M Pue 83 uep!M :OZ '0N � ga uo!13aa!a goe3 u! eue- u}g e 6u!ppy Aq leans eoJe!d 0l LL-uS WO4 L6 -US 8M Pue 83 uep!M ' oN uoll3aa!a Lou u! (AOH .10 asodind !eaaueD) auei 419 e 6uuPPd Aq LL -US of eurl AlunoO all woai. L6 -US 8M Pue 83 UOP!M :9l '0N uo!l3aa!a 4383 u! auei esodind !Baau9O e 6u!ppd Aq LL -US of LbZ-�IS WO4 L6 -EIS 8M PUB 83 UNP!M :6 '0N .:° seuei ssaadx3 L6 -US WOJI/01 SS033V eie!pewiew ! :9 •oN uo!loaa!a goe3 u! eu8- asodand MONO 1119 6u!Ppd Aq LrZ-uS of (Aenng6!H !e!aadwl) 06 -US uaoal L6 -US 8M PUB 83 uep!M :9 V '0N •:� eue! AJB!l!xny 8M uo!sualx3 + se6ueg3Je;u! enueny u!lsnl pue 99 -us ueennlaq sdwea pep!ea8 8M :Z '0N a3uBaBa13 Ie1uewuo!Aue pue AeM jO-jq6J aainbaa spafoad .;. uoill!� 009$ $31uoill!� Olili$ woad a6uea sIso3 wea6oad I1O1 + s}3a1oad WAGS + ueid aeaR-p1. xis .;. ueld wpIoI-pI W LOS ANGELES COLINTY :81 nirch ;t B re a r:a1:a a to Yarn rpHa Plat:entia Iii is Vs7 • `,+ Taft. Ara Improvements Legend: ASi-TU u an6.1. 0Hi: AEB Widening (BM MF) © EB & WB W idening Oh MF) Y nrna t inch Art in F_ct,'• AInlennohaie Toll Access AEB & WB Widenng,&th MF) ® EB & W BW ldening (2nd HOVor6111 MF) SAN BERNARDINOICOLINTY AGreen Rorer Road OC Rcplacemenl AEB &WB W idening(51h MF) AEB & WB W idening (2ndHOV or 61h MF) Chino Hills ORANGE COUNTY • • N nrco RIVERSIDE COUNTY 0 4 Ppfrarin le S4,fi "- SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Near Term Improvement Projects m OCTA Cabana,. ejnoa Ajuno3-aa}u1 MON :LZ '0N 91.-101 ln-aS woa} uelPaIN 1.6 -US u! Aeivipsueal eue-1-p pajenei3 :9Z '0N seu!l 11410401N (3031) Aiunoo a6uea0 01 ei!dw3 puelul auj pue se1e6uy soi 01 uojaalln j o1 ep!saan!a all )1384 ald!al :5Z '0N sao1oauuo3 }oaa!a AOH 51.-I/I.6-US :ZZ ' 0N a6ueuoaa;ul 1aaa}S u!eW of a6ueuoaalul 1. 6-8S woa} peon ao '0N s1uauWanoadwi e6ueuoaajul LL-US/L6-US :8l '0N .;. 1L-uS 011.17Z-1:18 uaoa! pe0a aO 83 :LI• '0N •:. uo!;eanNuooaa e6ueuoaalul peon aanla uaaa0 :89 L '0N aan!U LIMO 0� IN -1:18 uaoaj z# eue-1 Aae!I!xny 9M �ti1 ' 0N aan!a LIMO 011.17Z-1:19 Z# euei ke!I!xny 83 :El '0N sao1oeuuoa }oaala AOH 1.6/M-1:18 :8 'N a6ueuoaa1ul SS-HS/1.6-HS all le seuei ssedA8 Tonal :I. '0N • • 16 ' ytl OV dolanap oi Jew ui 6U!UUeId jueoiiiuGis aainbaa s pafoad .;• 91903 wea6oad I��ol lueomu6ig s pa!oad IeRUe1Od Z ueid eeA ue�d iuJoI-0001 Lqgierm 7r01ec1s LOS ANGELES COUNTY two. .. Brea Cesq gi.d Ya w '.lilac 4:7,d- 4 t'Inc RRW I 44 F Bo ma Vna Av e P. — 1,1 6 53 • F Is/VT;As loar Yorea Linda +.r m`- Ana heim ®`• Ra . 11. ;1ra-1 Im provements Legend: Track Bypass Lane m WO Aux 02 24181 HOVDired Conneda s C:IGreen River Interchange Rttmshadian EBAux112 m EB C-0Road .. ..1 f•. fn 0 22 N BERNARDINO :`JUe1TY L• La ®91 lo NB 71 Direct Connector WB C-0 Road 1591 HOV Died Conneclas Moot -Ws t • sa • •ti ORANGE COUNTY eel" -I Cam I \ ' • • PAMO 7 .t 1 D Erin/ 6m ',l Wry„.:m Vr _ Coron a RIVERSIDE COUNTY 0 1 2 fpproximale Scale in Miles 4 6t SR -91 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Long Term Improvement Projects d�f6� .•.,e.fi�.al OCTA 'm 'n .�w..a.l . Oak. 16 £OO `4 Aq uogdope pieog vioo .:. COO aunt ui ueid pug gip aawwwo3 Aios!Apy uaniaa.;. COO '61. uo saailiwwo3 OJ.OH pug d130 01 1UOSOJd.. SI1O1$ 1XON ORANGE COUNTY COAL CANYON 41, ailfrans NOT TO SCALE r • ♦ • 1 YORBA LINDA •♦ CHINO HILLS ♦ • • a„ r �� ��, ♦ 0 o ♦ ♦ End Project • • • GREEN RIVER ♦♦ GOLF CLUB • CONTRACT 1 Scope: Widen WB SR -91 in Orange County Limits: Orange County/Riverside County Line to SR -241 Programmed Cost: $6.7million Funding : 2002 - 2003 F.Y. STIP Proposed Schedule: Open to traffic Jan 2004 Project length 1.2 miles State Route 91 Improvements 4' • X • fi u San Bdno Co MO INN Riverside Co Yam 1=1,1 Rmll GREEN RIVER RD RIVERSIDE COUNTY PRADO DAM SPILLWAY Begin Project CORONA CONTRACT 2 Scope: Restripe the WBD SR -91 transition area between SR -71 and Orange County/Riverside County Line. To provide Aux -lane Programmed Cost: $340,000 Funding: 2003 - 2004 F.Y. S.H.O.P.P. (State Highway Operation & Protection Program) Proposed Schedule: Open to traffic Jan 2004 Project Length: 2.1 miles Revision: 05/2003