The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About02 February 14, 2001 CommissionRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TIME: 9:00 a.m. DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 LOCATION: Chancellor's Conference Room, #207 University of California @ Riverside • 1201 University Avenue, Riverside 92507 Commissioners Records Chairman: William G. Kleindienst 1" Vice Chairman: John F. Tavaglione 2nd Vice Chairman: Ron Roberts Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside James A. Venable, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside Tom Mullen, County of Riverside John Hunt / Jan Wages, City of Banning Placido Valdivia / Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Robert Crain / Gary Grimm, City of Blythe Gregory V. Schook, City of Calimesa Al "Bill" Trembly / Jack Wamsley, City of Canyon Lake Gregory S. Pettis / Sarah DiGrandi, City of Cathedral City Juan M. DeLara / Richard Macknicki, City of Coachella Janice Rudman/ Jeff Miller, City of Corona Greg Ruppert / Matt Weyuker, City of Desert Hot Springs Robin ReeserLowe / Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet Percy L. Byrd / Robert A. Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells Mike Wilson / Marcos Lopez, City of Indio John J. Pena / Ron Perkins, City of La Quinta Kevin W. Pape / Robert L. Schiffner, City of Lake Elsinore Bonnie Flickinger / Frank West, City of Moreno Valley Jack F. van Haaster, City of Murrieta Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert William G. Kleindienst / Deyna Hodges, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Phil Stack / Harvey Gerber, City of Rancho Mirage Ameal Moore / Joy Defenbaugh, City of Riverside Patrick Williams / Chris Carlson-Buydos / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Anne Mayer, Interim Director, Caltrans District #8 Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Commission. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, February 14, 2001 CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM University of California @ Riverside 1201 University Avenue, Room 207, Riverside 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the Agenda. An action adding an item to the Agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the Agenda. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the Agenda requires a unanimous vote.) 6. CONSENT CALENDAR (All matters on the Consent Ca/endar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Item(s) pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) 6A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS (SANBAG) 2001/2002 STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Page 1 O vervie w To approve the proposed 2001/2002 State and Federal Legislative Program. 6B. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Page 9 Overview Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending December 31, 2000. Riverside County Transportation Commission February 14, 2001 Page 2 6C. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Page 13 O vervie w Receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending November and December 2000. 6D. MID -YEAR PROJECTIONS O vervie w Receive and file. 6E. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND (LTF) PROJECTION O vervie w Page 15 Page 20 To approve the projected Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionments for Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley and Western Riverside County areas. 6F. AMEND THE CITY OF BANNING'S SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AND ALLOCATE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Page 22 O vervie w To: 1) Amend the FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan for the City of Banning to secure additional funding to conduct a telephone survey of residents living in the Pass area as an addition to the transit study being conducted; and, 2) Allocate $12,093 in Local Transportation Funds to the City of Banning. 6G. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST TO USE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AS THE LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION PAYMENT Page 24 O ver vie w To approve the Riverside Transit Agency's request to use Local Transportation Funds for a Certificate of Participation payment. 6H. AMEND SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 25 Overview To amend the Section 5307 Program of Projects to correct the line item for the Lease/Purchase of Replacement Transit Coaches from $413,924 to $452,000. Riverside County Transportation Commission February 14, 2001 Page 3 61. CANCELLATION OF BUS POOL AGREEMENT WITH RAYTHEON Page 27 Overview To: 1) Cancel the existing buspool agreement with Raytheon Corporation for the operation of a buspool between Riverside and Fullerton due to low ridership; and, 2) Provide 60 days' notice to current riders and the employer to allow sufficient time -to identify, organize and establish other ridesharing transportation alternatives. 6J. AMENDMENT TO FY 00/01 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR COMMUTER RAIL Page 29 O vervie w To amend the Commuter Rail FY 01 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate $588,000 in Federal Section 5307 funds to provide the match for the purchase of seven additional Metrolink cars or two additional locomotives. 6K. APPROVAL OF CALTRANS' PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL NO. M008 FOR THE PEDLEY METROLINK STATION PLATFORM EXTENSION Page 39 O vervie w To: 1) Program Supplement No. M008 for the Extension of the Existing Emergency Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station; 2) Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-9952 for PB Farradyne to develop a Final PS&E for the extension of the Emergency Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for $62,000 plus a contingency amount of $10,000 (16.1% - to cover potential changes encountered during design) for a_ total contract amount not to exceed $72,000; and, 3) Authorize the Chairperson to sign the Program Supplement and Amendment, subject to Legal Counsel review. 6L. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2128 TO STV INCORPORATED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE 1 ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE Page 48 Overview To: 1) Award to approve Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2128 to provide additional photographing and mapping to support property management activities related to the San Jacinto Branch Line between the cities of Perris and San Jacinto for a base amount of $40,636. With additional extra work of $5,000. This additional cost will bring STV's total authorized contract value to $206,823 and total extra work value to $21,613 for a total not to exceed value of $228,436; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission February 14, 2001 Page 4 6M. 2001/02 BEACH TRAIN SEASON Page 55 O vervie w To approve the 2001/02 Beach Train Program, including the commitment _ to underwrite costs of service beyond fare revenues at a not to exceed cost of $35,000. 6N. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Page 57 0 vervie w To receive and file the Rail Program Update. 60. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-2136 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING FOR SOUND WALL NOS. 110, 121 AND 161 ON ROUTE 91 Page 60 Overview To: 1) Award Contract No. RO-2136 for Landscaping of Sound Wall Nos. 110, 121 and 161 on Route 91, to Diversified Landscape Co., for $218,756.58 plus a contingency amount of $21,243,42 (10% - to cover potential change orders encountered during construction) for a total contract amount not to exceed $240,000.00; and, 2) Authorize the Chairperson to execute an agreement pursuant to Legal Counsel review. 6P. RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY TO CLOSE OUT CONTRACT NO. RO-9847 FOR PHASE I SOUND WALLS ON ROUTE 91 Page 64 O vervie w To: 1) Concur with staff's recommendation for Claims resolution to close out Construction Contract No. RO-9847; and, 2) Authorize the increase of the project construction contingency, by $12,168.83, for Construction Contract No. RO-9847 from $153,514.00 (6%) to $165,682.83 (7%). The new not to exceed value of the contract will be $2,652,168.83. 6Q. AWARD AMENDMENT #3 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-9954 FOR DESIGN SERVICES ON STATE ROUTE 74 Page 67 O vervie w To approve: 1) Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-9954 with SC Engineering to perform miscellaneous design services related to the final design of Measure "A" improvements to widen State Route 74 between 1-15 and the City of Perris. Amendment #3 will increase the authorized value of the contract by $716,344 and Riverside County Transportation Commission February 14, 2001 Page 5 will make an additional $250,000 of extra work available for future contingencies. This will bring the contract authorization to $3,460,263 with available extra work of $257,053 for a new contract not to exceed value of $3,717,316; and, 2) Authorize the Chairperson to sign Amendment #3, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. 6R. APPOINTMENT TO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Page 73 • O vervie w To appoint Mary Venerable to the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee for a one-year term ending in January 2002. 7. HIGH SPEED RAIL O vervie w John Barna will provide a presentation on the status of the High Speed Rail project. 8. RETROFIT SOUNDWALLS ON STATE HIGHWAYS Overview Page 76 To: 1) Receive and file the report; and, 2) direct staff to report back in 60 days with a draft retrofit soundwall priority list using Caltrans' criteria. .9. FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 AUDIT RESULTS REPORT Page 81 Overview To receive and file the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Audit Results Report from Ernst & Young, LLP. 10. INLAND EMPIRE ANNUAL SURVEY Page 114 Overview Max Neiman, University of California@ Riverside, will present the transportation findings and results from this year's survey for receive and file. 1 1 . ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA Riverside County Transportation Commission February 14, 2001 Page 6 12. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT O vervie w This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. 13. CLOSED SESSION Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC - Executive Director or Designee Property Owners: See following list for property owners SR 74 RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITIONS ITEM APN PROPERTY OWNER 1 347-130-018 Bill E. and Rae Jean Long 2 349-060-013 George V. and Ekaterini A. Andrews, et al 3 349-060-029 Kimber L. Lawson 4 5 6 349-060-008 349-060-009 Eastern Valley Municipal Water District 349-050-025 7 14. ADJOURNMENT James A. Gon-zalez James A. and Estela L. Gonzalez 349-100-037 , Arturo Mendoza, et al The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9 a.m., Wednesday, March 14, 2001, at the MISSION INN's MUS/C ROOM, 3649 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside AGENDA ITEM 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Will Kleindienst called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 9:00 a.m. at the University of California, Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Riverside, California 92507. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Daryl Busch Bob Buster Juan M. DeLara * Frank Hall John Hunt Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Anne Mayer Ameal Moore Tom Mullen John J. Pena Ron Roberts Janice Rudman Greg Ruppert Robin ReeserLowe Gregory V..Schook Phil Stack John F. Tavaglione Al "Bill" Trembly James A. Venable Frank West Patrick Williams * Mike Wilson Roy Wilson * Arrived after start of meeting. 3. PRESENTATIONS Commissioners Absent Percy L. Byrd Robert Crain Kevin W. Pape Gregory S. Pettis Placido Valdivia Jack F. van Haaster On behalf of the Commission, Chairman Kleindienst presented "a plaque to: 1) Tom Mullen in recognition of his leadership as the past Chairman of the Commission. the past year; and, 2) to Stan Lisiewicz, retired Caltrans District 8 Director, for being part RCTC Meeting Minutes January 10, 2001 Page 2 of the team bringing harmony and effective collaboration in order to put projects into place in Riverside County. At this time, Stan Lisiewicz expressed his appreciation and gratitude working with the Commission and its staff. He introduced Anne Mayer, who was appointed as the Interim District 8 Director. He expects that his replacement will be in place in the next two -three months. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Garry Grant, Meadowbrook, informed the Commission of another fatality at the Route 74/Meadowbrook intersection and of his concern that the installation of the signal had been delayed. B. Mary Burns, representing the Jurupa Mountains Cultural Center, spoke on the need for a soundwall on Route 60 in the Jurupa area. Commissioner John Tavaglione supported the need for a soundwall in the vicinity. Eric Haley, Executive Director, stated that staff had received request for a soundwall in this area and that an item will be presented to the Commission in February. C. Corky Larson, CVAG Executive Director, expressed her thanks to Stan Lisiewicz for working with them and she welcomed Anne Mayer. At this time, she informed the Commission and they did not receive a copy of RCTC's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Staff was directed to provide a copy. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Lowe/M. Wilson) to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2000 meeting. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Chairman Kleindienst stated that: 1) staff was informed by the contractor providing guard services at the rail stations that they would no longer be able to provide the service at the cost that was agreed upon. The notice was received after posting and mailout of the agenda and there is a need to approve an amended contract and to release a request for proposal; and, 2) there is a revised memorandum for Agenda Item 10, Award of Vegetation Removal Contract for State Route 74. RCTC Meeting Minutes January 10, 2001 Page 3 M/S/C (Lowe/Pena) to declare that the item Group 70 Notice of Cancellation and Authorization to Release RFP is an emergency item and to add the item on the agenda. F. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (M. Wilson/Lowe) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: 7A. COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) Receive and file the Commission's comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000. 7B. CONTRACTS COST AND SCHEDULE REPORT Receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending November 30, 2000. 7C. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Appoint the list of candidates and their terms of office to the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (CAC/SSTAC). 7D. SCHEDULE OF CONFERENCES/MEETINGS FOR 2001 Approve: 1) the list of 2001 Conferences/Meetings; 2) up to two Commissioners may attend a conference/workshop, as provided for in the Commission's budget and in accordance to RCTC's policy on attendance of conferences/workshops. 7E. CETAP UPDATE Receive and file the CETAP update. 7F. AMENDMENT TO FY 00/01 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CORONA Amend the City of Corona's FY 01 Short Range Transit Plan and allocate $55,000 in Local Transportation Funds to provide the 20% local match for construction of a slow -fill CNG refueling station. RCTC Meeting Minutes January 10, 2001 Page 4 7G. PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY'S TRANSIT AND PARATRANSIT MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM Approve the allocation of up to $8,975 of Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds to support non-profit operators located in western Riverside County to attend the Pepperdine University's Transit and Paratransit Management Certificate Program. 7H. AGREEMENT FOR DISSOLUTION OF SCIRG Approve to dissolve the joint exercise of powers agreement for the Southern California Intercity Rail Group (SCIRG). 71. AWARD CONTRACT NO. RO-2128 TO STV INCORPORATED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE To: 1) Award Contract No. RO-2128 for a base amount of $166,187 with a 10% extra work of $16,613 for a total amount of $182,800 for Phase I to STV Incorporated for the development phase of engineering services related to the San Jacinto Branch Line in Riverside County between the Cities of Riverside and Perris. A scope and cost for the next phase projected, Phase II - Preliminary Engineering, will be negotiated with STV Incorporated at a future time and brought back to the Commission for review and approval; and 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract on behalf of the Commission. 7J. AMENDMENT #2 TO CONTRACT NO. RO-2028 WITH POUNTNEy & ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE PROPOSED VAN BUREN METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATION Approve: 1) Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. RO-2028 with Pountney & Associates, Inc., which would allow the Commission to delegate extra work authority, within Commission approved funding limits, to the Executive Director, as long as the extra work was within the overall scope of the original contract. The exact language for the federally funded contract extra work clause within the overall scope of the original contract will be developed by Legal Counsel; 2) The attached Extra Work Request/Change Order No. 1 as part of Amendment No. 2. The available Extra Work funds will be used to compensate Pountney & Associates for the additional work provided for in Change Order No. 1. The cost of Change Order No.1 is $50,948.06; 3) The use of the extra work clause within the overall scope of the original contract, developed by Legal Counsel, for use in all future RCTC federally funded contracts or amendments to existing RCTC federal funded contracts; and, 4) Authorization of the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Amendment No. 2 on behalf of the Commission. RCTC Meeting Minutes January 10, 2001 Page 5 7K. AMENDMENT #12 TO CONTRACT RO-9337 WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TO PROVIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY SERVICES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALL #36 Approve: 1) Amendment #12 to Contract RO-9337, with the County of Riverside, Building Services to provide right-of-way services, for the acquisition of. Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's), required to allow for the construction of Sound Wall #36, on the South side of Route 91, between Harrison St. and Myers St., in the City of Riverside, for a Base Work amount of $120,300 with an Extra Work amount of $19,700 for a total not to exceed amount of $140,000. A standard amendment will be used for this new agreement; and 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute Amendment No. #12 on behalf of the Commission. 7L. STATE ROUTE 79 PROJECT RESCOPING TO CONDUCT ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS ALONG THE CONCEPTUAL REALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES NEAR THE CITIES OF HEMET AND SAN JACINTO BETWEEN RAMONA EXPRESSWAY AND DOMENIGONI PARKWAY To: 1) Approve Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-9961 to CH2M-Hill to conduct environmental investigations requested by the Resource Agencies during a meeting held on September 28, 2000. The additional cost is S109,450 to perform the environmental investigations. Included as part of Amendment #1 will be to add $40,000 of extra work and direction to RCTC Legal Counsel to add contract language that will permit the authorization of the extra work under written direction of the Executive Director; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman to sign amendment #1 to Agreement RO-9961 using a standard Consultant amendment form subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review. 8. MID YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Ivan Chand, Chief Financial Officer, briefed the Commission on the Measure "A" and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) projections. Current trends indicate that Measure "A" revenue is averaging 13% higher than last year at $87,500,000 and LTF is averaging 11-13% higher than revenues from prior fiscal year at $3,570,427. Corky Larson requested continuance of this item to provide CVAG an opportunity to review this item. She noted a correction in the Measure "A" Distribution Projection spreadsheet that "Eastern County Portion" should be "Coachella Valley Portion" and she has questions with some of the numbers and need clarification, including Local Street and Road funding. It was determined that Ivan Chand work with Corky Larson to answer her questions. RCTC Meeting Minutes January 10, 2001 Page 6 M/S/C (Williams/Lowe) approve the Mid -Year Revenue Projections; 2) Planning Budget Adjustment to reflect the LTF Planning Revenue and Expenditures; and, 3) bring back a report to the Commission on the meeting between RCTC and CVAG. 9. AMENDMENT TO FY 00/01 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR COMMUTER RAIL M/S/C (R. Wilson/Moore ) to delete this item from the agenda and for staff to bring it back to the Commission after its meeting with SCRRA. 10. AWARD OF VEGETATION REMOVAL CONTRACT FOR STATE ROUTE 74 REALIGNMENT M/S/C (Mullen/Hunt) to approve: 1) Award the Vegetation Removal Contract for SR 74 to Anthony Marmolejo Construction Company, Inc. (AMCII), at $38,000; 2) Work must be completed by March 14, 2001, which is the beginning of the gnatcatcher breeding season which lasts 5-1/2 months. In the event the selected contractor is unable to perform the work according to the schedule, authorize the Executive Director to negotiate with the next lowest responsible bidder to complete the work before the March 14, 2001 deadline; and, 3) Establish a $7,500 contingency for the work 11. PROPOSED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 BUDGET wusic (Mullen/Lowe) to continue this item to the January 30, 2001 meeting. 12. DRAFT 2001 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) Commissioner Roberts spoke about the activities in the Goods Movement Task Force. He noted the exorbitant cost of budding the truck lane on Route 60. What needs to be factored in for the next RTP is the extension of Route 30, thus, the trucks could take 1-210 and 15 instead of Route 60. Commissioner Lowe commented that the entire RTP sounds good on paper and that it is required that the 2001 RTP must be adopted in order to continue receiving federal funds for this area. Therefore, it would not be prudent to discontinue the process. However, there is a need to address issues of concerns such as housing needs in Southern California. There has been rumors that Sacramento will hold MagLev hostage unless there is consensus on the Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA) figures. Representatives from the City of Moreno Valley and SanBAG have led the fight for the Inland Empire. There is a lot of concern about a replacement to the gas tax for alternative fuel. Market may drive a lot of this and it is changing day to day. There is also the question about subsidizing the transit system in Southern California with only 2% of the population using those alternative transportation systems. There is a concern by members of Los Angeles City Council about expanding LAX as a majority of their residents is against the expansion. RCTC Meeting Minutes January 10, 2001 Page 7 Commissioner Hunt expressed the need to work together, including the private sector and to speak with one voice. M/S/C (Mullen/Lowe) to receive the report on the Draft 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Update. 13. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar agenda. 14. EMERGENCY ITEM 14A. GROUP 70 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION & AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE RFP M/S/C (Mullen/Lowe) to: 1) to approve an adjustment of the existing contract with Group 70 Protective Services & Investigation Inc. of $ 155,064 to provide for an up to four month transitional period during which staff will work to secure a new contractor to provide Security Services at the four Metrolink Stations; and, 2) Authorize the release of an RFP for Metrolink Stations security guard services 15. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 1. Commissioner Stack thanked the Commissioners for their recommendations to the Citizens Advisory Committee and recognized staff for their assistance. 2. Chairman Kleindienst spoke about the Governor's State of the State address and the Governor's vision relating to transportation.. 3. Eric Haley mentioned that a complimentary letter was received from CTC Chairman James Kellogg about the reception hosted for Bob Wolf and the CTC. He reminded the Commission about its meeting on January 29, 2001. RCTC Meeting Minute's January 10, 2001 Page 8 16. CLOSED SESSION Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Section 54946.8 Negotiating Parties: RCTC - Executive Director or Designee Property Owners: See following list for property owners. 349-090-009 2 3 349-090-011 349-090-004 4 5 Joseph Saline, Jr. Kevin Valles, Tr. Armin Altemus 349-100-032 6 349-100-035 349-100-004 7 349-100-038 8 349-100-037 William A. Lovell Paul Olshefsky, et ux. Jeffstra, Inc. Dao Hoa 9 10 11 No APN See Parcel Identified As 13593-1 (Attachment 1) 349-060-009 Arturo Mendoza, et al Winifred D. Baird James A. Gonzalez 12 No APN See Parcel Identified As 13592-1 (Attachment 2) 13 349-100-001 Leslie L. and Jane M. Cameron M.V. Duffy James 349-400-001 Frank Anzaldi, et al The Commission reconvened at 10:45 a.m. Steve DeBaun announced that there was no reportable action for the Closed Session. 17. ADJOURNMENT With no other items to be discussed by the Commission, Chairman Kleindienst adjourned the meeting at 10:46 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 14, 2001, at the University of California Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, #207, Riverside; California. Respectfully submitted, GLA4QA._ Nat,' Ko Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION MINUTES January 10, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Will Kleindienst called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation - Commission to order at 9:00 a.m. at the University of California, Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Riverside, California 92507. 2. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Daryl Busch Bob Buster Juan M. DeLara * Frank Hall John Hunt Dick Kelly William G. Kleindienst Anne Mayer Ameal Moore Tom Mullen John J. Pena Ron Roberts Janice Rudman Greg Ruppert Robin ReeserLowe Gregory V. Schook Phil Stack John F. Tavaglione Al "Bill" Trembly James A. Venable Frank West Patrick Williams * Mike Wilson Roy Wilson Commissioners Absent Alternates Present Percy L. Byrd Robert Crain Kevin W. Pape Gregory S. Pettis Placido Valdivia Jack F. van Haaster Arrived after start of meeting. 3. PRESENTATIONS Jack Wamsley On behalf of the Commission, Chairman Kleindienst presented a plaque to: 1) Tom Mullen in recognition of his leadership as the past Chairman of the Commission. the past year; and, 2) to Stan Lisiewicz, retired Caltrans District 8 Director, for being part of the team bringing harmony and effective collaboration in order to put projects into place in Riverside County. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRAN SPORTA TION COMMISSION I C. 6.-.- L U , t' S7 v911- yZ Bti se 1 4 !L S-rRCI< / �r / �(%/J-)f/ is DATE: COMMISSION MEETING 'r6` SIGN -IN SHEET AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER C4 -V -c tv+- Qe• " .• is o °1L3 8'lw / e%)z•$ 8Z b � �✓ ��d .-�,��—�� ll as S =.3,3(v J Dao,"--(7 e Ofiaoty C• H C (70)iS "3•SCU /c7``a 53 890.5 2 - rf -"z__-'`",/ 7� , 3r_=1 3 -. S -C r % IG Eti10 /;://- g-/.3 :3 0 0 L069. �, . 9eq 92/34-)C- , ) sfX- frr'.0/D l 9. / 1 iz�tiCHO h1rr2RGE 7 6D— 3 — TT 51( 47. cf CCKCA,/f_i ;I r •r - a4 //,:,/61 Ye - 5. 73i -/31 c RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: COMMISSION MEETING �`. NAME { , AGENCY SIGN -IN SHEET TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: 01/ // SIGN -IN SHEET IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION NAME r C tti• :CH C'Gt/ir 1 AGENCY /1 1 V\ 1 CL,Pc-61 r . :1.4 t' i/1F n '! u 12,t/ at/ / "1- C i) r 1- I` tv-? i I Signing is not required TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER / k - n , -7S 7 - 7 t 5 Z/ -7'19/ 7) 676--/y3/ / 2 / r/(C/)73‘f /- 7•-rcrk, d S Z / 911 s7) & s .("/ So, 4c' / AGENDA ITEM 6A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: TO: FROM: THROUGH: February 14, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget and Implementation Committee Darren M. Kettle, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) 2001/2002 State and Federal Legislative Program BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the 2001/2002 State and Federal Legislative Program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Over the past two years, the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the San Bernardino Associated Governments have worked cooperatively in the Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs arena. The two agencies have a shared arrangement for the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs position and jointly fund contracts for both federal and state advocacy services. The respective governing bodies also approved the biennial legislative program covering the 106`h United States Congress and the 1999-2000 Session of the California State Legislature. Beyond the cost savings realized by the joint services, the shared arrangement has proven successful by creating a unified Riverside County/San Bernardino County transportation presence and policy position in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. Further the cooperative effort has shown the Inland Empire delegation of the U.S. Congress and the State Legislature that the two transportation agencies work together to develop solutions to the Inland Empire's transportation challenges. Attached are the 2001/2002 State (Attachment A) and Federal (Attachment B) Legislative Programs for review . The programs include carry-over items from prior year's legislative programs and several new initiatives. The 2001/2002 State Program includes the following new initiatives: At the direction of the SANBAG Board, sponsor legislation to amend the Civil Procedure Code to require public agencies to pay legal expenses only to a party who owns or has interest in property to be acquired by the public agency. (State Program 4.C) 000001 Support legislation that ensures equity of benefit from the investment of State passenger rail funds to all passenger rail lines, including commuter rail systems. (State Program 1.J) In response to a request from the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, seek legislation to name the SR 60/91/215 interchange after Mr. Robert (Bob) Wolf. While not included in the attached RCTC/SANBAG Joint Legislative Program, RCTC staff will proceed according to Commission direction. The Federal Program remains predominately unchanged from the 1999/2000 Program and maintains a focus on positioning RCTC and SANBAG at the forefront of the initial discussions for .the re -authorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century, While TEA -21 stretches through the 2002/03 Federal fiscal year, transportation policy discussions are already taking place in Washington, D.C. and throughout the country. Attachments 000002 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments 2001-2002 State Legislative Program The following legislative program was developed as a joint partnership between the Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments. OVERALL OBJECTIVES 1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs. �. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources that enhance the ability of RCTC and SANBAG to implement their transportation plans. 3 Maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues. 4 Streamline administrative and regulatory processes. STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 1. Protect current funding levels for transportation programs. A. Support state budget and California Transportation Commission allocation to fully fund projects for San Bernardino and Riverside County included in the State Transportation Improvement Programs and the Strategic Plans of both counties. B. Oppose any proposal that could reduce either San Bernardino or Riverside County's opportunity to receive transportation funds, including diversion of state transportation revenues for other purposes. Fund sources include, but are not limited to, the State Highway Account (SHA), Public Transit Account (PTA), and Transportation Development Act (TDA) and any ballot initiative sources. C. Support full funding regional programming process to provide for regional determination and programming for the use of all current funding sources and to provide total flexibility for all current and future STIP programs. D. Support state policies that assure timely allocation of transportation revenue, including allocations of new funds available to the STIP process as soon as they are available. 1 000003 E. Continue to support AB 2766 vehicle license fee funding in the South Coast Air Basin, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). to the cities and the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Committee (MSRC); support MSRC's independence as a committee. F. Support legislation or the development of administrative policies to allow a program - credit for local funds spent on accelerating.STTP projects through right-of-way purchases. or environmental and engineering consultant efforts. G. Sponsor legislation that will allow the state to advance and/or loan funding to local agencies for projects that are funded through sales tax programs but delayed due to cash flow problems. H. Support current local program funding and flexibility of the State's Transportation Demand Management program. I_ Support legislation and/or budgetary actions to assure a fair share of State revenues of intercity rail (provided by Amtrak, Metrolink or other operators) funding for Southern California and San Bernardino and Riverside County. J. Support legislation that ensures equity of benefit from the investment of State passenger rail funds to all passenger rail lines including commuter rail systems. �. Support legislative efforts to restore the ability of counties to enact or reenact local option transportation sales taxes. Support increases in transportation revenues and funding sources that enhance the ability of RCTC and SANBAG to implement their transportation programs and plans. A, Support or seek legislation and administrative financing/programming policies and procedures to assure an identified source of funding and anequitable distribution of the funding for bus and rail servtces.in California. B Seek legislation to assure that dedicated state intercity rail funding is allocated to the regions administering each portion of the system and assure that funding is distributed on an equitable basis. C. Support or seek legislation to assure a dedicated source of funding, other than the State Highway Account for local street and road maintenance and repairs. D Seek legislation to increase revenues to support the call box programs in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Support legislation to provide funding for innovative, intelligent/advanced transportation, goods movement, and air quality programs which relieve congestion, 2 000004 improve air quality and enhance economic development. Support legislation creating the Passenger Rail Improvement, Safety and Modernization (PRISM) program so long as funding comes from new sources of revenue. 3. Maximize flexibility in the use of existing transportation revenues. A. Seek a fair share for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties of any state discretionary funding made available for transportation grants or programs. B. 1: Support legislation to ensure that funding for transit operations is commensurate with • existing and new demands placed on public transit by air quality and congestion management programs, CaIWORKS (welfare to work reform) the American with Disabilities Act, including the use of social service funding sources. Support income tax benefits or incentives that encourage use of alternative fuel vehicles and alternative modes of transportation without reducing existing transportation funding levels. D Monitor and. where appropriate, support studies of market -based pricing measure to relieve traffic congestion. improve air quality or fund transportation alternatives. Support legislation to finance cost effective conversion of public transit and paratransit fleets to alternative fuels. 4 Streamline administrative and regulatory processes 'A Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance Caltrans project delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out of appropriate activities to the private sector. Support legislation to make the process for determining unmet transit needs a biennial action. Sponsor legislation to amend the Civil Procedure Code to require public agencies to pay legal expenses only to a party who owns or had interest in property to be acquired by the public agency. F:%users\prepnnt\js\2001-2002 State Program.doc 3 1/10/01 000005 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT Riverside County Transportation Commission and San Bernardino Associated Governments 2001-2002 Federal Legislative Program OVERALL OBJECTIVES 1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs. ?. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue. 3. Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements. FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 1. Protect and enhance current funding levels for transportation programs. A. Support efforts to bring transportation appropriations to authorized levels. B. Seek a fair share for San Bernardino and Riverside County of any federal funding made available for transportation programs and projects. C. Support legislation to secure adequate budget appropriations for highway, bus, rail. air quality and mobility programs in San Bernardino and Riverside County. D. Support continued Federal commitment of funds to support public transit, to assure that California and the western states receive a fair share of the AMTRAK funding resources as compared to the .North East Corridor. E. Seek specialized funding for goods movement projects of international and national significance that are beyond the funding ability or responsibility of local and state transportation programs and budgets. F. Seek funding for airport ground access and other airport development needs in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. 2. Protect and enhance flexibility in use of transportation revenue. A. Support legislation that will modify federal project development requirements for transit projects to make them more consistent with the process employed for highway projects. 0,00:006 B. Support legislation to exempt commuter rail services operating within existing railroad right-of-way from federal new start and alternative analysis requirements in order to utilize federal funding.. C. Support efforts to pursue funds to facilitate timely conversion of public sector fleets to alternative fuels to meet federal fleet conversion mandates. D. Support tax benefits and/or incentives for transportation demand management programs and alternative fuel programs to promote the use of alternate modes of transportation. E. Support increased federal funding for Alameda Corridor improvements in Los ".Angeles County and Alameda Corridor East improvements in San Bernardino and Riverside County and increase opportunities for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties to access these funding sources. Seek continued federal funding of Maritime Administration studies focusing on an Inland " Bernardino County and Riverside County, Rail Port- in San F Support legislation that ensures coordination of transportation and social service agency funding (i.e. Departments of Aging, Rehabilitation. and Welfare). G- Support legislative or administrative policies that promote a `.regional"' approach to airport development and usage of Southern California Logistics, San Bernardino International. and Ontario International airports and the March Join Use Airport. Joint Reduce or eliminate costly and duplicative administrative and regulatory requirements. A. Support administrative or legislative action to ensure consistency. among the Federal congestion management and the State's Congestion Management program requirements. B. Monitor and, where appropriate, support studies of market -based . cing measures to relieve traffic congestion, improve air quality and/or nd/o refund transportation alternatives. C. Seek Federal authorization allowing privatize various aspects of transportation to ere increaseatthe efficiencie to pursue es a tod effectiveness of their available resources through private sectorparticipation.s and E. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms to enhance Caltrans project delivery, such as simultaneous Environmental Impact Report ect p J(EIR) and D. Due to the elimination of Federal transit operating subsidies, support legislation to also eliminate Federal requirements and regulations regarding transit operations 2 000007 engineering studies, and a reasonable level of contracting out of appropriate activities to the private sector. F. Support legislation and/or administrative reforms that result in cost savings to environmental clearance processes for transportation construction projects. G. Continue to streamline federal reporting/monitoring requirements to ensure efficiency and usefulness of data collected' and eliminate unnecessary • and/or duplicative requirements. F: users\preprmdjs\2001-2002 Federal Program.doc 1/10/01 3 000008 AGENDA ITEM 6B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Measure A Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Contracts Cost and Schedule Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file the Contracts Cost and Schedule Report for the month ending December 31, 2000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION; The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending December 31, 2000. The report has been amended to reflect the request made by Corky Larson, CVAG Executive Director at the January 2001 meeting regarding the inclusion of Caltrans Route 86 projects. Attachments 000009 RCTC MEASURE "E HWAY/R AIL PROJECTS BU DGET RED _ .iT BY R OUTE COMMISSION C ONTRA CTURAL 96 COMMITTED PR OJECT AUTHORIZED COMMITMENTS AGAINST AUTH DESCRIPTI ON ALLOCATION TO D ATE ALLOCATION ROUTE 60 PROJECTS Fina l Design HOV 60/215 to Redl ands Blvd. 12042) fiU(LT0TAL ROUTE GO ROUTE 74 PR OJECTS Engineering/Environ /RO W (R02041 9954,9966, (R02142) IIUBT13TAI. NO UTE 74 ROUTE 79 PROJECTS Enginee ring/Environ. /ROW Realign men t stu dy & Right turn lan es (R09961) U tc1 >I► . °tilt ROUTE 86 PROJECTS Avenue 58 to Aven ue 66 (Se gment 2) Aven ue 66 to Avenue 82 (Se gment 3) • (Caltra n. Funde d Projects) t r31'# 6141. nou 6R ROUTE 91 PROJECTS Soundwell design en d co nstruc tion (R09101,9337,9847,9861,9848,9832,9969,2043) (2058) Van Buren Blvd. Frwy Ho ok Ramp (R09535) • Sndwell Landscapin g (809933,9946,9945,2059) lfC9tOtAL Rr UT 9# :> ROUTE 111 PROJECTS (R09219, 9227,9234,9523,9525,9530,9537,9538) 9635,9743,9849-9851,9857,97 iMIOT S2,229,000 112,229,01)0 $7,958,900 $ 7,966,900 $740,000 4740,000 $20,253,000 $33,860,000 *84;113,010 $10,632,800 $2,300,000 *883,450 *19,l16.aso $15,933,909 419.999,00 $2,006,100 $2,006,100 $7,563,700 47.4 43.700 $630,000 4430;000 $19,500,000 $33,760,000 40,1004, 0 $9,872,324 *2,300,000 *798,291 41as.9X0, Q14 $15,933,909 *1e;9�Ia,Jo9 Page 1 of 3 90 .0% 90.0% 85 .1% 06.1% 98 .3% 99.7% 92.8% 100 .0% 90 .4% O.i .A9b 100.0% 100.0% EXPENDITURE FOR % EXPENDITURES MONTH ENDED EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST 12/31/00 TO DATE CO MMITMNTS TO DATE *21,723 421;1'23 $ 606,220 +#00,22Q 0 Pr oject Compl ete *2 ,070,000 *385,815 $44,963 0 $ 169,709 $2,844,65E r.. $100,770 $18,080,000 $28,600,000 3 37,041,727 $ 1,797,708 *679,961 $9,300,192 *9,vodai�2 AA% 16, 37.e % 16 .0 % ON URI 92.8% 79.4% 71.376 78.2 % 88.2% 41)10 5 g#8 .4 % RCTC MEASURE "A" HIGHWAY PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY R OUTE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1-215 PROJECTS Pre liminary Engrg/Enviro n. (R09008, 9018) AU111'oT'AL1-21is INTERCHANGE IMPRO V. PROGRAM Yuma IC Landscaping (R09926,99461 311BTf" 1'A!. INTERCHANGE PROJECT & CONSTR. MGMT SERV. IRO 2100) Bill fatA I�I1C1118i. PROGRAM PLAN & SERVICES North/South Corrido r study (R09936) SURIQ'' T�il, PR A sVc1. PARK-N-RIDE/INCENT. PROGRAM 1R0 9859) (2101-2117) (9813) 12146) (99171 BUBTCY1AIf. PAR1(. 1Y.#ijrlit COMM UTER RAIL Stu dlee/Engln eering IRO 9420,9731,9832,9833,9844,9854,9956,2028) R02031,2027, 2120, 2029 Station/Site Acq/OP Costs/Maint. Co sts (0000.202620559929984599539957,9932,9972) COMMISSION AUTHORIZED ALLO CATION 96, 726, 504 86. /26.6o4 1440,000 844a,0uo $1,750,000 $14760,000 $125,000 $128.000 92,293,911 $&293;811 92,807,070 $13,190,402 1t�'sa7.4T C_ONTRACTURAL COMMITMENTS TO DATE 95,878,173 •8.878 .11'3 1400,000 34o0 ,1100 11,715,104 0800 9125,000 1ti 000 92,293,911 2,283,911 12,784,070 $12,810, 402 t16.6x4�47x Page 2 of 3 X: C OMMITTE D AGAINST AUTH . ALLOCATION 87.4% 90.9% 90.9% 98.0% >19.09k 100.0% 100 .0% 98.5% 97.1% .0i EXPENDIT URE FOR MONTH ENDED 12/31/00 0 1 971,108 �>��rlOfi $50,620 %en 951,339 $64,147 1 ,413 EXPENDITURES TO DATE 95,704,897 9312,481 9744,304 9138,280 91,726,852 91,997,421 $11,242,257 sitifT 71 EXPENDITURES TO -DATE AGAINST COMMITMNTS TO DATE 97.1% 78 .1% 43.4% 113 .0 % 78 .3% 72.3% 87 .8% RCTC ME ASURE "A" HIGH` LOCAL STREETS & ROADS PROJECTS BUDGET REPORT BY PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION CITY OF CANYON LAKE Railroa d Ca nyon Rd Impr ovements SU S T rrAI, CANNON FAKE LOAN CITY OF CORON A Smith, Maple & Lin co ln Interchanges & (1) Storm drainage structure 8188 OTAI. +G#TY i10 0tll11ONA CITY OF PERRIS Lo cal streets & roa d improv ements CITY OF SAN JACINTO Lo cal streets & road improvements CITY OF TEMECULA Lo cal streets & roa d improvements CITY OF NORCO Yuma I/C & Local stre ets en d road Imprmte CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE _ocal etreete & road improvements APPROVED C OMMITMENT S1,600,000 11, 60A,980 *5,212,623 51,936,419 $1,324,500 $5,094,027 82,139,067 $ 1,500,000 4tt3io NOTE: 11) Loan against interchange improvement programs. All values are for total Project/Con tract and no t related to fiscal year budgets. EXPENDITURE F OR TOTAL MONTH ENDE D MEASURE"A" 12/31/00 ADVANCES $1,600,000 $1.600,000 85,212,623 .2, 823 $1,936,419 $1,324,500 85,094,027 82,139,087 $1,500,000 OUTSTANDING LOAN BALANCE 51,163,511 8001 53,656,943 $ 1,469,676 $1,005,250 *3,886,191 $1,823,479 81,472,272 log Oki % LOAN BALANCE OUTSTANDING TO -DATE AGAINST C OMMITMENT APPR OVED COM MIT. 72.7% 68.291 174 76 .9% 75.9% 76.3% 75.9% 98.2% Statu s., of 12/31/0 0 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 6C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file the Single Signature Authority Report for the months ending November and December 2000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The attached report details all contracts which have been executed for the months of November and December under the Single Signature Authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. The remaining unused capacity is $363,240. Attachment 000013 SIN GLE SIGNATURE AUTH ORITY AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2000 CONSULTANT SANBAG LSA Asso ciate s, Inc. Ray G orskl AMOUNT AVAILABLE July 1, 2000 AMOUNT USED AMOUNT REM AINING THRO UG H June 30, 2001 ORIGINAL RE MAININ G DESCRIPTION C ONTRACT EXPENDED C ONTRACT OF SERVICES AMOUNT AMOUNT AM OUNT Co -manage study of growth In demand f or alr cargo and other freight movement In relation to Inland Empire Employment and pop ulation growth . Envir onmental services Apache Trail & 1-10 improvement pr oject . C onsulting Services In support of RCTC Air Quality and Transp ort ati on Programs Prepared by Reviewed by Cf:luserslpreprint%dplsInsIg01 15,000 .00 15,760 .00 20,000.00 15,000.00 0.00 7,853.59 20,000 .00 $ 500,000.00 101,780.00 $ 52,853.59 $ 398,240 .00 7,908.41 0.00 $ 48,908.41 AGENDA ITEM 6D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION ' DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Mid -Year Revenue Projections STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file the information, as shown attached to the memorandum. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At last month's meeting, the revised Measure "A" and LTF Revenue projections were presented. Staff noted that the start of the fiscal year, projections were made regarding the revenues received from these two resources which was tracked on a monthly basis. Current trends indicate that Measure "A" revenue is averaging 13% higher than last year and LTF is averaging 11-13% higher than revenues from prior fiscal year. As a result of these trends and projections made by local economists regarding the economy for the rest of the fiscal year, staff is revising its current estimates. Staff does not expect these high trends to continue and is gradually lowering the increases for the rest of the fiscal year. Based on these changes, staff expects Measure "A" revenues for the current fiscal year to be $87,500,000, an increase of $7,000,000 and LTF estimates to be $42,694,417, an increase of $3,570,427. At the meeting, Corky Larson, CVAG Executive Director, brought up several questions. The Commission directed staff to work with Corky Larson of which a teleconference meeting was held. Corky Larson's questions and staff's responses to her questions are attached. Attachments 000015 iiveTsideCosiniy Transportation Commission January 24, 2001 Ms. Patricia Larson, Executive Director Coachella Valley Associated Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Ms. Larson: 053€&O 3560 Ussim=y Armor sour ma • itcprmiAr. C+Jifi+..r 92501 piessC (909)TBT--714J 'for (909)78f -79a? • w.urritc.a.g • CMS!, ME At the last Commission meeting, you raised some concerns with the Mid Year Revenue projection agenda item. I recommended to the Chairman that I meet with you and address your concerns and report back to the Commission at the next meeting. As a result of our meeting on January 17, 2001 with yourself, Kelly Kennedy and Allyn Waggle, I have prepared RCTC's response to your concerns. 1. You wanted to know the basis used to make the revenues projections. Staff had provided that information during its presentation at the Commission meeting. Attached is copy of that presentation. The presentation contained the following information. As part of the FY 2000-2001 budget process, the Commission had set the FY 2000-2001 Measure A revenue budget at $80,500,000. This was based on prior year data. E g Y projections ($80,981,000), and on local economist projections (Dr. Husing, UCR Forecasting Center and Jack Kyser, LA County EDA). Staff also took into consideration the potential loss from Internet sales. At mid -year, Staff is revising its onttinal projection and now recommending Measure A revenue at $87,500,000: ' This new projection is 7.3% higher than actual revenues received last fiscal year. Staff is making this new projection based on the following data: Last year's actual $81,543,732 July through Dec. actual $43,741,375 Average monthly increase from last FY 13% Analysis of prior year data indicates that a greater proporti•.n of the total Measure A revenue is received in the second half of the year. Other issues taken into consideration were the slow down in the economy, economists' projections for the remainder of the fiscal year and again taking into account Internet sales and their affect on revenues. Staff expects that the growth for the next two months will be 11% and 6-7% for the remainder of the year. 000016 2. Staff had increased the administration contribution by Measure A and you wanted to know what charges had increased to warrant the increase.. Staff made the adjustment for budget purposes. Staff intends to take only amounts needed for the fiscal year. This led to further discussion with you inquiring as to what activities were parts of administration expense. The Commission has seven departments that are covered by administration expense. These departments include Insurance/Administrative Expenses, Executive Management, Office Administration, Clerk of the Board, Government/Legislative Affairs, Ccm municationsrfraining and Finance. 1 also indicated that per the Budget, the Commission had set a. policy that it would not spend more than 4% for administration expenses. The following table presents an analysis of the last four years of administration expense and the percentage of Measure A revenues used for administration. 100.000.000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20.000.000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 ■Aiimrn Contribution ID Measure A 1 ' Revenues I l FY 06/30/00 06/30/99 06/30/98 06/30/97 Measure A 1 Revenues Admin. Transfer Commission Admin. Expend. Difference 81,543,732' 2,000.000 70,396, 829 1,500.000 63,496.2221 1.607,607, 57,888.150 1.525, 500 % Of Meas. A Revenues vs. Expenditures %ofRev. Measure A vs. Admin Meas. A 1,960, 799 39.201 1.991.809 (491,809) 1,805,251' (197,544) 1,461,342 64,1581 2.40%,1 2.83% 2.84% 2.52% 2.45% 2.13% 2 53°Io • 2.64%' This table shows that the Commission has remained under the 4% administration expense threshold set as part of the annual Budget goals and objectives process. 3. You wanted to know the breakdown of the administration costs. Staff has provided your staff with the following documents to assist in showing what administration expense consists of: a. FY 1999-2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report b. July 2000 — December 2000 Financial Statements of all Administration Departments. c. FY 1999-2000 Audit Results. 000017 c. FY 1999-2000 Audit Results. 4. You wanted to know who received the Coachella Valley portion of LTF funds. The entire LTF allocation goes to Sunline Transit Agency. CVAG gets a portion of the planning revenues. The current formula for planning funds distribution provides 50% of the planning revenues to RCTC, 30% of the rim lining funds distributed to CVAG and 70% of the remaining funds further distributed between WRCOG and RCTC. This is based upon the language in the TDA, California Code of Regulations, 992332, Section (b) (1) which states, "In those areas that have a county transportation commission created pursuant to Section 130050, up to 1 percent of annual revenues allocated to the commission in Los Angeles County, and up to 3 percent of the annual revenues shall be allocated to the commissions in Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties for the transportation and programming process. Of the funds allocated to the commission in Riverside County, one-half shall be allocated for the planning studies within the Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley areas, as determined by the commission." 5. As a result of our conversation, you wanted a copy of the policy that set the Commission administration contribution at 4% Staff has researched this item and has seen the reference to this policy in budgets starting with FY 95-96. Staff is unable to find a written policy, however, this parameter is included in the annual Budget goals and objectives and approved by the Commission. 6. You had some concerns regarding the rounding errors on the spreadsheet and the potential loss of revenue as a result of the rounding. The spreadsheet is an estimate of distribution. Rounding errors are contained as formulas were put in to round amounts to the thousands. You also had some concerns that entities were being deprived of their funds. The spreadsheet is an estimate and amounts distributed are based: on actual receipts. Entities will receive the entire amount and not jus: what is indicated as the estimate. 7. You had some concerns regarding the $804,000 being forwarded to CVAG. Since the cities of La Quinta and Coachella are not participating in the TLIMF program, their share was being forwarded to CVAG In addition, now that the City of Coachella had decided to participate in the T[.MF program, CVAG will receive a lesser amount. Also. I would like to emphasize that the spreadsheet was an estimate and amounts are distributed based on actual receipts. 8. You suggested some modifications of the headings on the spreadsheet. Staff changed the heading Eastern County portion to Coachella Valley portion. 000018 9. Allyn had some concerns regarding the Commission's policy of taking its Administration contribution of the top and the potential loss to projects. I recommended that this issue be discussed with Hideo and Cathy 10. Allyn also had concerns regarding the level of service the Commission provides to WRCOG vs. CVAG on transportation issues and the proportionate administration contribution implications. The level of service that RCTC provides CVAG and WRCOG can be viewed in several ways. The only service RCTC provides WRCOG that is programmatically different from CVAG is that WRCOG cont-acts for accounting support service. WRCOG reimburses RCTC for this service. RCTC provides additional support services to CVAG and local agencies in the Coachella.Vallley with respect to CVAG's Regional Arterial pmt I hope this rnerno adequately addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions or need some further clarifications, please call me at 909.787.7926. Ver}' truly yours, r f� Ivan M. Chand Chief Financial Officer C Will Kliendienst, Chairman Eric Haley, Executive Director 000019 AGENDA ITEM 6E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1 DATE: January 22, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Projection BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the projected Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionments for Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley and Western Riverside County areas. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Local Transportation Fund projection consists of revenues generated from a quarter cent of the statewide sales tax. These LTF funds are principally used to fund transit requirements within the County. The Transportation Development Act legislation, that created LTF, requires the County Auditor Controller to annually estimate the amount of revenues expected to be generated from the sales tax. That estimate then becomes the basis for geographic apportionment and claimant allocation. While the County is the taxing authority and maintains custodial responsibility over the LTF-revenues, the Commission by statute, is charged with administration of the LTF funding process. The practice has therefore been for Commission staff to develop the revenue estimate and then submit it to the County Auditor Controller for concurrence. Once the Commission and the County have agreed on a revenue amount, staff prepares the statutorily required apportionment. Apportionment is the process that assigns revenues to the three major geographic areas (as defined by TDA law) within the County. They are Coachella Valley, Palo Verde Valley and Western Riverside County. The revenues are divided based on their respective populations. The apportionment occurs after off -the -top allocations for administration (distributed to the County, Commission and SCAG) and set -asides for planning activities (3%) and bicycle and pedestrian projects (2%). Attached is the Fiscal year 2001-2002 LTF apportionment based on a revenue estimate of $43,975,000. The County has reviewed the estimate and concurs with it. The estimates are based on revenues to date projected to the end of the year and then inflated 3.0%, the lower of estimates furnished by local economists. Attachment 0 `01.2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND 2001-2002 APPORTIONM ENT Budget FY 2001-2002 Projections Estimated Carryover (Unapportioned) $0 Est. Receipts $43,975,000 TOTAL 543,975,000 Auditor 512,000 RCTC Administration 5400,000 RCTC Planning (3%) 51,319,000 SCAG Planning 595,000. BALANCE 542,149,000 SB 821 (2%) $842,000 BALANCE AVAILABLE $41,307,000 Budget Population FY 2001-2002 Population % of Total Apportionment Western 1,184,597 77.79% 532,132,000 Coachella Valley 311,091 20.43% $8,438,000 Palo Verde Valley 27.167 1.78% 5737,000 1.522:855 100.00% 541,307,000 NOTES: Estimate for Planning Purposes, subject to change F \users\finance\LTF App00 1/16/01 - 12:44 PM 000021 AGENDA ITEM 6F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amend the City of Banning 's Short Range Transit Plan and Allocate PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Amend the FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan for the City of Banning to secure additional funding to conduct a telephone survey of residents living in the Pass Area as an addition to the transit study being conducted; and 2) Allocate $12,093 in Local Transportation Funds to the City of Banning. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In April 2000, the Commission approved $35,000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to conduct a study of the regional transit needs in the Pass Area. Soon after, a Request for Proposal was distributed and interviews held. A review panel consisting of staff from RCTC and the Cities of Banning and Beaumont interviewed three finalists for the study and recommended that the consulting firm of Nelson/Nygaard be hired. In November 2000, the City Councils of Banning and Beaumont awarded the contract to Nelson/Nygaard A "kick-off' meeting was held on January 17, 2001, with the Nelson/Nygaard Project Team to review the Scope of Service, identify stakeholders and finalize outreach efforts. Providing technical support and direction to Nelson/Nygaard is a Task Force consisting of Commissioners John Hunt and Jon Winningham, staff from the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and RCTC. At the "kick-off' meeting, the Task Force reviewed the Scope of Work in detail. While an on- board ridecheck surveying existing riders will be conducted to analyze origin -destination patterns of current riders, it will not answer the question of "why residents don't ride the transit systems". To help determine perceptions of the transit systems, interviews will be held with stakeholders throughout the communities of Banning, Beaumont and Calimesa. Information obtained will assist with answering the question of "why residents don't ride the bus", however, the information obtained will not be statistically valid. For an additional cost of $12,093 a five-minute telephone survey reaching 400 residents can be conducted. If approved, the telephone survey will focus on: 000022 1) Perceptions of public transit; 2) Awareness of the service(s) operating in the community; 3) Travel destinations; 4) Types of household trips; and 5) Demographic information. The stakeholder interviews and ridechecks will be conducted in February. If approved, the telephone surveys would also be conducted during February. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $ 12,093 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: N Fiscal Procedures Approved: ` Date: 1/22/01 000023 AGENDA ITEM 6G RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Riverside Transit Agency's Request to use Local Transportation Funds as the Local Match Requirement for a Certificate of Participation Payment STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to approve the Riverside Transit Agency's request to use Local Transportation Funds for a Certificate of Participation payment. BA CKGROUND INFORMATION Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) staff is in the process of reviewing the status of various grants received from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). In 1995, RTA received funding to rehabilitate and purchase vehicles. Although the restoration work and purchases have been completed, there is $319,537 in unused funds remaining from FTA Grant No. CA -90-X665 that RTA would like to use to make a Certificate of Participation (COPS) payment. Although the federal funds have technically expired, the FTA has given RTA verbal approval to use the federal funds to make an additional COPS payment. RTA has $81,874 in LTF funds that were previously allocated, by Commission action, as the local match for vehicle purchase and bus rehabilitation. Since all restoration work and vehicle purchases are completed on that project, RTA is requesting authorization to use the existing LTF funds as the local match for the COPS payment. FTA is anxious for RTA to close out Grant No. CA -90-X665. At their January 25, 2001 meeting, RTA's board approved the request to use federal dollars towards the COPS payment. Staff apologizes for the lateness of this item but RTA's request seeking authorization to use LTF funds was received after the Plans and Program Committee meeting held January 22, 2001. 000024 AGENDA ITEM 6H RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: FROM: Riverside County Transportation Commission Plans and Programs Committee Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: SUBJECT: Eric Haley, Executive Director Amend Section 5307 Program of Projects for SunLine Transit Agency PLANS AND PROGRAM COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Amend the Section 5307 Program of Projects to correct the line item for the Lease/Purchase of Replacement Transit Coaches from $413,924 to $452,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Due to an error on the Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) has requested that the line item for the Lease/Purchase ea a/Pur hale Replacementmount f $45 of Transit On Coaches be corrected to show the original approved September 13, 2000, RCTC approved an amendment to the FY 00/01 POP. The POP amendment incorrectly decreased the Lease/Purchase Replacement for Transit Coaches from $452,000 to $413,924. However, what should have occurred was an amendment to decrease the Bus Replacement Fund accumulated in a prior fiscal year. The attached POP corrects the error. To eliminate potential errors in the future, a Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP/POP Amendment Form will be provided to all agencies when requesting amendments. In addition, forms for the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) have been up- dated so that staff from transit agencies can provide the RTIP number to RCTC when requesting amendments. Lastly, RCTC staff will provide a workshop for transit agencies on the POP, SRTP, and RTIP processes in the near future. 000025 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2000-01 URBANIZED AREA: PALM SPRINGS APPORTIONMENT: $1,058,042 • CARRYOVER FUNDS: $148,560 TRANSFER FUNDS: $0 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE $1,206,602 RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONME SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY $1,206,602 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT AMOUNT SHARE TYPE (1) SUNLINE--OPERATING ASSISTANCE $13,987,000 $324,000 0 JULY 1. 2000 TO JUNE 30, 2001 (2) SUNLINE--LEASE/PURCHASE $565,000 $452,000 C REPLACEMENT TRANSIT COACHES (3) SUNLINE-- HYDROGEN FUELING $450,000 $360,000 C INFRASTRUCTURE (4) SUNLINE-- COMPUTER & $35,000 $14,178 C ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (5) SUNLINE--PURCHASE TWO (2) 5105,000 . $56,424 C REPLACEMENT PARATRANSIT VEH TOTAL PROGRAMMED $15,142,000 51,206,602 BALANCE AVAILABLE $0 APPROVED BY RCTC: July 12, 2000 AMENDED BY RCTC: September 13, 2000 AMENDED BY RCTC: JR: 1/17/01 000026 AGENDA ITEM 61 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO:. Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee John Standiford, Public Information Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Cancellation of Bus Pool Agreement with Raytheon PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Cancel the existing buspool agreement with Raytheon Corporation for the operation of a buspool between Riverside and Fullerton due to low ridership; 2) Provide 60 days' notice to current riders and the employer to allow sufficient time to identify, organize and establish other ridesharing transportation alternatives. BA CKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Transportation Commission first established a buspool program in 1990 to assist local residents in making long commutes to Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Buspools are formed in cooperation with employers and are operated by a private sector service contractor. The Commission's role is to provide a subsidy of $25 per seat each month in support of the program. Along with a subsidy from their employer, buspool riders can buy a monthly buspool pass for a cost of less than $150 per month depending on their destination. This results in a much easier commute on a comfortable bus for a cost that's much less than driving alone (especially if using the toll lanes). More importantly for the Commission, the low subsidy level is a very cost-effective use of Measure A Commuter Assistance Program dollars. However, based on previously established Commission policy approved in June 1995, ridership must remain at a level of more than 25 per month to ensure the ongoing viability of the buspool for the operator and the employer since payments from the employees are the largest source of revenue to pay for the service. The subsidy program and each individual agreement is brought before the Commission 000027 on an annual basis, and on June 14, 2000, the Commission approved agreements with the Raytheon Corporation for three buspools that travel between locations in Riverside County to Raytheon worksites in El Segundo and Fullerton. Those buspools operate between 1) Riverside and Fullerton, 2) Riverside and El Segundo and 3) Moreno Valley and El Segundo. Ridership on both buspools to El Segundo is strong and exceeding the target of 25 passengers per day. In fact, average daily ridership on both buspools to El Segundo exceed 40 passengers. The long commute and large workforce at Raytheon's worksite in El Segundo provides plenty of passengers. Unfortunately, the same situation does not exist in Fullerton. Fewer employees at the location mean fewer passengers and ridership has failed to reach the 25 passenger standard in recent months. As part of the Commission's action in June of 2000, Raytheon staff developed a marketing plan to attract additional interest in the Fullerton buspool. The effort did attract a few additional riders for a short period of time, however it has been a struggle to maintain 20 riders, much Tess 25. Staff is requesting Commission approval to cancel the buspool agreement for the service between Riverside and Fullerton. The cancellation will include a 60 -day notice period to allow Raytheon and the Commission's Commuter Assistance Program to work with employees to form carpools or vanpools. Overall, the relationship with Raytheon has been quite positive and should the firm increase its number of employees in Fullerton, another buspool could be formed in the future. 000023 AGENDA ITEM 6J RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager • THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment to FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan for Commuter Rail PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to amend the Commuter Rail FY 01 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate $588,000 in Federal Section 5307 funds to provide the match for the purchase of seven additional Metrolink cars or two additional locomotives. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: This item was originally agendized for the January 10`h Commission meeting. The item was pulled by the Executive Director due to concerns over commitments related to the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Line. This Line extends 61.6 miles between downtown Riverside and downtown Los Angeles. The corridor is included in the SB1402 regional plan, and currently three trains operate on the route in reverse off- peak -directions (i.e. Los Angeles - Fullerton - Riverside). Pending track improvements and the delivery of two train sets, peak period service is planned for this Line in Spring 2002, but OCTA, a funding partner on the Line, has yet to formally support and commit resources for this peak period service. (Attached is an issue paper related to this service.) In spite of the uncertainty of OCTA's position, we still need the support of the Commission for the purchase of the additional rail cars. Currently, Metrolink has two locomotives and 28 rail cars on order. Delivery of cars is expected to begin this spring and two train sets are reserved for the Riverside - Fullerton -Los Angeles service. The Commuter Rail Program is requesting an amendment to the SRTP because Metrolink has an opportunity to exercise the remaining option on the current order. This option allows for the purchase of seven additional cab cars estimated at $15,000,000. Last month Metrolink was successful in securing $9,700,000 in ITIP funds for this project however this amount only covers the cost of five cab cars. The most cost effective approach is to secure the $5,300,000 additional funding for the purchase of the two additional cab cars now, rather than at a later date. 000029 It is important to note that future growth on the Metrolink system will be constrained by the lack of new equipment. RCTC's local share for the seven cars is estimated at $588,000 using the Metrolink All Share Formula. By advancing the funds now for the two additional cars, we have an opportunity to add additional equipment to the system sooner, and avoid additional costs at a later date. Since the publication of this agenda item, Metrolink has discovered that it needs an additional two locomotives to serve as spares for fleet maintenance. Therefore, Metrolink will use the money for either the locomotives, if they are available, or the purchase of the additional cars. Federal Section. 5307 Urbanized Area Formula revenue is generated by the commuter rail program for rail capital expenditures. RCTC began accruing these revenues in FY92/93 when the Riverside Line began operating. These funds are in addition to bus Section 5307 entitlement to the County; rail capital Section 5307 comes from a separate pot of money. RCTC has adequate federal commuter rail Section 5307 monies to advance these funds now and no current or planned RCTC rail projects are impeded by this advance. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-01 Source of Funds: Federal Section 5307 nF � Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $ 588,000 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 12/27/00 000030 Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Issue Paper The alignment roughly follows the Riverside Freeway (SR91) through Riverside County to Fullerton in Orange County where it continues northwest to downtown Los Angeles. Existing stations that would serve this Line include Riverside -Downtown, Riverside -La Sierra, West Corona, Fullerton, Norwalk, Commerce, and Los Angeles Union Station. Future stations that could serve this Line include Van Buren, North Main Corona, in Riverside County, and Buena Park in Orange County. Planning at Metrolink is now underway for the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles service. Some of the significant issues associated with this service are as follows: • The Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles route was included in the original system plan for Metrolink, adopted in 1990. This system plan is referred to as the "Senate Bill 1402 Plan". • Based upon the 1402 Plan, all Metrolink agencies undertook major capital investments. For its part, among other investments, RCTC purchased passenger train operating rights from the Santa Fe Railway on the tracks through Fullerton. In addition RCTC purchased two trains to be used on the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles line; The two trains RCTC purchased pursuant to the 1402 Plan have since been re- distributed (with no cost reimbursement to RCTC) throughout the Metrolink system. Some of these cars have undoubtedly and appropriately ended up on the Orange County line. In a recent letter to OCTA and ROTC, Metrolink acknowledges that the new cars currently on order and scheduled for delivery over the next few months are available for the new service; • In an effort to accelerate the implementation of the Inland Empire Orange County (IE0C) line, OCTA and RCTC entered into two agreements dated Novemberl 992 and July1996.. These agreements permitted the more rapid development of the IE0C line by adding more trains while at the same time removing the absolute obligation for OCTA to fund the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles service. Nevertheless these agreements left in place the following statement in Paragraph 4: "OCTA and RCTC each agree to cooperate with each other in developing and implementing Oceanside-LAUPT service, Riverside- LAUPT service and Riverside -Irvine service, and each agrees to use its best efforts to support and expand such services, including, without limitation, transit integration programs." • From humble beginnings, the IE0C service has exploded during the past year with a 50% gain in ridership, year-to-year. This growth has been aided in part by OCTA's earlier agreement to add more train service on this line. We at RCTC also think that much of the credit for this unprecedented growth during the year 2000 is due to RCTC's decision to fund 100% of the net costs of a new midday train on that route in November of 1999. We are as confident that a similar service on the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles route will achieve similar results. • Because of the surge in ridership on the IEOC line, RCTC has embarked on a $16 million dollar expansion program. We are building two new stations and adding almost 900 additional parking spaces. These improvements will be in place in early 2002. These projects will also benefit the Riverside -Fullerton -Los • 000031 Angeles service. In fact, no new stations or track work is required to implement the new service. • Previous ridership estimates conducted on this route in 1995 forecast an initial range of daily one way trips of 1,032-1,616 depending upon the number of trains and whether Buena Park Station was in service. At a similar pre -service stage on the IEOC route the ROTC ridership study forecast approximately 1,200 daily one way trips. We have greatly exceeded that IEOC estimate and have every confidence that we will have the same experience on this new route. • The Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles service will also benefit the Orange County line. Seven Orange County line trains currently travel north through Fullerton during the morning peak period. The new service will add 2 or 3 more schedule choices, undoubtedly increasing the attractiveness of Fullerton, and eventually Buena Park and Yorba Linda, for residents who are commuting to Los Angeles. • Finally, the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles line will be a ridership anchor for OCTA's Centerline light rail line at Fullerton. Each will be synergistic with the other, strengthening both. Ridership modeling for the Centerline suggests that a significant percentage of riders will be comprised of Riverside County residents commuting to Orange County for jobs. • Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles service is included in OCTA's long-range transportation plan. The service is also assumed in every relevant regional transportation plan and necessary for enhanced mobility and air quality improvements. "VIA FULLERTON" ROUTE t`F ca G°to �� tibc c Qa 4c .5J a Rift \ae� Jo fey° �` ,ate Oot� <40(cc a� i`.(‘ c,`et 6Q �a Atwood Junction Train Routes to Los Angeles • Stations Served on Routes to Los Angeles • Future Stations RCTC and OCTA have been urgently addressing the major congestion issues 00003'; will nue to uss he tions associated with the 91 Freeway. We The railtioption �ancalsotmake various s gnf cant available to us on the highway side. contribution and serves as a relatively easy step to bring demonstrable relief to our commuters. While we are awaiting the provisional cost estimates from Metrolink for this new service it is clear that the most likely operating costs will still be several magnitudes cheaper than any of the eventual highwaye urgency capital oof�our transportatits. We are also on nsitive to the cost of transportation solutions yet forward. Lamentably, our highway compels us to push this long -delayed project quick -fixes often stretch into years even before the groundbreaking. The rail oon ption has the enviable characteristic that it can be implemented very q y as as May of 2002. 000033, PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2000/01 URBANIZED AREA: BUS APPORTIONMENT: RAIL APPORTIONMENT: CARRYOVER FUNDS -BUS: CARRYOVER FUNDS -RAIL: TRANSFER FUNDS -BUS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -BUS: TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -RAIL: RIVERSIDE - SAN BERNARDINO $4,465,893 $3,785,814 $2,190,465 $9,622,057 $0 $6,985,465 $13,407,871 RECIPIENTS: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY CITY OF CORONA CITY OF RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP. COMM. PROGRAM OF PROJECTS: (1) CITY OF CORONA -PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE (2) CITY OF CORONA - 3 REPLACEMENT VANS 3) CITY OF CORONA - NEW FACILITY CONSTR. 4) CITY OF RIVERSIDE - 5 REPLACEMENT VANS (5) RTA - 10 REPLACEMENT & 2 EXPANSION TRANSIT COACHES (6) RTA - DEBT FINANCING FOR 57 TRANSIT COACHES (7) RTA - 20 DAR VANS (10R, 10E) (8) RTA - BUS STOP AMENITIES 9) RTA - OFFICE ITS HARDWARE & SOFTWARE 10) RTA - 8 SERVICE SUPPORT VEHICLES (2R,6E) 11) RTA - DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FOR 10 TRANSIT COACHES (12) RCTC TIER II COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS • (14) RCTC COMMUTER RAIL CARS TOTAL PROGRAMMED BALANCE AVAILABLE -BUS BALANCE AVAILABLE -RAIL SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS TOTAL AMOUNT $792,000 $180,000 $250,000 $250,000 $4,380,000 $619,000 $1,200,000 .$100,000 $1,000,000 $208,000 $379,000 $15,750,000 $15,000,000 $25,108,000 $5,226,000 $379,400 $207,500 $3,000,000 FEDERAL SHARE $149,400 $200,000 $207,500 $2,504,000 $495,000 $960,000 $80,000 $800,000 $84,000 $303,000 $3,000,000 $588,000 59,400,900 51,172,565 59,819,871 PROJECT DESIGNATED TYPE RECIPIENT SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG C SCAG Approved by RCTC: July 12, 2000 Amended by RCTC: Sept. 13, 2000 Amended by RCTC: * NOTE: Projecl increased by $3,000,000 in Federal Funds and included $6,000,000 programmed in FY _ 1999 00. 000031 GOTH Cfin flr.e T ;•. - ""1.1D1417 Feeling Lucky? SAN,'. MANUEL IYIt ti ere eYl..en, ;titW Fund feud may stall Fullerton Vain route Orange County says its share of a commuter line is too much. Riverside County disagrees. By Laurie Koeh Thrower T . ersaa.E ten rrae Riverside and Orange counties, already at odds over the Highway 91 toll lanes, now are wrangling over how much they will pay for a new train route from Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton. Orange County says it's being asked to pay too much Riverside County disagrees. And the Metrolink commuter train — and the people who would use it — are caught in the middle. 'Orange County and Riverside County realty need to work this out between themselves,' said Francisco Oaxaca, Metrolink spokesman. 'Until they Co, were kind of in a holding pattem " Riverside County is pressing for the new route, which would make it easier for Riverside County commuters to reach Fullerton. Currentty, riders traveling to Fullerton have to get there via other stops in Orange County or through Los Angeles, Oaxaca said. Orange County is balking at paying its calculated share of the roughly 56 million to $8 million total annual cost for the route. with funds also coming from Metrolink and the two other counties the route would serve — Riverside and Los Angeles. George Urch. spokesman for the Orange County Transportation Commission, said agency officials aren't sure the route is a good deal for them. Urch said most of the nders would be from Riverside and San Bernardino counties. wwv, inlandemptreonline.cominewsistories/O1 1101/train.shtml ■ yy '4o SS' tnfelir hr- .. tur Thum*, January 11.2001 Eep.,r: Imagines s Paeertuf Norm hes mien germs Lawn prlogef r imp snaggy Dates urged ▪ glean a..t7..240. cat 'ti Y' 1221221311-221Itt age >•r7eteakets week King's berth a Famed lout, MY sBil1 Fulienon riretrlanii aerrer0 amino* its tilegliew tar dosing *war sees stet* costs 1$ MIMILI B ', Now Mee school less Mang 3 t1 are! sucx3aa5 +Merely Phan swimmers add /manna ' essrr rif a Youth vetrdi's pra wee r v ff-lTwn star accused of affair tern s atyw sought ler aiiesteonrna rn *nth of lenereeie %rrvrrsn Uhrwerarnr wage wrest 3rd 'mimeo m rhre sham on 2 tn ww g lot FAA pees March in line for erns Aifnoritree steak lads in Leer t lore holdup ' deewried boys lather mar r (ear rirennirwes like power s taw water &waters begrn xi Oinks wawsl *Deers hope to Save ins I; ose unit fast en Omni "lierneta trussontes owner asa iewel 3' %kill Creek waaae lass some o...krprneert lee ornpoieed in 1rw,rcrrr, * Vilertrichme nroi.rf aim thiminiStE perm sorra meetly will be a 1 B+rerh Tv Tot tweed horn Mumma aura eee+'�rslg. beeatnes unaeoed bensrt.in• Gov. Dees willnins on the unvnowrn ' Came Mtstagtfff Counwrl ewes Wirt Penman cent OF won't Check it out! * Sarecial aeries: Mother of 000035 http //w -w., a wore in't pet a k* tie booty for ear buck. k Orange County • + re . Wen said. That kind of rem is short-sighted, said Riverside Cody Transportation Co sign spokesman John Standliford. The route would connect nicety with tinge County's pinned -roil stop and would make tt easier for north Orange County residents to ride the tram to Las Angeles, he said. 'From our standpoint. it's a win -win situation for everybody, Orange County included,' Standiford said. The new Fullerton route would run on existing tracks and parallel Highway 91, Oaxaca said. • Metrolink is antiei g that the route, to start in late 2002 �pufar will be scheduMed . Riverside County, trarrsoorta#ion officials, eager to get the new route going, the Wednesday leasttso e emporarily, in the negatiaffons by refusing, efusm at to spend 52.5 million to help buy new train cars for MetroLink. "We want to make sure the route . . . does, indeed, happen," Standiford said. Riverside County's ploy won't have any immediate effect though. because Metroirnk officials decided to delay purchasing the cars when they realized they need mom locomotives to power them, Oaxaca said. Laune Koch Thrower can be reached by rthrowertIDrr_corn or by phone et (909) 248-6130.t P+bisneo 1/11/1001 ilmhat %m alcuanima om seamy awe ankrin + wdis Ma�rkat�pla,ce l'ISELEgmu Take houss.ourywo %Da new i. !burasaws web wa is itsumbui r mom, a 'rrs*w'i Frogs arse Scria Sono comments to t*+va*ea isnoarnonooraino:nom {c) 2000 Tile .!!!!_ hie Co s Read our Pr+vt�, pow []ea+4rrc and r,aaaad by ef.xitt Comments to *edam,* meney* rr*vnlrr►*.eorr+ xi I i ne.com/news/star t es/011101/trai n.shtml 000036 1/11/01 ;tiMeS cOM. I I ►�,,,.. I as.e t � L -.t l �w.�.. t f,.r■rre � .. ,rcr-n.-:v i3s, 'S• .. i. me .xviww.wa..M•. '. ... _, Saturday, January 13, 2001 Orange County Edition Section: Metro . Pace. B-1 As O.C. Balks, Riverside Rail Proposal in Peril By MONTE MORTN • TIMES STAFF. WRITER A funding dispute between Orange and Riverside counties is threatening to doom a long-awaited commuter rail line that could provide relief to thousands of commuters who ply the clogged Riverside Freeway. The proposed rail line, which was mapped out more than 10 years ago and has since languished, would run from Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton. Although Riverside transportation officials and commuters desire the rail connection. Orange County officials are balking at the expense. Orange County officials believe the line would primarily benefit Riverside residents and that Orange County would get little in return for its share of the operation expense. estimated at $6 million to $8 million a year. Riverside officials sa\ their counterparts are mistaken, that the rail line will pay heavy dividends in the future by connecting Riverside residents with a light rail line planned to travel through the heart of Orange County's business and tounsm districts. Metroiink officials are now asking the counties to come to a decision so the expense can be budgeted for a 2002 start date. If Orange County refuses to pay its share —roughly $1.8 million to $2.4 million a year —the route would likely be derailed "We re in a holding pattern at this point." said Francisco Oaxaca, Metrolink spokesman "If Orange County decided that it won't pay, it would be up to Los Angeles and Riverside counties to snake up the difference. That would be unprecedented " The proposed route would use existing train tracks that parallel the Riverside Freeway The route would greatly benefit Riverside County train riders. who currently have to choose between two messy and sometimes sluggish routes. One route —the Riverside Line —runs through San Bernardino County and is slowed b\ competing freight train traffic. Delays along the Riverside Line occur 40% of Imp ii‘v-w‘k latimes comicui-bin/slwebcli?DBLIST=ItOI&DOCNUM=3294&DBPUB=200101. 000037 the time and trains sometimes run as much as 90 minutes behind schedule, according to Metrolink. The second option for Riverside -area residents is to take Metrolink to Orange, then board a second train to Los Angeles. Problems can occur during this transition as well, rail officials say. Riverside officials contend the new line would help uncork traffic along the Riverside Freeway —the bristling conduit linking Riverside County residents and Orange County employers "It certainly wouldn't solve problems on the freeway, but it does help some people.," said John Standiford, spokesman for the Riverside County Transportation Commission. But many officials at the Orange County Transportation Authority remain unswayed )Basically. Riverside wants to use our money to help with their commute," said George Urch, OCTA spokesman. "If we had tons of money that wouldn't be a problem We only have a finite amount, though, and we need to use it to look out for Orange County's interests." Orange County commuters are already served by N.letroiinl;"s Orange County Line. which runs north from Oceanside to Los r -fli eles and stops in Fullerton. OCTA ofFictais have also faulted their Riverside counterparts for failing to offer exact fiuures for the expense of the line. Riverside officials say, in turn. that they are v.aulnc for Metrolink to provide those numbers "\N e re still waiting to get numbers," Urch said. "We're perfectly willing w sit down and tail: to them when they do, but I can't sav we're going to be entnuSIastic " (BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC) Direct to L.A \letroiink is proposing a direct f iverside to Los Angeles route through Fullerton Commuters from West Riverside and Corona currently must endure lengthy delays rravel i n+, through San Bernardino or be routed through Orange to Los .Anteies Vie[ to downtown GRAPHIC Direct to L A.. Los Angeles Times Deescr, ptors Riverside County - smutrn� Li=• Tran °nation, Orange County - Trar orZatlon, ht Raii S stems, ran a Coun - Flnance� :oovnor 2001 Lot, AnctereS ITV' w, DU De reeroCcexm or revsnommoo vo*nout Demotion Sze— ►r ,___t_z2 you nave a auesion about tour or maaepe orameckcaztazmasumoma rots hove carer ouesDve: o.eer .,r.,,,.�,�_+,�r.,�I,.,P►.,-t��nRr rc-r�lt(11JQr 000033 nnrNl IM=.1gaR,nRPI fR="nnln 1/16101 AGENDA ITEM 6K RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: TO: February 14, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Approval of Caltrans' Program Supplemental Agreement No. M008 for the Pedley Metrolink Station Platform Extension BUD GET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval of: 1) Program Supplement No. M008 for the Extension of the Existing Emergency Platform at the Pedley Metrolink Station; 2) Amendment #1 to Contract RO 952 for PB Farradyne to develop a he Emergency Platform at the Ped ey Final PS&E for the extens on of Metrolink Commuter Rail Station for $62,000 plus a contingency amount of $10,000 (16.1% - to cover potential changes encountered during design) for a total contract amount not to exceed $72,000; 3) Authorize the Chairperson to sign the Program Supplement and Amendment, subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION RCTC's existing Pedley Metrolink Station was constructed with an emergency platform between the two sets of Union Pacific Tracks. The emergency platform was intended to be used during situations where Metrolink passengers need to disembark from the set of tracks furthest away from the Station's Platform. The existing emergency platform is only 194 feet long. This length will not easily accommodate Metrolink Passenger trains over three (3) cars in length. Currently, Metrolink Trains longer than three (3) cars in length must first stop and unload passengers from the first set of cars and then pull forward to unload the remaining cars. This has resulted in impacts to the freight traffic on this rail line. By extending the emergency platform to match the length of the Metrolink Trains, up to six (6) cars in length, will minimize the delays to unload passengers when the emergency platform must be used. 000039 Staff has developed a scope of work and construction cost estimate to extend the existing emergency platform approximately 316 ft. The following is a summary of that estimate: Final PS&E Design Estimated Construction Cost Total Estimated Cost $ 50,000 to $ 60,000 $210,000 to $240,000 $260,000 to $300,000 In December of 1999, the Commission awarded Contract No. RO-9952 to PB Farradyne, Inc., to perform a Phase I Communications Study. The purpose of this Phase I Study, was to develop the most cost effective means to provide a CCTV Security System at the Pedley Metrolink Station and propose the means to connect the Pedley CCTV Security System to the Main Security System located at the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station. When PB Farradyne was selected, their selection was initially based upon their qualifications to perform the Communication Study and the Final PS&E for the Communication/Security System to be constructed. PB Farradyne also has suitable qualifications for the extension of the emergency platform. With this in mind, the most cost effective method for RCTC to provide for the Final PS&E Design for the platform extension is to have PB Farradyne perform the work under the existing contract. Staff requested that PB Farradyne provide a cost estimate for the scope of work developed by RCTC, for Final Engineering PS&E Design, for the extension of the emergency platform. Staff will use RCTC's scope and cost of services along with PB Farradyne's scope and cost- of services to negotiate an Amendment to PB Farradyne's Contract for PB Farradyne to perform Final PS&E Design for the emergency platform extension. PB Farradyne provided their cost estimate to perform the Final Engineering PS&E Design which totaled $62,000. The source of funds for this project are from CMAQ and Local Measure "A". Program Supplemental Agreements are required so that RCTC can be reimbursed for the expenditures of Commission funds on the federally funded projects. The attached Program Supplemental Agreement No. M008 is for the PS&E Design of the platform extension. Per the attached supplement, Federal Funds are provided in the amount of $50,000, which require that local matching funds in the amount of $6,479 be provided by the local agency, for a total design budget of $56,479. The Local Assistance Representative recommended that this Program Supplement be signed off at this time and the amount will be amended at a later date to cover the total design costs. In addition, at that time, RCTC will request that the local matching funds be waived due to the expenditures of local monies for the original construction of the station. 0000 40 In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01 Source of Funds: STP GLA No. 222 33 81102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $72,000.00 Budget Adjustment: N Date: 1-17-01 000041 PROGRAM NOFFLINENT NO. moos to ADNI1QISTZRZOG -BTATZ AORENNENT FOR FZDERAL-AID PROJECTS NO. 08-6054 Date :November 30, 2000 Location :08-RIV-O-RCTC 'raj act fir: STPL-6054(022) E.A. limber 208-924545 Th� - rogtam Supplement is hereby incorporated into the Agency -State Agreement for Federal Aid which was entered into between the Agency and the State an 06/03/97 and is subject to all the teems and conditions thereof. This Program Supplement is adopted in accordance with Article 1 of the aforementioned Master Agreement under authority of Resolution No. approved by the Agency on - (See copy attached). The Agency further stipulates that as a condition to payment of funds obligated to this project, it accepts and will comply with the covenants or remarks setforth on the following pages. PROJECT LOCATION: • IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY AT PEDLEY STATION TYPE of WORE: CONSTRUCT PLATFORM PROJECT CLASSIFICATION OR PRASE(S) OF WORE [X] Prelinunary Engineering [ ] Construction Engineering By Date Attest Title [ ] Right -Of -Way RIV,..<SIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION [ ] Construction LOCAL $6,479.00 LENGTH: 0(KILNS) 50.00 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation By Chief, Office of Local Programs Project Implementation Data hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds arm available for this encumbrance: Accounting Offic Chapter I Statutes Item Date /•3 v'v✓ Year 52 2000 2660-101-890 2000-2 Progrram / BC Category 20.30.010.810 C 262040 892-F Fund Source S50,000.00 50,000.00 Program Supplement 08-6054 -MO 08- ISTMA Page 1 of 2 000042 STPL-6054(022) 1. SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS The Local Agency agrees the payment of Federal funds will be limited to the amounts approved by Administration in the Federal -Aid Projthect Agreement (P�t=2)%Detail deral HighwayEstimate, or its modification (PR -2A) or any increases in Local the F1►1M-i6, and accepts End Letter or its modification odif ati Age as ncy Funds b on the Finance or Programs Project �1 by Office of Local Implementation. 2. This Program Supplement will be revised at a later date to include other phases of work. 3. The Local Agency will advertise, award and a project in accordance with the current minister this Procedures Manual. Local Assistance 4. All maintenance, involving the physical condition and the operation of the improvements MAINTENANCE of r'ef'erred to in Article III the aforementioned Master Agreement will be the responsibility of the. Local Agency and shall be performed at regular intervals or as required for efficient operation of the completed improvements. 5. The Local Agency will reimburse the State for costs for work requested to be thetr share of performed by the State. Program Supplamaat 08-6054-M008- ISIS Page 2 of 2 000043 PEDLEY EMERGENCY PLATFORM EXTENSION SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. SCOPE The Consultant £hall prepare a set of design drawings for use in the bid and construction for the Pedley Commuter Rail Station, Emergency Platform Extension. The consultant scope of services, contained herein, covers the preparation of Civil, Structural and Electrical plans. The Civil Design will cover the layout of extending the existing rail passenger platform, between the mainline tracks and siding. The platform will be extended approximately -300 feet. The Civil design will include the preparation of Civil Site plan layout and details for the platform extension. The plans will include Platform level plans and details showing all station elements; Ong and Drainage details; Utility relocations; ramp plans and details; railing plans, elevations and details may be required; Pre -cast concrete platforn edge pavers details; signs location and installation detail; The Structural Design will include the preparation of design drawings covering all plan layout and details of the platform extension (assumed to be a slab on grade system), including all necessary details required for cor+stru. tion. The Electrical IN%ign will cover the installation of new lighting fixtures, relocation and retermination of some electrical conduits, wirings and conduit runs necessary for the additional lighting requirement of the platform extension. Electrical plans will provide the necessary wiring diagrams, schedules and details for the lighting installations. Design Submittals Two submittals will be prepared, one at approximately 60% and one final at 100%. The tntenm submittal of the Design Plans will be reviewed by the client who will provide design review comments within 10 working days after submission. The Consultant will compile and coordinate design review comments from three reviewing third parties (SCRRA. UPRR, and Riverside County), and will make selected design changes based on the design review comments received from not more than two reviewers at each of the reviewing third parties. It is understood that the Commission will provide the names and mailing addresses of the reviewers at each of the three reviewing third parties. The Consultant will provide Technical Specifications based on red -lining the existing Pedley Station Technical Specifications or other baselined Technical Specifications provided by the Cornmission and acceptable to the Consultant. It is understood that the Commission will provide the Technical Specifications in a suitable electronic format for use by the Consultant. '00004.1 Quality Assurance and Qum Control The PB Standard Quality Control and Quality Assurance ro project, A quality assurance and control P ,gram will be utilized for the of the design plar�s in this co � will be implemented for the preparation that design packages are checked procedures will be implemented ensuring necked before submittals. 2. ASSUMPTIONS The Consultant Scope of Services has included the following assumptions.with r the preparation of the design plans: expect to • New Geotechnical Investigations will not be • Record Survey or �1'+�'ed` special right-of-way (Fee simple, etc.) documents will not be required, • • Our scope does include any design of Utility relocations. • No Systems work is anticipated for this projects including Sig Si , etc Coffisnu ca: ions (PA, CCTV, etc.), SCADAy • . This contract does not include the preparaton of an _, spreparation of Bid Docuanents or any other items not listed in thcer.�sco estimate • No Coordination with Capra is provided form this proposal. • The Consultant Scope of Services does not include the traditional design services during construction, including Re quest for Information (RFT), Shop Drawing Review, Field Requested Changes (FRC), etc. However, it is suggested that 10 hours of Consultant services be provided to answer requests by phone during 11 • Design drawings will be developed P using CARD Microstation SE. 3. SCHEDULE, COST AND DELIVERABLES Schedule: The scope of services, defined herein, will be completed within 3 months after Notice to Proceed. Cost: See attached Spread Sheet. Deliverables: Two submittals: A 60% and a 100%. 000045 PEDLEY EMERGENCY PLATFORM DTENSION QRAWINGS UST AND HOURS title Engineering CARD General, Civil, Utility & Electrical Notes 30 40 118" Exist. Condition & Demo Plan Sheet 1 15 15 1/8" Exist. Condition & Demo Plan Sheet 2 15 15 1/8" Civil & Utility Plan Sheet 1 15 15 1/8" Civil & Utility Plan Sheet 2 15 15 3/8' Civil & Utility detail Sheet 1 15 15 3/8" Civil & Utility Detail Sheet 2 15 15 3/8' Structural Details & Notes 24 26 1/8" Lighting & Electrical Plan Sheet 1 20 20 1/8" Lighting & Electrical Plan Sheet 2 20 20 3/8" Lighting & Electrical Details Sheet 1 20 20 3/8" Lighting & Electrical Details Sheet 2 20 20 Subtotal 224 236 TOTAL 460 000046 PEDLEY EMERGENCY PLATFORM EXTENSION Classification 1.0 gamiest Monaa.melt 1.1 Project Manager 1.2 Engineering Manager 1.3 Project Administrator 14 Support 2.0 2.1 QA/QC Manager 3.0 Struct lr�l aaj 3 1 Sr Structural Engineer 3 2 CADD 4 01Civil 4 1; Sr Civil Engineer 4 21 CADC 5 0lElectriical 11 Sr Electrical Engineer 5 21 CADD 6 01 Sub -total 6 1 I Overhead 6 2ITotal 0lOther Direct Costs 1 �I_c;,a. Travel/Ped=_/,/Phone calls ' 2IDrawing Sets OiFixe,d Fee 9 01 Total Pedley Platform Extension 32 8 8 14 37.86 64.62 21.68 20.52 6 i 42.81 32 26 136 130 88 80 54.30 29.00 51.92 29.00 44.45 29.00 Total 1,737.60 754.00 7,061.12 3,770.00 3,911.60 2,320.00 22.000.38 Total 22,000 33,661 55,661 450 300 5,589 000047 1/12/0112:49 PM AGENDA ITEM 6L RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. RO-2128 to STV Incorporated for the Development Phase I Engineering Services Related to the San Jacinto Branch Line BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Award Amendment #1 to Contract No. RO-2128 to provide additional photographing and mapping to support property management activities related to the San Jacinto Branch Line between the cities of Perris and San Jacinto for a base amount of $40,636. With additional extra work of $5,000. This additional cost will bring STV's total authorized contract value to $206,823 and total extra work value to $21,613 for a total not to exceed value of $228,436; and, 2) Authorize the Chairman, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, to execute the Contract on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the January 10, 2001 meeting, the Commission approved contract No. RO-2128 with STV Incorporated for a base contract amount of $166,187. The scope of work for this contract is to perform preliminary engineering that will result in improvements to the San Jacinto Branchline that will result in a new commuter connection between the limits of Downtown Riverside and the City of Perris. RCTC also has current ongoing property management issues that effect the entire length of the San Jacinto Branchline. Staff is of the opinion that it will be cost effective to have the entire length of the line flown and mapped at the same time. The photography and mapping will be a significant management aid to staff while working through issues related to the rail line. STV has estimated that the cost of flying and mapping the segment of the line 000048 between Perris and San Jacinto will be $40,636. Amendment #1 to the STV contract will bring STV's total not to exceed contract value to $206,823. Staff suggests that an additional extra work amount of $5,000 be established to address any unforseen issues that must be addressed to complete the task. The extra work will be authorized by the Executive Director. The amendment language will be drafted by RCTC Legal Counsel. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2000-01 Source of Funds: Measure A GLA 222 33 81102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $45.636 Budget Adjustment: Y Date: 1-17-01 000040 STV Incorporated 1 c!5S Weil Seventh Sweet. Solis 3110 Los An0*t.s, C•1'tornr.00ffs7.gsvr 6213)4!2>a•ss tas.12 t3)412-3273 January 16.2001 NI:. Gustavo Quintero Protect Coordinator Bechtel Infrastructure Group 3566 j.iziverstry Ave.. State 100 Fiversiae. CA 92501 • RE• ?hase I -Project Development for ETA Submittal; Amendment No. 1 Dear Gustave: The STV Team is pleased to submit for your approval Amendment No. 1 to our Phase i dsu:-:ate and Scope of Work. We estimate the cost of this amendment to be S40.636.00. Thi; amendment will cover the cost (see attached) associated withinzreasirig the include the area aerial pnotc,grapn‘ and mapping, Initially proposed in our Phase I scope to from :Perri, tc San Jacinto. Please note the brief explanation by our subcontractor (PSOMAS) eurlirung additional cost of services as a result additional control survey work and increased cost for LIDAR technology in year 2001. pieasc centac: me if you have any quesuons pertaining to the above information S:r.cerek S jam' Incorporated Richard D Walker Proeect Manager Attachments- Amendment No. 1. estimate of cost. RCTC Sae Jacinto Branchline cc. D. Borger 7. !.raft D Baer c. r, . n•• s A• e h j t• c t s; Pie n n• • s /Construe : 4 c n M s r; s p• r s 0;0:0,0 5 0 STV Incorporated Mr. Gustavo Quintero December 18. 200(1 Page B. Clarke B. Cardenas (file) 00'0051 Cost Estimate - Work Sheet - Phase 1- RCTC Am endme nt No.1 1 1 11 1 T otal Hears L —In -7 e 0 , • Q 0 °- Avg LMerRaleA it ' $159 5159 1 *109 fliti159 , _$50 Total Lab or Coat. 1 S0 0 I 5u — 30 ?Mal Direct Lab or: MaPPIN . Travel Reproduction. S Mileage. =0 3% s bii 51,104 Postage: $ SF Travel 50 ahe r 5 Total Pha se 1: - 840,03 Phase 1 eel .,I ssdlnen. no 1 est 10 $39,452 30 UU16R0014 55 r'M ft el more ow, r •1I .I0. Mw,erein o 5 SIV (7r. it_ I(1_r06_ 2utrl wt; s To L oIxx - 316.702 .00 Psomos Estimat e f or San J acinto Br anch Line, Surv eying and Mappi ng 16 -Jan -01 WORK ORfAkDOWN SIRUCII -H SURVEY CREW twos) OF SCRIP1!ON IWO MAN $178.00 I. 0 C ontrol Surveys 2. r 4PPIn$ 3. 0 Design Surve ys Other Dire ct Costs: GPS. 3 -Trimble rece ivers Mopping / MAR PROFESSI ONAL . I ECHIMIICAt PR OJECI SURVLYOR S105.00 375 Per Dcry/recefv SURVEY IE CNNICWV $85.00 PROJE CT MANA GER S135.00 2 Doys TOTAL MAN TO retE HOURS MUMS 307 .00 6 1610.00 ? M —000 Tot al Estim ate 122 16.702.00 3750 .00 S22.000.03 S39.452.06 Pogo n o. 1 PS OMAS Date: 1116/01 Time: 16:36 31$7 Red BM Avarua. Some 250Casu Mesa. CA 92626714-731:7373 Fa'714.545-$$13 To: Rich Walker STV Group Fax #: (213) 4E2-5278 Office 1: (213) 236-2553 Abject Revised Estimate Comments: Ruch, From: $iii LIMED Pages: 2 Job #t` proposal Here is a cost for Ammendmeat 1 Mapping. Please not that the costs are increased due to following: 1. Mapping costs have slight increase of 52000 due Do tnereaae m BAR. 2. Connol costs are higher in this areas. The first arta covers mapping through March Air Force Base which We have recent mapping and conaroL That was a reason that we were able to reduce cost cm that estimate. For this new area we need to tie into Riverside which increases OUT Costs. Regards 1 If you have any questions concerntng this idecopy, please contact Karl Lauren at 714-751-7373. r}- 000054 AGENDA ITEM 6M RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager Eric Haley, Executive Director 2001/02 Beach Train Season PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE & STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval for the 2001/02 Beach Train Program, including the commitment to underwrite costs of service beyond fare revenues at a not to exceed cost of $35,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Developed and administered by RCTC in 1996, the Beach Train is a popular program designed to maximize opportunities for public use of the commuter rail system in Riverside County. The seasonal trains operate on various weekends between the months of June and October and provide thousands of Riverside County residents a stress -free alternative to freeway congestion. The popularity of the program continued through the 2000 season. Trains departed from Rialto, San Bernardino, Riverside, La Sierra, and West Corona Metrolink stations headed for San Juan Capistrano, North Beach, San Clemente, and Oceanside. The 29 train season over 17 dates between June and October resulted in over 9,900 passengers. Total patronage over the last five years exceeds 39,900 passengers (over 79,800 one-way trips). Not all costs for the 2000 season are confirmed as yet, but it appears that the 2000 season will result in a subsidy of approximately $1.52 per trip or $30,120. Once the costs are finalized, a detailed report will be provided to the Committee and forwarded to the Commission. As the planning process begins for the sixth season, the goal is to build upon the success of prior years by developing a plan to create a self-sustaining program not requiring public subsidy. In order to plan for appropriate staffing and budget resources at Metrolink, and to provide the necessary lead time for promotion, the Commission is asked to decide at 00005 this time if it wishes to proceed with scheduling Beach Trains next summer. Staff is working with Metrolink to determine a per train cost cap in order to accurately set fares and service levels with a continued goal of the program meeting a break-even point. Though several logistical matters are yet to be determined, staff is confident in recommending a continuation of the program in 2001 and assuming direction to proceed for 2001, staff will report back on detailed operating and budget assumptions. 000050 AGENDA ITEM 6N RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Rail Program Update PLANS AND PROGRAMS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Riverside Line Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of December averaged 4,341, a decrease of 7% from the month of November, however the Line has averaged an increase of 11% from a year ago (December 1999). The decrease from the month of November is typical for the holiday season ridership. Saturday Patronage: For the first time since the implementation of the two round -trips in June 2000, the on -time performance for the Saturday service reached 100% during the month of December. Poor operating times, on -time performance, and lack of mark-eting have affected the ridership on this new service (high = 456 trips, low = 133 trips) over the last six months. On February 10th, the operating times will substantially change and the long-awaited downtown Pomona station will be open. These events coupled with a targeted marketing approach by SCRRA will help to increase ridership. Inland Empire - Orange County Line Weekday Patronage: Ridership on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line for the month of December averaged 2,697, a 5% decrease from the month of November due to the holiday season. However, this Line continues to grow averaging a 57% increase from December 99 to December 00. Increased ridership on this Line is due to the increase in gas prices, the addition of the mid -day train, marketing efforts, and increasing congestion on the 91 Freeway. Unfortunately, this increase in ridership has resulted in an overflow of parking at the La Sierra Station in the City of Riverside (see Special Promotions below). Special Promotions Corona Utility Stuffer: The City of Corona partnered with RCTC to promote the 1EOC 000057 Line as an alternative to driving on the 91 Freeway. RCTC received over 1,050 responses to our utility stuffer promotion. The promotion, which officially ended October 31, required Corona residents to mail in a coupon to receive a ticket which allows four free trips on the IEOC Line within a 60 -day period. The attached analysis summarizes the results of the successful mailing. La Sierra Parking Mitigation: The tremendous growth of the IEOC line during the past year has resulted in an overflow of parking at the La Sierra Station. RCTC leases .the current property from the Riverside Community College District (RCCD) which yields 350 parking spaces. The RCCD also owns the adjacent vacant property however they are not interested in RCTC expanding the parking lot due to their own pending development plans. Therefore, a number of short-term strategies have been implemented and are planned to address the parking constraints over the next 18 months: 1) November 15, 2000: Staff added an additional security guard to patrol the parking lot to enforce that the lot is used for Metrolink train riders and not a park and ride lot. The security guard identified 23 vehicles that were using the lot as a Park and Ride facility. Park and Ride users are directed to use nearby designated Park and Ride facilities; 2) December 24, 2000: RTA re -directed its fixed route bus No. 15 to serve the La Sierra Station. RTA staff expects this route to serve at least 25 riders. RTA and RCTC are actively promoting the new route to the riders; 3) January/February 2001: RCTC is exploring other parking mitigation programs such as a Metrolink carpool parking program that would guarantee riders a parking space if they carpooled to the train station. In addition, the RTA Board last month approved the use of a shuttle to assist in alleviating the parking _problem. Staff is working with a bowling alley located near the station to allow for overflow parking and riders to be shuttled by RTA to the station. The long-term strategy to address the parking problem is the construction of the Van Buren Station. Given the location of this new station and recent survey data, at least 30% of the current riders at the La Sierra Station would use the Van Buren Station. The Station is currently under design and its estimated completion date is February 2002. SpeciaP Trains IEOC Midday Train: The December 2000 average weekday trips of 2,697 on the IEOC Line continue to surpass the ridership performance target of 2,264. The demonstration period for the midday train began November 1999 and ends March 2001. These ridership numbers need to be sustained for the next 3 months in order for the Midday service to be included in the regular Metrolink budget for FY2001 /02. 000058 ANALYSIS of CORONA UTILITY MAILING There were 1,053 responses/requests for free train tickets. As expected, 98% came from Corona residents. The remaining responses were scattered from other cities such as Riverside, Anaheim, Ontario, Trabuco Canyon, etc. possibly indicating that Corona residents shared their ticket request mailer with friends or family. Respondents were asked to provide their work address to assess the likelihood of the individual being a rail commuter candidate. Responses have been assigned to one of four "categories" A. DON'T KNOW or NOT LIKELY (38%) — Twenty-seven percent of those requesting tickets did not provide any work address. While it is possible that they are commuters and simply didn't reveal their work address, it is also possible that they do not commute to work at all and requested the offered tickets for pleasure travel only. Another 11% work in Corona, Chino, or Norco and would not take the train to work. NOT A FEASIBLE TRIP (8%) —These responses came from those working in a city for which there is no peak -period commuter rail service (Le. Colton, Riverside, San Bernardino, Temecula) or that is close to another Metrolink line but only reachable with extreme difficulty (Le. Covina, Monterey Park, Pomona, Rancho Cucamonga). WOULD REQUIRE SPECIAL EFFORT (12%) — Travel to work destinations such as (Cerritos, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, non -downtown Los Angeles, Newport Beach, Placentia, Yorba Linda) is in the correct direction of train travel but these cities are at such distance from a destination station that special arrangements would be necessary. While we know that some commuters have found it acceptable to park a car at their destination station or arrange for pick-up from a co-worker, it is highly unlikely that these respondents would become rail commuters. GOOD RAIL COMMUTE CANDIDATES (43%) — Almost 41 % of the responses came from people working a reasonable distance from a station on either the IEOC line or the Orange County Line (must transfer in Orange). The most frequently mentioned destination cities were Anaheim (103), Fullerton (26), Irvine (79), Orange (82), or Santa Ana (72) but less -frequently mentioned work destinations in thirteen other cities are also reachable from these lines. Another 2% of the respondents travel to downtown Los Angeles (20) for work, also reachable by transferring at the Orange station and riding to Union Station. Submitted 1/12/01, Schiermeyer Consulting Services AGENDA ITEM 60 DATE: TO: FROM: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION February 14, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission Budget and Implementation Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award Construction Contract No. RO- 136 for odthe I stallatRotiite on 91 of Landscaping for Sound Wall Nos. 110, 121, BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Award Contract No. RO-2136 for Landscaping of Sound Wall Nos. 110, 121, and 161 on Route 91, to Diversified of $21x243 42 (10%- o cover $218,756.58 plus a contingency amount potential change orders encountered during construction) for a total contract amount not to exceed $240,000.00; 2) Authorize the Chairperson to execute an agreement pursuant to Legal Counsel review. BA CKGRO UND INFORMATION At. the December 2000 RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise for bids for landscaping of Sound Wall Nos. 110, 121, a da161 located along nd Jefferson Street, he North and South sides of Route 91, between Jackson in the City of Riverside. The construction costs for the project were estimated to be in the range from 5200,000 to 8225,000. The project was advertised starting on December 15, 2000. Three(3) bids were received and opened on January 11, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. A summary of the bids are shown below: 000060 1 3 Bid Results for Landscaping Sound Wall No. 110, 121, and 161 Firm - Home Office Diversified Landscaping Co., Winchester, CA E&M Constructors, Co., Sylmar, CA A&B Landscaping, San Diego, CA Engineers Estimate Bid Amount $218,756.58 $247,245.00 $427,600.00 $200,000 to $225,000 The bids were reviewed by Legal Counsel and Bechtel, and all concurred that Diversified Landscape Co.'s low bid was the lowest responsive bid received for project. A summary of the review of the two (2) lowest bids received and the responsiveness of the bids are as follows: e Difference $0 $28,488.42 $208,843.42 Schedule of Prices - Bid Amount (math check) - Bid Item Comparison - w/Eng's Est -•w/other Bidders - Unbalanced Bid Items List of Subcontractors - Prime Performs >50% Bidder Information Forms - Reference Check 000061 f insurance, however, staff is ly *Note: Both bidders did not submit evidence ot currently hasor working with both bidders to obtain and verify that each bidder either can obtain the insurance required prior to award of a construction contract with the Commission for the project. RCTC The following summarizes the costs associated 1 with 161 he construction rthel twof (2)elowest funded Landscape of Sound Wall Nos. 110, responsive bids received: RCTC SOUND WALL No.110 LANDSCAPE COSTS Item No Description Quantity Diversified E&M Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 1 Traffic Control System LS S 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $10,660.00 $ 10,660.00 2 Highway Planting 3 Plant Establishment Work 4 5 Irrigation System Mobilization LS LS LS $11,818.16 $ 11,818.16 $18,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $15,785.05 $ 15,785.05 22,000.00 S 22,000.00 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 6 City Riverside Street Permit Total SW No.110 Landscaping LS $ 200.00 $ 200.00 $ 753.00 $ 753.00 Item No. Description $ 57,803.21 $ 73,413.00 RCTC SOUND WALL No.121 LANDSCAPE COSTS Quantity Diversified E&M Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 1 Traffic Control System LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $8,666.00 $ 8,666.00 2 3 Highway Planting LS $10,300.52 $ 10,300.52 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Plant Establishment Work LS $ 28,000.00 $ 28,000.00 $10,000.00 S 10,000.00 4 Irrigation System 5 Mobilization 6 City Riverside Street Permit LS LS LS $17,567.50 $ 3,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 17,567.50 531,000.00 $ 31,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $8,000.00 S 8,000.00 $ 200.00 Total SW No.121 Landscaping $ 60,068.02 $3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 S 80,666.00 RCTC SOUND WALL No.161 LANDSCAPE COSTS 4l 000062 Item No. Description Traffic Control System Highway Planting Plant Establishment Work Irrigation System Mobilization City Riverside Street Permit Total SW No.161 Landscapin Quantity Diversified Unit Price $ 1,000.00 $17,983.60 $28,000.00 $50,701.75 $ 3,000.00 S 200.00 $9,666.00 $22,000.00 $13,000.00 $95,000.00 Total $ 1,000.00 S 17,983.60 S 28,000.00 $ 50,701.75 S 3,000.00 $ 200.00 $100,885.35 Total $ 9,666.00 S 22,000.00 $ 13,000.00 S 35,000.00 $ 10,000.00 S 3,500.00 $ 93,166.00 Staff and Legal Counsel has completed their review of the three(3) bids received and is recommending that the Committee award Contract No. RO-2136 for Landscaping of Sound Wall No.'s 110, 121, and 161 on Route 91, to Diversified Landscaping Co., for $218,756.58. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Y Year: FY 2_ 000.01 Amount: $240,000 Source of Funds: Measure "A" GLA 222 31 81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Budget Adjustment: N Date: 1-16-01 000063 AGENDA ITEM 6P RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: TO: February 14, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Resolution of Claims Out Contract NoRO 9847 forPhase ISou sf t Construction Contingency to Close Walls on Route 91 Budget and Implementation Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Eric Haley, Executive Director BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Concur with staff's recommendation for Claims resolution to close out Construction Contract No. RO-9847; 2) Authorize the increase of the project construction contingency, by $12,168.83, for Construction Contract No. RO-9847 from $153,514.00 (6%) to $165,682.83 (7%). The new not to exceed value of the contract will be $2,652,168.83 ,BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In June of 1998, the Commission awarded Construction Contract No. RO-9847 to R. Fox Construction, Inc., for construction of the remainder of the Phase I Sound Walls on Route 91, from Van Buren Blvd. to Mary St., in the City of Riverside. The amount of the construction contract was for $2,486,486, with a contingency of $113,514 (5%) to cover potential change orders encountered during construction, for a total not to exceed Contract amount of $2,600,000. During the design of Sound Wall #183A, included as part of Contract No. RO-9847, Caltrans could not tell RCTC the exact extent of their proposed future widening of Route 91. To move forward with construction of the wall, RCTC and Caltrans concurred with a location for the wall. During the time period between the completion of the design and the early stages of construction, RCTC received new direction from Caltrans that the wall would need to be moved further back to allow for the future widening of Route 91. With this information. RCTC initiated Change Order #1 to relocate Sound Wall #183A to a location that would preclude the reconstruction of Sound Wall #183A to provide for the future widening of Route 91. 000064 Change Order #1 would relocate the wall further back from the existing freeway, which would require a taller retaining wall and additional excavation and backfill work. The total cost of Change Order #1 was approximately $73,000, based on the increased quantities of bid items. At the time, R. Fox Construction was approximately 75% complete with construction. This major change order of $73,000 combined with the other change orders, for work to that date, would have completely depleted the construction contingency for the project and leave no contingency to cover any additional change order's during the final 25 % of construction. In March of 1999, staff requested and the Commission authorized an increase in the project contingency of $40,000, from $113,514 (5%) to $153,514 (6%), for a total not to exceed Contract amount of $2,640,000. On May 5, 1999, R. Fox completed construction of Contract RO-9847 and the project was accepted by RCTC and Caltrans. The project cost at the time of completion was as follows: Original Contract Work $2,470,467.94 Total Contract Change Order Work $ 157,035.09 Total Contract Work $2,627,503.02 At the time of project completion, there were three (3) outstanding Claims and two (2) outstanding Contract Change Orders (CCO's) by R. Fox against the project. During the past 1 Y2 years staff has been negotiating with R. Fox to reach an agreement concerning these outstanding claims and Change Orders. Recently, staff and R. Fox have come to terms concerning each issue and recommends approval of the following: Issue CCO #11 CCO #15 Claim #1 Claim #2 Claim #3 Description Rework exposed CIDH Pile Cap in resident's yard. Increase depth of SW #221A Concrete "V" Ditch. Restocking fees for deleted mechanical couplers. Unsuitable Structural Backfifl Material Reconnect (Tie -f n) to Property Owner's Fencing. Total Cost to Close Out Contract Cost $976.81 $1,450.00 $8,239.00 Denied $14,000 $24,665.81 000065 The following is a summary of the project costs to date, and the additional contingency required to close out the project: Total contract not to exceed amount as of 3/99: Total paid to R. Fox to date: Remaining available contract funds: Additional contingency required to close out contract: $2,640,000.00 $2,627,503.02 $12,496.98 Total cost for Claims and remaining CCO's: $ 24,665.81 Remaining available contract funds: $ 12,496.98 Additional contingency required: $ 12,168.83 To close out Contract No. RO-9847, staff recommends that an additional $12,168.83 be authorized for construction contingency, increasing the existing approved amount from $153,514.00 (6%) to $165,682.83 (7%). Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget:_N Year: FY 2000-01 Source of Funds: Measure A GLA No. 222 31 81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Amount: $12,168.83 Budget Adjustment: Y Date: 1-17-01 000066 AGENDA ITEM 6Q RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION _ DATE: TO: February 14, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director Approve Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-9954 for Design Services on State Route 74 SUBJECT: BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Amendment #3 to Contract No. RO-9954 with SC Engineering to perform miscellaneous design services related to the final design of Measure "A" improvements to widen State Route 74 between 1-15 and the City of Perris. Amendment #3 will increase the authorized value of the contract by $716,344 and will make an additional $250,000 of extra work available for future contingencies. This will increase the contract authorization to $3,460,263 with available extra work of $257,053 for a new contract not to exceed value of $3,717,316; 2) Authorize the Chairperson to sign Amendment #3, pursuant to Legal Counsel review. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The State Route 74 Realignment project is a Measure "A" project from Dexter al Contract was Avenue in Lake Elsinore to 7th S tin the ations andty of Est matels. The (PS&E) forlSegment I of the awarded to prepare the Plans Specifications project that extends between Dexter Ave and Wasson Canyon Rd. The contract was later amended with Amendment #1 to extend the desigarfrom Wasson Canyon to 7th mended with Amendment #2 Street in Perris (Segment 2). The contract was further to perform an environmental reevaluation and perform right-of-way engineering for the project. Staff is now proposing Amendment #3 to this contract. The items included in Amendment #3 are attached for your review along with the reasons why they are now required. The total value of the work included in Amendment #3 is $716,344. 000067 Amendment #3 will increase the authorized contract value to $3,460,263. Several items included in Amendment #3 will either be reimbursable or will provide savings during right-of-way acquisition or construction. The value of the savings and reimbursements are currently estimated to be about $853,000. In addition, six (6) extra work authorizations have been issued for this contract. The extra work authorizations to date total $94,556. The extra work amount originally authorized by the Commission to manage this contract was $101,609. This leaves the contract with only $7,053 remaining in extra work. Staff believes that there will be additional future need for extra work authorizations. In order to be able to keep the project delivery on schedule. Staff is therefore requesting that an additional $250,000 of extra work be added to this contract. The total extra work amount available to the contract would then be $351,609 ($101,609 +$250,000) equaling 10% of the new contract value ($3,460,266), Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2 000-0? Amount: $ 91;6,344 Source of Funds: Measure "A" GLA No. 222 31 81102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Budget Adjustment: Y Date: 1-17-01 000068 RO 9954 Contract Status $798,014 1 PS&E Dexter to Wasson Cyn. 2 Amendment #1 - PS&E Wasson. Cyn. To 7th St. $1,586,650 3 Amendment #2 - R/W Engineering and Environmental $264,699 Reevaluation. 4 Extra Work #1- Biology Study $11,000 5 Extra Work #2- Support Caltrans Safety projects $4,460 6 Extra Work #3- Envir. Mitigation Site Studies 820,440 7 Extra Work #4- Quino CheckersPot Butterfly Study $10,500 8 Extra Work #5- Vegetation Removal PS&E $5,920 9 Extra Work #6- Vegetation Removal Contract Support $42,236 (Staking and Env. Monitor) 10 Subtotal Authorized Extra Work (lines 4 through 9) $94,556 11 Current Authorized Contract Value (lines 1,2,3,&10) $2,743,919 12 Proposed Amendment #3 (see attached for details) $716.344 13 Proposed New Contract Authorization $3,460,263 (lines 11+12) 14 Previous Amount of Extra Work provided by contract $101,609 15 Amount of Extra Work Authorized to date (line 10) $94556 16 Amount of Extra Work Currently Remaining (line 14-15) $ 7.053 17 Proposed new Extra Work $250,OQ0 18 Total Extra Work that would be Available (line 16+17) $257,053 19 Proposed new Contract not to exceed value $3,717,316 (line 13 +18) 0 ooso Amendment #3 Scope of Work The items included in Amendment #3 are discussed below. Cost savings will be realized during construction from the money expended during design for items 1 and 3. New environmental requirements (not in effect at project initiation) have required the costs for item numbers 2, 4, and 8. Item numbers 5 and 7 are related to and agreement with a property owner who will dedicate property to the project. Item No. 5 costs will be reimbursed to RCTC. Greenwald/MeadowbroolE intersection supported 6 is related to the new and approved by the Commission. pported by the County and local residents, 1 . Rio ht of Way - Se meat 2 A Value Engineering analysis was performed on the right of way requirements developed in 1994. It is estimated that approximately $416,500 could be saved during right of way acquisition by revising the right of way limits. In addition to this, future maintenance savings would be realized by Caltrans. 2. Environmental In 1994 a Negative Declaration/Finding of No Significant Impact (ND/FONSI) was approved for the project. The project design was begun in 1999 and during that 5 year period new environmental regulations had been enacted into law, which required an environmental re-evaluation. During this environmental re-evaluation it was determined that the California Gnatcatcher had been observed along the project route and that a critical linkage of Gnatcatcher habitat existed along the route. The requirements imposed by the regulatory agencies resulted in increased environmental work. 3. Se meet 2 Slab Bridrie A Value Engineering analysis was performed on the culvert crossings proposed in the original 1994 design. It is estimated that redesigning a box culvert crossing to a bridge crossing would save approximately $390,400. 4. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans In January 2001 the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) is expected to approve new storm water regulations for projects in the San Jacinto drainage basin. The intent of the regulation is to protect Lake Elsinore and Canyon ,Lake which have been designated as impaired water bodies. Staff has been working with SARWQCB staff to determine what new requirements will be required for this project. New engineering analysis and design, and monitoring required. It is also possible that additional right of waywill berarequirwill e ed to accommodate pollution control structures. 5. Ramsgate Coordination/Design Ramsgate is a planned development which abuts SR -74. The property owner plans to dedicate property for the SR -74 project. We are working on an agreement which incorporates the property dedication and allows for future acceleration and deceleration lanes to be constructed by Ramsgate, as required by the City of Lake Elsinore. These costs will be reimbursed after the agreement is enacted. 6. Greenwald Reali nment This project was apir7)-\74,FLby the Commission on September 13, 2000. It requires an environmental evaluation, an alternative bid package to the current work, and right-of- way acquisition. 000070 7. Ramsgate Alternative Right of Way Acquisition This effort involves alternative right of way acquisition in case the Ramsgate owners do not enter into the agreement being developed in Item 5 above. 8. California Gnatcathcer Mitigation Site This is right of way and engineering work that will be required during the acquisition of property required for the California Gnatcatcher mitigation. 000071 STATE ROUTE 74 Amonda3.nt No. 3 TASK 1. RIGHT OF WAY - SEGMENT 2 Revutwns to Rgnt of Way Rapunements Ravrarona to Right of Way esressc6Peu Mama. Legit Deaenpoo Rewawns to Riga of Way Remwnnents 1SWPPP rmpaast R swarms to Rigged of Way Hardcovers. M4pa. Lego! Dem moo ISWPPP matt, Rlgnt of Way Coordmaoon!ProeecI Management/Maeargs Subtotal Z ENVIRONMENTAL Final Environmental Reevaluation (ERj Bmloglcal Overran (BO) Review of Vegetal!on Removal Plans Permits IUSCOE 404 and WOCB 401, Permns ICOF&G 1601 Protect Management and Meetings Sum= 3 SEGMENT 2 -SLAB BRIDGE Structure Founaauon Reoon Slab Structure Design kyoraulics Repon Proiecl Management and Meetings Suotola 4. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTATION PLAN (SWPPP) S'WPPP.Seomen, -evasions to Contract Plans New Contract Plans Protect Management and Meetings 5uolota 5 SWoPP.Seomen:: Rev,s:ons I:. Contract Plans New 'Contract Plans Pro.e^ Management ana Meet•nos Subtma Suotsta RAMSGATE COORDINATION/DESIGN EFFORTS Paveme,•'ntc.ness cn Sn.owae• .nccrocnal., Lo..3.naii, N Stooe Setoa, Grao,no Pia^ Manace-e^: Meet,n_s 5uoto:a GREENWALD REALIGNMENT •_^enema =.lemalme 6 g Pac.age Eng:neenn- Tscco•c- Maeomg.uestgn Survevs Suplola RAMSGATE ALTERNATIVE RIGHT OF WAY ACOUISTION -ease ='.: Rea.: remems ce.'se ...1. -tarc_oomes 14401 Lega! Descnol,ons Protect Manaoemem.C.octuinalion Suotola CALIFORNIA GNATCATHER MITIGATION SITE .:a, Leoai De4Cnpnpn5 and Esetblos 16 Tptal t -.-a' .[!14.![95 Eva:W lion for try! 22 Acrd Prre5erval,on Sit Prg ear Management... aorainar,enlMee1ngs TOTAL SuPloui Eaonlalac Esrarllasa0 No. of Siren HoutaJShest 5 10 13 24 5 31 1 40 47 78 5 611 23 6 a 116 654 124 600 120 22 24 28 42 43 104 100 62 40 24 116 654 124 600 120 1,614 22 24 28 42 43 104 263 126 620 40 24 810 SC AE SC AE SC SC+SUBS LSA LSA .LSA LSA LSA LSA LSA GD TYUN SC SC sc+sues 39 475 548.324 310,129 350.000 39 802 3127.729 12.020 32.060 82.200 53.420 34.120 83 990 317,930 516.ato 345 000 53.267 31.960 369 038 500 500 SWPPP 350.000 12 288 SC 323.524 32 160 SC 313.069 80 80 SC 36.535 1 RIG14T OF WAY 46 Ga6ENT 2 120 1.614 ' 360 CHECK 5C C 1254 o e 0 06V11 A E 2 24 2E 4: 43 104 TAL G' IYLIN anti SWPPIa 263 EC 263 ' C EGM67JT 2dSLAB 9R1D1 '.5-. 45 Tit ADM 5 12 40 6 810 CHECK 64 TOR WATER POLLU 126 ION PR ATfO 620 a PLA SWPPP 0 'TUN AD SWPPP 288 165 80 500 1.028 SC+SUBS S93 128 1.028 500 1000 SWPPP 5100000 12 440 SC 539.207 32 160 SC 313.069 120 120 SC S9 802 664 1 760 SC+SUBS 5162 078 1 760 528 4 160 12C 0 0 0 500 1100 4 62 10 62 586 696 242 130 80 262 24 42 45 48 760 0 1 000 2 784 SC+SUBS 5255.206 2 786 20 372 110 52 564 586 696 242 130 1 654 80 262 24 366 252 48 48 348 SC SC SC SC SC LSA SC AE ADM SC+SUBS SC AE SC SC+SUBS AE LSA sc SC+SUBS 8,107 SC•SUBS 51 634 530 386 S8 985 55 064 S46 068 352.575 S56 850 317,949 37 783 5135.057 56.535 323 000 51 960 331 495 522 000 58.000 53 921 533.921 1 288 0 0 0 1 500 5. AMSGA E COORDINAT ON/DESIGN EFFORTS T Yew Arxi. 11 564 0 0 CHECK 6 GREENWALD REALM MEN LS. - AE GC TYLIN 6 SWPP 24. 1654 696 586 RAMSGATE ALT CHECK ) 5C 242 RNATIV C Ac` 0 13 130 0 WAY /ICOUI' ON TYLIN AD 24 26_ 104 CHECK 0 262 8 CALIFORNIA G 0 0 'ATCATHER MITIGATION srTE LS- AE GD TYLIN 4 a 52 AORI SNPP 348 5716.344 8 407 48 3 124 4B 897 252 0 0 2 010 126 FIRM HOURS u SC ENGINEERING _ 3.124 LSA ASSOCIATES 897 • ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS _ 2,010 1 GROUP DELTA 126 TYLIN rNTERNAT(ONAL 925 1 ADVANCE DIGITAL MAPS L 130 • SWPPP DESIGN FIAM - TOTAL SUMMARY BUDGET f ►Cac0Mr 5253,173 f- 36% 519.406 '' 11% .172 316.610 145.000 87.763 2.2% 310. 11% 1.500 I 8155.900 a,407 1 0714.344 21% 100% 620 130 1.500 000072 January 16 2001 AGENDA ITEM 6R RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Commissioner Phil Stack SUBJECT: Appointment to Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council RECOMMENDATION: To appoint Mary Venerable to the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council for a one-year term, ending in January, 2002. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County Transportation Commission, in accordance to the Transportation Development Act, requires a Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC). The Commission approved a member of 15 members. Last month, 14 candidates were nominated and approved for appointment. Subsequent to the January meeting, Commissioner Bob Buster submitted Mary Venerable's name for appointment. Mary Venerable is a resident of Lake Elsinore and has been involved in the Transportation Now for that city. She has also been involved in a number of community causes. I am recommending that the Commission appoint Mary Venerable to fill the remaining vacant seat on the CAC/SSTAC for a one-year term. Appointment of Mary Venerable will meet the membership determined by the Commission and the requirement of the SSTAC. As shown on the attached roster, the terms are stagger.ed such that there are five members for a one-year term, two-year term and three-year term. In working with staff, we have set the first meeting of the CAC/SSTAC following the Commission's February 14th meeting, wherein they will review their roles and responsibilities, elect officers, and determine their meeting dates. I will be attending the first meeting to welcome the Committee, on behalf of the Commission. I extend an invitation to other Commissioners if they wish to attend the meeting and meet the members of the CAC/SSTAC. 000073 Name/Area Represented Jim Colli ns Indio Peter Ben avidez Riverside William Densmo re Riverside Cou nty Judylynn Gries Riverside Judy Nieburger Moren o Valley Fortu nato Penilla Riverside County Sherry Thibodeaux Riverside Mike Wertz La Quinta Cindy Scheirer Pedley Andrea Puga Corona Pat Murphy Cathedral City Chris Millen Ban ning Categorical Membership Potential tr ansit user wh o is 60 years of age or older. Potential tra nsit user who is disabled . Social ser vice provider for senior citizens / disabled / limited means. Social service tra nsp ortati on provider for disabled . Social service provider for senior citizens/disabled . Social service provider for disabled. Social service provider for person s of limited means. Social service provider for persons of limited means and disabled transit user. Community member. Community member. Membership from business co mmunity. So cial service transportation provider fo r the disabled / limited means. Terns Date 2 Expires 1/03 2 Expires 1/03 2 Expires 1/03 1 Expires 1/02 3 Expires 1/04 3 Expires 1/04 1 Expires 1/02 1 Expires 1/02 2 Expires 1/03 1 Expires 1/02 2 Expires 1/03 3 Expires 1/04 Nomi nated By C ommissi oner Roy Wilso n Previous CAC / SSTAC member. Previous CAC / SSTAC member. Previ ous CAC / SSTAC member. C ommissi oner T om Mullen Previous CAC / SSTAC member Learned of opening through atte ndance of CAC meetings . Learned of opening through attenda nce of Su nLine ACCESS mtgs . Commissioner J ohn Tavaglione Commissioner John Hunt Supervisor Roy Wilson Heard about the CAC opening. Qu alifications Previ ous CAC / SST AC member Previ ous CAC / SST AC member Previous CAC / SSTAC member Previ ous CAC / SSTAC member Past RCTC and Metr olink member Pre vious CAC / SSTAC member I nterested in transit issues. Works f or the Community Access Center. H osts s upport gr oups for women with disabilities a nd domestic viole nce cases. Branch manager of Livi ng Center f or 6 %: years and is a member of SunLine's Access Committee. Involved in c ommunity iss ues and has attended Tra nsportatio n N ow meetings. Past member of RCTC, RTA and Metrolink . Has vast experience dealing with tra nsportation issues in the regi on, past member of RCTC, past Preside nt of Leag ue of Cities. Works for the City of Ba nning transit service, participated in the Pass Area Transit Study . Name/Ar ea Represe nted Mary Ve nerable Kerry Forsythe- SunLine Coachella Valley Grant Bradshaw- RTA Western Riverside C ategorical Memb ership Term Date Social service transp ortation 1 provider for elderly Expires 1/02 C ons olidated Transportati on Service Age ncy 3 Expires 1/04 3 Expires 1/04 N omi nated By Super vis or B ob B uster Q ualifications Involved in community issues a nd a member of Lake Elsin ore Tra nsportation N ow. SunLine Transit Agency staff . Ri verside Transit Agency staff . AGENDA ITEM 7 Oral Presentation AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans and Programs Committee Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: SUBJECT: Eric Haley, Executive Director Retrofit Soundwalls on State Highways PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek Commission approval to: 1) Receive and file the report. 2) Direct staff to report back in 60 days with a draft retrofit soundwall priority list using Caltrans' criteria. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the late fall, staff received several requests for soundwalls from Assemblyman Pacheco and from Congressman Calvert, on behalf of constituents. Additionally, staff has received several telephone inquiries from residents, as well as California Baptist College, related to soundwalls. The Commission does not have a retrofit soundwall policy or program and this item is put forward to begin a discussion on whether or not the Commission should establish one. As you are aware, SB 45, statutes of 1997, established wholesale change to the statewide distribution of federal and state transportation funds. SB 45 enacted sweeping consolidation of the programs administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The most prominent change was the establishment of a 75% local and 25% state formula split of state discretionary funding under the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This created, for the first time, entitlements of state transportation program funding to local agencies such as RCTC. Post SB 45, retrofit soundwalls became an issue to be addressed at the local level and not by the state. The federal definition of a retrofit soundwall is a noise barrier addressing freeway sound levels exceeding 67 decibels for residences predating the freeway. Furthermore, federal regulations restrict the use of federal funds to only those walls determined to be retrofits. There were a number of issues behind this shift in responsibility such as, for many years within the overall state program, retrofit 000076 soundwalls were a low priority and received funding on a sporadic basis, the state does not have authority over local land use decisions, any new capacity enhancing construction must, through the environmental process, address freeway noise impacts in the project area and the state Government Code (Section 65302) requires local governments to include a noise element in their general plan. For your information, the Commission is on record opposing the change in responsibility for the retrofit soundwall program including the method through which the CTC funded the former retrofit soundwall program. This shift in responsibility may prove to be very difficult to address in an area such as Riverside County. We have several dynamics at hand. First, it would take some research to determine which residences actually preceded the construction of freeways and would therefore be eligible to be considered as a potential retrofit soundwall. Second and potentially more difficult to address is our continued population growth. Growth will result in more houses adjacent to existing freeways in the future. This situation poses a conundrum for the Commission. Without making a judgement as to right or wrong, while RCTC does not control local land use decisions, each of the RCTC's member agencies make land use decisions as part of their local jurisdiction's responsibilities. One possible approach could be that soundwalls are simply a local issue created by local decisions and, therefore, should be a local responsibility to cure. To illustrate, here are a couple of hypothetical examples using Caltrans' previous retrofit soundwall criteria. Hypothetical Example #1 Housing tract #1 is approved and developed prior to a freeway being established. Seven years later a freeway is constructed adjacent to Housing tract ##1. At the time of construction of the freeway, noise studies are conducted and the peak noise level emanating from the freeway is 60 decibels and a soundwall is not required as part of the mitigation for the freeway project. Fifteen years pass and the increased traffic (including trucks) now "qualify" the housing tract as eligible to be considered for a retrofit soundwall because the ambient noise emanating from the freeway due to traffic is now 71 decibels. If the Commission had a policy and program mirrored upon the Caltrans program, there would be several criteria yet to be satisfied. Caltrans used a formula which essentially results in the creation of a priority list. The factors included: 1) Achievable Reduction. In plain terms, this is the average reduction in noise levels the proposed barrier will achieve. The proposed soundwall must result in an average minimum reduction of 5 decibels (per residential unit). 000077 2) Number of Living Units. This is the number of residential units immediately adjacent to the freeway. Residences located above the first floor in multi -story units are included in the residential count only if the proposed barrier will provide a 5 decibel reduction for those units, as well. 3) Cost effectiveness. In simplistic terms, Caltrans applies $37,500 as the cost per unit of benefit as being the basis for cost effectiveness. Therefore, if the _ noise studies establish that 25 residential units will benefit from the construction of a soundwall the maximum recommended level of funding for the wall is $937,500. Without identifying funding, the application of the criteria would result in establishing a priority list for retrofit soundwalls. This is how Caltrans addressed retrofit soundwalls on a state wide basis prior to SB 45. Over time, due to soundwalls being a very low statewide priority the list was artificially constrained to a list of projects which existed prior to 1989. The CTC decided to fund the long standing retrofit soundwall list on a one time basis off the top of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in the 1998 STIP Augmentation (In Southern California these walls were primarily located in Los Angeles County). The Commission could establish a policy to maintain a retrofit soundwall priority list but, without funding, this would prove to be an administrative process with no means of building the walls. Given the Commission's criteria for funding discretionary projects, soundwalls cannot receive a score which would qualify it for funding. However, the list would be available if an unforeseen funding opportunity arose. Hypothetical Example #2 This example goes beyond the issue of retrofit soundwalls. This is provided because it will likely be the largest sector where soundwall requests will come from in the future. People who are adversely impacted by freeway noise will not differentiate between an area which is eligible for a retrofit soundwall vs one that is not. Housing tract #2 is approved for development adjacent to freeway "A". Housing tract #2 does not precede the establishment of the freeway and cannot be addressed by a retrofit soundwall policy or program. At the time of development, the peak period noise levels recorded adjacent to the freeway was 60 decibels and the development was not conditioned by the local agency nor through the environmental process to build soundwalls or install noise attenuation improvements in the construction of the housing (e.g. double pane or laminated windows). Twelve years later, due to increased traffic, the peak noise levels at the residences adjacent to the freeway now exceeds 75 decibels and even if the Commission had a 000078 retrofit soundwall policy and funding program, there is no means of addressing these requests. Yet adjacent residents are impacted daily by the noise from the freeway. The reason for bringing this up as a hypothetical issue is that staff has already received inquiries (phone) from several residents and anticipates that given the continued growth in population as well as goods movement, staff expects these requests increase over time. One could take an approach such as "didn't you notice the freeway before you moved in?" Probably not a popular, sympathetic approach or the Commission could consider funding these requests as they arise. Staff sees no means to address such requests but wanted the Commission to be aware of them. Funding of Retrofit Soundwalls While the Commission has programming authority over the majority of federal and state transportation dollars, only two sources may be used to fund retrofit soundwalls. The sources are federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and STIP Regional Improvement Program funds (RIP). The Commission's Measure A program of highway improvements are jointly funded with Measure A and RIP funds. In the Commission's 1999 Measure A Strategic Plan, the I-215 project from the 91/215/60 interchange to the San Bernardino County line remains the last highway project which has yet to be funded. Any funds redirected from the RIP or STP programs to fund retrofit soundwalls could directly impact the timing for the future delivery of the last Measure A highway project. As for the STP program, the Commission has programmed all of the TEA 21 STP funds (through FY 2002-03). The Commission has not programmed any funds from 2003-04 through the end of the Measure A program period which is approximately 2008-09. The future STP discretionary program remains uncommitted and potentially available to fund the 1-215 north project or almost anything else such as retrofit soundwalls. The major limitation on the potential use of STP discretionary funds for retrofit soundwalls is that Measure A funds could not be used as local match. Conclusion The issue of retrofit soundwalls is complicated and likely emotional. There are no simple answers, as each request must be assessed on its merits. Caltrans conducted a retrofit soundwall program for decades which consisted of a list of projects which were eventually funded. While Caltrans is no longer responsible for funding retrofit soundwalls, Caltrans established and over time refined a process for assessing when, where and the potential cost benefit criteria for establishing and maintaining a priority list. 000079 Caltrans continues to include resources in its budget to support the requisite noise studies as requested by the public. Staff recommends that the Commission receive this report and direct staff to work with Caltrans to establish a draft priority list by applying Caltrans' criteria and bring the draft list back to the Commission in 60 days. This will allow the Commission to assess the existing retrofit soundwall funding needs prior to considering any decisions on funding. Please note that this action will not provide a forecast of potential future funding exposure. 000080 AGENDA ITEM 9 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: TO: January 22, 2001 Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: THROUGH: Budget and Implementation Committee Audit Ad Hoc Committee Ivan M. Chand, Chief Financial Officer Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Audit Results Report AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Audit Results Report from Ernst & Young, LLP. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Ernst & Young, LLP, the Commission's independent auditors, made an oral presentation to the Audit Ad Hoc Committee on January 22, 2001. The Report covered the results of the Commission's, Measure "A" and TDA funding recipients' audit. The report indicates the following: E & Y has issued an unqualified opinion on the Commission's general purpose financial statements for the year ended June 30, 2000. They anticipate issuing unqualified opinions on the financial statements of the TDA claimants and Measure "A" recipients. There was one audit adjustment related to an overstatement of accounts payable of $232,500. Staff made the audit adjustment to remove accounts payable in the general ledger. The State of California had forwarded remaining funds from condemnation to the Commission. These funds were refunds to property owners on land purchases. Legal counsel now indicates that the statue of limitations ran out for certain property owners to claim this money. Since the statue of limitations has lapsed, staff made the audit adjustment to remove the accounts payable. Various audit adjustments were recorded by the TDA claimants and Measure "A" recipients. 000081 E & Y has also made several suggestions for improvement listed on page 17 of the attached Audit Results Report. Staff is already addressing their concerns and will present the steps taken and respond to the Commission in April 2001. The Audit Ad Hoc Committee during their review of the audits noted large amounts of fund balances from the cities of Moreno Valley, Palm Desert and Riverside. Representatives from the cities are present to answer any questions that the Commission may have. The City of Palm Desert has provided information (attached) on their projects. Attachments - . 000012 Feb -06-2001 I0:12am From -PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 76[341?098 T-637 P.001 F -4E5 CITY OF DL II[SERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-25-8 TEL: 760 346-0611 FAX: 760 341-7098 iofo,kpalm-de .org February 6. 2001 SENT VIA FAX (909) 787-7920 Mr. Ivan Chan Chief Financial Officer Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 Re: Measure "A" Funds in City of Palm Desert Dear Mr. Chan: Yesterday we received a call from t;43ty of your staff regarding the fund balance in the audit done for years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. She requested input by this moming for presentation to the Commission this month. Attached are seven pages showing the various funding sources for street, bridge and traffic signal improvement projects in our City. These show the Five -Year Capital Improvement Program for =Y 2000- 2001 to FY 2004-2005. Additionally, another page shows the Carryover projects from fiscal year 1999-2000. Since the bids by contractors seem to equal or exceed the engineering estimates. we are using Measure `A" f.;nds, the City's construction tax Fund 231, and Fund 400 for the year 2010 to build our projects. The City wi;l be sending two representatives to the February Commission meeting to answer questions regarding the fund balance called to my attention yesterday. We apologize for this quickly prepared package. and our representatives will have more details if needed by the Commission. Our program assumes tnat.all Measure "A" dollars will be used up by the end of fiscal year 2004/2005. In tie meantime, if you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Very Truly Yours; ARD J. F Lcc S, P.E. ASSISTANT I7' MANAGER FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RJF;sd Attachments cc: Mayor and City Council Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Joseph S. Gaugush, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Paul Gibson. Director of Finance Las br:mei 01/062CD' 10C2 AN, G''PubWorks\Soma 0a La FueniallYN Docwnents DICK FOLKEFIS'LI-Fart b Ivan Char. F TC Re.Mnr+n A C1 cc PPPPP 000083 Feb -06-2001 10:13am From -PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 7603417098 T-637 P.002/006 F-455 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST TRAFFIC SIGNALS: ' hoviey Lane West 8 Portcia Avenue Shadow k+lountam & POROla Avenue ' Farway & Rortola Avenue - De An Way & Roma Avenue ' Desert Breezes r SCC anc Fred Waring CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 1 OF& MINDING SOURCE'S CURRENTYR FY00.01 PRIOR YR FUNDING FUNDING Construction Tarr FD 231 $ 150.000 Traffic Signal Furor 234 Traffic Signal Fuld 234 150,000 Traffic Signs! Find 234 150.000 Traffic Signal Fund 234 1 00 377,,5500 STREET PROJECTS: • Fred Wanng Drive. Hlphway 111 to Town Center (Design) and Rsghf of Way, ' Fred Waring Drive Widening • San Pasqua) to Deep Measure AFund 2t3 Canyon S30,000 ' Highway 111: Larkspur to LW. Year 2010 Fund 400 City Limits 1,075.000 6,979,500 Measure A Fund 213 3 750.000 ' Hot -ley Lane ROTC Reimbursement . Walsr4ray 4o Grits C.G. 1 ,Soc.ago 1.700,000 754,000 • NB Pork7la Ave widening at Alessandro to El Collin Miesure A Fund 213 Bus Measure A Fund 213 • Major slice: sldeNalk Year2010 Fund 400 1,500.000 150,000 M • CVACi payments }Or t-10 Interchange Year2010 Fund 400 50,000 RDA Pal Fund 850 250.000 250.000 PARKS & RECREATION • Skate Park for Beginners ' Civic Canter Well • Council Chamber Entryway egional Park DEVELOPMENT & LAto PURCHASE 'EI Reseo an Hwy 1 T' Land DeveIooment •5n Space Land Acoutsftion Park Fund 233 Year 2010 Fund 400 300'000 Near 2010 Fund 400 300.000 RDA PJ14 Fund 654 300.000 5.000,000 RDA Ran Fund 050 RDA PJR1 Fund 850 66,000 1,495,000 2.755.000 2,482,000 HOUSING 'Home !.m rcvemenr Program -Make A Difference 'Herne Imcrcwort gn; Program -Rehab For F4assle Ho ng F 670 '20140 F'Horne Acre CJevelaDrnent �dg Fund 870 300,000 Housing Fund 270 480,000 2.000,000 DRAINAGE ' Nuisance water inieVcrywell program PARKING 'Civic Center Parking BUILDING • Civic Center Park - Storage Building Valle Corporation Yard Expansion ' Ncrthwrng Iowan' Improvements Ccunci Chamber Update Drainage Furd 420 RDA FJe1 Fund 650 300,000 3001000 Constriction Tax Fr) 231 Construction Tax FD 231 100.000 Year 2010 Fund 400 2,000,000 Construction Tax FD 231 275.000 100,000 110.000 000084 reu-up-ZUU lu:l4am prom -PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 7603417098 T-637 P.003/006 F-455 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST OTHER PROJECTS 'RDA Projects 'Desert Willow Well Sites 'Commercial Rehabilitation Loans TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOTJRCES CITY RDA TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 200001 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 1 OF 5 CURRENT YR FUNDING FY 00-01 SOURCES YR FU NDYNG FUND RDA Poi Fund 850 RDA PJe2 Fund 851 RDA PJs1 Fund 850 1.075,000 150,000 1.000,000 S 26.568,500 S - T- ,6060 .500 MAfesure A Fund 213 5.550,000 Cartruetien Tax FD 2,71 2,350.000 x,00 ,1 110,000 Park Fund 23 300.000 Traffic SOUR FD234 487,500 Year 2010 Fund 400 2,450 000 Drefna0e Fund 420 300,000 7.014 500 Perk Fund 430 11,837,500 PIDA PJn FDSSO 6,802,000 RDA PJe2 FDSI1 150.000 RDA PJs4 FDa54 5,000,000 Housing Fund 870 2,780,000 $ 14.732,000 Page 264 2.755,000 $ 26.550.600 s 10309,500 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 000085 Feb -06-2001 I0:l4am From -PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 7603417098 T-637 P.004/008 F-455 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2001.2002 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 2 OF 5 FUNDING STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: • Major street sidewalk Year 2010 Fund 40C 250,000 ' Major street landscaping Year 2010 Fund 400 720,000 • 'Teti Waring Dnve: Highway 111 to Town Center (Design) Measure A Fund 213 1.500,000 • Fred Waring Drive Widening - San Pasqual to Deep Canyon Year 2010 Fund 400 5,000,000 • * CVAG payments for I-10.Interchange RDA PJN1 Fund 850 250,000 DRAINAGE • Nuisance water inlet/drywall program DEVELOPMENT & LAND PURCHASE 'Open Space Land Acquisition PARKS & RECREATION 'Motor Cross Bicycle Park HOUSING 'Home Improvement Program -Rehab For Resale '20/40 Acre Development OTHER PROJECTS 'RDA Projects 'Education& Enhancement Facilities TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY RDA TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES Drainage Fund 420 300,000 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 2,482.000 RDA PJ#1 Fund 850 250,000 Housing Fund 870 510,000 Housing Fund 870 3,792,820 RDA PJtt1 Fund 850 RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 5,000.000 292,000 $ 20,351,820 Measure A Fund 213 5 1,500,000 Year2010 Fund 400 5,975,000 Drainage Fund 420 300,000 RDA PJB1 FD850 $ 7.982,000 RDA PJ1M1 FD854 292,000 Housing Fund 870 4,302,820 5 20,351.820 Page 296 000086 Feb -O6-2001 IC:l5am From -PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 7603417098 T-637 P.005/008 F-455 • r CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 3 OF b PROPOSED PROJECT LIST TRAFFIC SIGNALS: None STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: • Major street sidewalk program • Major street landscaping • Frank Sinatra Drive: Cook Street to Gerald Ford Drive (widening, median', curb & gutter) • Panda Overcrossing at 1-10 Feasibility Study • CVAG payments for 1-10 Interchange DEVELOPMENT & LAND PURCHASE 'Open Space Land Acquisition HOUSING • Home Improvement Program -Rehab For Resale '20/40 Acre Development 'Multifamily Rehabilitation 'Self Help Housing OTHER PROJECTS 'RDA Projects TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDPNG SOURCES CITY RDA TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES Year 2010 Fund 400 Year2010 Fund 400 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 RDA PJM1 Fund 850 RDA PJY1 Fund 850 Housing Fund 870 Housing Fund 870 Housing Fund 870 Housing Fund 870 RDA PJI1 Fund 850 Measure A Fund 213 Yost 2010 Fund 400 RDA PJ111 FD850 Housing Fund 870 Pace 297 FUNDING 250.000 725,000 850,000 100,000 250,000 2,482,000 540,000 5,506.832 1,250,000 750.000 5.000.000 8 17703.632 $ 950,000 976,000 $ 7.732,000 8,048,632 $ 17.703.632m. 000087 Feb -06-2001 I0:16am From -PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 7603417098 T-637 P.006/008 F-455 CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 4 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING TRAFFIC SIGNALS: • Frank Sinatra Drive & Gerald Ford Drive Traffic Signal Fund 234 5 150,000 STREET 4 BRIDGE PROJECTS: ' Major street sidewalk program Year 2010 Fund 400 250.000 ' Major street landscaping - Year 2010 Fund 400 750.000 • Fred Waring Drive Widening - Callfomia to Washington Street Year 2010 Fund 400 1,951,000 • Gerald Ford Drive: Frank Sinatra Drive Construction Fund 231 475000 ' CVAG payments for 1-10 Interchange RDA PJi1 Fund 850 • NB Monterey Avenue Widening - Gerald Ford Drive 250.000 to Dinah Shore Drive Measure A Fund 213 1.000,000 DEVELOPMENT & LAND PURCHASE 'Open Space Land Acquisition RDA 8141 Fund 850 2,482,000 DRAINAGE ' Nuisance Water Inlet/Drywall Program Dreier Fund 420 � 300,000 OTHER PROJECTS 'FDA Projects RDA PJM4 Fund 854 'Commercial Rehabilitation 1,551,000 RDA PJ#3 Fund 853 500.000 HOUSING 'Hcrne improvement Program -Rehab For Resale '20./4Q Acre Development 'Multifamily Rehabilitation 'Senior Housing TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES CITY RDA TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES Housing Fund 870 Housing Fund 870 Housing Fund 870 Housing Fund 870 600,000 3.577,350 1,250,000 2,000.000 s 17,486,350 Measure A Fund 213 $ 1,000,000 Construction Fund 231 475,000 Traffic Signal Fund 234 150,000 Year 2010 Fund 400 2,951,000 Drainage Fund 420 300.000 RDA PJB1 Fund 850 RDA PJ$3 Fund 853 RDA P.1#4 Fund 854 Housiig Fund 870 $ 2.732,000 500.000 1,951,000 7.427,350 S 17,488.x53 000088 Page 298 Feu -Uri -2001 IL:1Tam From -PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 7603417098 T-637 P.f07/C06 F-455 sr CITY OF PALM DESERT PROPOSED FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 NEW PROJECTS YEAR 5 OF 5 PROPOSED PROJECT LIST TRAFFIC SIGNALS: • Dinah Shore & Portola Avenue • Hovley Larie East & Oasis Club Drive • Gerald Ford Drive & Portola Avenue STREET & BRIDGE PROJECTS: • Major street sidewalk program • Major street landscaping - • Portola Overcrossing at t•'t0 Design & Right of Way ' Dinah Shore - Monterey Avenue to Portola Avenue (Design) • San Pablo Avenue - COD Driveway to Magnesia Falls *Landscape Medians on Frank Sinatra • CVAG payments for I-10 Interchange DRAINAGE • Monterey Avenue - Fred Waring to Whitewater Channel • Nuisance Water Inlet/Drywall Program DEVELOPMENT & LAND PURCHASE `Open Space Land Acquisition PARKS & RECREATION 'Municipal Golf Course 'Jr. Golf Course OTHER PROJECTS 'RDA Projects 'Undergroundin8 of Utilities TOTAL PROJECTS RECAP CF FUNDING SOURCES CITY RDA TOTAL RECAP OF FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES Traffic Signal Fund 234 Construction Fund 231 Construction Fund 231 Year 2010 Fund 400 Year 2010 Fund 400 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 RDA PJ42 Fund 851 RDA PJ#4 Fund 854 Drainage Fund 420 Drainage Fund 420 RDA PJ41 Fund 860 RDA PJ42 Fund 861 RDA PJ43 Fund 853 RDA PJ41 Fund 850 RDA PJ#3 Fund 853 Measure A Fund 213 Construction Fund 231 Traffic Signal Fund 234 Year 2010 Fund 400 Drainage Puna 420 RDA PJN1 Fund 850 RDA PJ02 Fund 851 RDA PJN3 Fund 853 RDA PJN4 Fund 854 FUNDING S 150,000 150,000 150.000 250.000 750.000 1,000,000 800,000 400,000 350,000 4,818,408 2,500,003 300,000 2,482,000 8,332,000 1,500,000 5,000,000 315,000 $ 29.047A08 $ 2.000,000 300.000 150,000 1.000.000 2.800,000 $ 7.482.000 8,882,000 1,815,000 4,818,408 5 29.047,408 000089 Feb -06-2001 I0:I8am From -PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 7603417098 T-637 P.008/008 F-455 CITY OF PALM DESERT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXISTING PROJECTS IN FtSCA_ YEAR 1009-0*.) C ONTINU2D TO FY 2000.2001 PROJECT TITLE ESTIMATED PROJECT TOTAL FOR IEE OF PROJECT ACCOUNT HUMMERS toner il.gurld 110 Capital Ottlos Equipment BLM/Santa Rosa Ylaitor's Canter Kiosk Afees w e A Funtf 13 Hwy 111 8t. Improvements Portota / Hwy 111 8t. Improvements Cook St 1 42nd Avenue/Mayfair Dr/Or. Way Monterey Ave NV From Hwy 111 to Palm Desert Town North Driveway Northbound Hwy 74 / Hwy 111 Widening & traffic signal work darald Ford • Portole to Cook Fred Waring Bridge Cook Street: Hoviay to Fred Waring Drive N8 cortale - N El Cortez and San Pablo at Royal Palm Street Wldaning Washington - Country Club To Whlteweter Magnesia Falls Drlva Bridge at the San Pascual Channel and Widening Joni Drlvs I xt■nalon httwslvxre Sibs Tex Fund 2?t Underground 1-10 at Monterey, Cook & Washington (ART) Hovley Lane Es tPortota to Cook Median Community Gardens City Council Chamber CCDHveC0ok.S1 to Washington St Fred Waring W11 Wall Frank Sinatra Tum Pocket , minaoefr{ 2 Monterey/ Hwy 74 it El Paseo to Hwy 111 Cook Street - Joni to 42nd Cook Street - Gerald Ford to Union Paolflo pieLtamel es Washington Charter School Park Civic Center Amphitheater cf 2 Monterey Avar3ue 4 Rowe," Lane West COO Driveway & Fred Wiring t'14viay Lane East A Warner Trail Harris Lane - Senior Housing Or. & Waah. Fred Waring Tmf110 Coordination Simon Hill 4 Hoviey Lana East Howley Lana East 4 Corporate Way EiNano & Larkspur Lans °h Z Lone nil 129,5592, 110.4190-415.40-4C 27,500 110-4132-411.30-90 750,000 500,000 500.000 213-4382-433 40-01 213-4385.433.40-01 213-4385-433.40.01 440.000 213.4386-433,40-01 500.040 2134387-433.40-01 721.950`2'13-4390.4 3.40-01 210,000 213-4399-433.40.01 400,000 213-4535-433.40-01 150,000 213-4535..4,3,4.40-01 1,000.000.213-4817-433.40.01 800.000 250.000 138,623 100,000 190,000 300.000 110,00012531-4563.433.40-01 460,000 i231-4520-4-33 40-01 10,00'5 231-4550-054 4.-01 35,000 231-4875-43340.01 213-4$26-433.40-01' 213-4573-433.40.01 231.4262-422-40-01 231-4.9119.433 40-01 231-4391-433 40-01 231.4546-45440-01 95,100 =4540-403 40-01 487.800 232-4541-433.40.01 175.0031232-4542-433.40-01 208,312 550,000 233-4660-454 40-01 233-4608454,40-01 171,864 234-4253422 40-01 150,000 23,3.4274-429.40-01 150,000 234-4535-433.40-01 3500 23a.4538.422A11-01 120,000 234-4837.422.40.01 150,000 234-4521-433,40-01 175,000 234-4272-422.40-01 175.000 234-4277-422.40-9t 175.000 214-4278-42.2 40-01 Page 301 FINDING SOURCES OF -Data Proossamg Dept GF.AdJmrr.. Services Measure A Fund 213 Maasvrs A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Mali:ure A 3275K FICTC S100K 513300 $1254( Meatus A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Measure A Fund 213 Miazure A Fund 213 Measure Fund213 New Const Tax FD 231 New Const Tax FD 231 New Cons. Tax FD 231 New Cons. Tax FD 231 New Cons. Tax FD 231 New Cons: Tax FD 231 New Const Tax FD 231 New Genet Tax FD 231 Drainage Fund 232 Drainage Fund 232 Drainage Fund 232 Park & Roc Fac. FD 233 Park b Roc Fac. FD 233 Slgnallzaton FD 234 Slflnatttallan FD 234 Signttzabon FD 234 5igna;lzahan FD 234 Signalizetion FD 234 8igrraliza10n FD 2.34 Signalizaticn FD 234 Signalizattan FD 234 FY l eee-03 10 FY00.O1 41.518 22,500 750,000 461,434 355.647 290290 304.174 657.710 9,485 400,000 74,421 823.800 795,550 204,707 115.4.33 96,400 190,000 285,743 110,000 460.300 15.005 35,000 95,100 487,800 175,000 208,312 550,000 21,537 144,000 145.025 32.600 120,000 150,000 175.000 175,000 S}gnaltzaton FD 234 179,000 Exh:b+t 3 00-71 Res -397 HA -12 000090 Confidential 2000 Audit Results Report Riverside County Transportation Commission Audit Sub -committee 000091 J ERNST& YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.'' ERNST&YOUNG LLP January 22.2001 Audit Sub -committee Riverside County Transportation Commission Dear Members of the Audit Sub -committee: t Suite 200 3403 Tenth Street P.O. Box 1270. 92502 Riverside, CA 92501 t Phone: 909 276 7200 Fax: 909 787 8184 We are pleased to present the results of our audit of the general purpose financial statements of the Riverside Count) Transportation Commission (the Commission) and the audits of the financial statements of Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants and Measure A recipients. This repon to the Audit Sub -committee summarizes our audit results. the scope of our engagement. the reports issued and various analyses and observations related to the Commission. the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients as well as compliance with laws and regulations. This document also reviews communications required by our professional standards as well as current accounting issues that will affect the Commission. The completion of this year's audits was accomplished through the effective support and the assistance of the Commission's finance. program and administrative personnel. As always. we stn\ e to continuously improve the quality of our audit services. This meeting is a forum for you to prop ide teedback on ways we can continue to meet and exceed your expectations. This report Is intended for the information of the Audit Sub -committee. the Budget and Implementation Committee. the Board of Commissioners and Commission management and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. We appreciate this opportunity to meet with you. It you have any questions or comments. please call Sally Anderson at (909) 276-7221 or Theresi,a Trevino at (909) 276-7263. Very truly yours. 4.44,uat youTLLP Ernst &Young LLP is a member of Ernst &Young International, Ltd. 000092 TABLE OF CONTENTS Focus: 2000 Audit Results Summary of What We Agreed to Do 4 Business Risk Assessment Update 6 Communication with the Audit Sub -committee Regarding Our Responsibilities 8 Required Communications 10 Comments on the 2000 Commission Financial Statements 12 Comments on the 2000 TDA Claimants and Measure A Recipients Financial Statements 13 Focus: Value- Results The Value -.Scorecard 16 Value Ideas —.Suggestions for improvement 17 Looking. Ahead to Next Year Team Continuity 19 GASB Issues and Pronouncements 20 Fiscal 2001 Audit Planning 21 2 J ERNST & YouNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH." 000.098 Riverside County Transportation Commission Focus: 2000 Audit Results A Year in the Life of an Ernst & Young Client Co -Develop Expectations Drivers Understanding Internal/Extemal Factors Methodology Portfolio of Procedures Team Focus Value Scorecard CI nt Satrsfacuon J ERNST & YOUNG A process focused on Continuous improvement and exceeding client expectations. 3 El ERNST&YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.' 000094 SUMMARY OF WHAT WE AGREED TO DO Riverside County Transportation Commission Our Approach As previously discussed with management. our audit plan represents an approach responsive to the assessment of risk for the Commission. Specifically. we designed our audit to issue reports and letters on the following: General Purpose Financial Statements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Financial Statements on the Local Transportation Fund • Internal control over financial reporting and compliance • Management letter Areas of Audit Emphasis The principal areas of audit emphasis were as follows: • EN aluation of the Commission's investment policies and internal control over cash and investments • EN aluation of the Commission's accounting for investments at fair value Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for debt and debt covenant compliance • Evaluation of the Commission's accounting for project expenditures • • Analytical review and inquiry into the nature of various account balances • Evaluation of litigation. claims and assessments • Evaluation of the Commission's internal control • Evaluation of TDA and Measure A expenditures • Review of compliance with the provisions of Measure A. including level of administrative salaries and benefits • Review of compliance with the provisions of TDA 4 J ERNST & YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINrO 00et = SUMMARY OF WHAT WE AGREED TO DO (continued) TDA Claimants and Measure A Recipients Our Approach We designed our audits to issue reports and letters on the following: Transit and Transportation Financial Statements of TDA claimants and Measure A recipients • Internal control over financial reporting and compliance • Managemeni•letter Areas of Audit Emphasis The principal areas of audit emphasis were as follows: • Evaluation of TDA and Measure A expenditures • Evaluation of Measure A expenditures in relation to approved Measure A five-year capital improvement plans • Evaluation of deferred revenues and capital grants equity, as applicable • Analytical review and inquiry into the nature of various account balances • Analytical review of actual results and comparison to budgeted amounts • Review of compliance with the provisions of TDA and Measure A There were no changes.to our planned approach or audit areas of emphasis. 000096 5 J ERNST & YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.' BUSINESS RISK ASSESSMENT UPDATE As changing demographics. regulations and other factors continually transform the operating environment. the Commission faces a steady stream of business risks. Business risks have audit implications and drive our choice of audit procedures and emphasis. Understanding Internal/External Factors Business Implication Audit Implication INDUSTRY' ISSUES Funding Sources The Commission. TI)A claimants and Measure A recipients rely heavily on various funding sources including federal. state and local monies. Project funding availability is dependent on the economy and federal and state policies. Self-help County transportation agencies are exploring options for voter - approved extensions of local sales tax measures The Commission must continually assess project funding availability and monitor sales tax growth. Debt financing of future projects is limited. Two-thirds voter majority is required to extend Measure A beyond 2009. Expenditure/expense funding for cities/agencies is often dependent on other federal. state and local monies. Assess budgeting controls and review project expenditures for allowahility under transportation plans and grant awards. Review compliance with TDA and Measure A provisions. BUSINESS ISSUES CETAP Cash \lanagement In 1999. the County of Riverside commenced the Riverside County Integrated Plan. a three-part planning and implementation program related to transportation. hahitat conservation. and a new General Plan. The Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptahilit) Process (CIiTAP) is one part of this program. and its central purpose is to examine the need and opportunities for the development of transportation corridors in western Riverside County. The Commission is responsible fur making investment decisions for its cash and investments. The County is coordinatine this part of the multi -year comprehensive planning project with the Commission as well as an advisor) committee. The Commission must evaluate the need for potential locations for new or expanded highway and transit corridors in western Riverside County in concert with hahitat and other puhlic infrastructure needs. The Commission must balance its safety. liquidity. and yield investment ohjectives and ensure that investments are made in accordance with state laws and Commission policies. Ascertain proper accounting and reporting for capital costs and related debt. II any. Be alert for the effects of changes impacting revenues and expenditures.. Compliance with investment objectives. state laws and policies. Determine that disclosures in the financial statements are appropriate. 6 J ERNST &YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH." 000097 BUSINESS RISK ASSESSMENT UPDATE (continued) Understanding Internal/External Factors Business Implication Audit Implication BUSINESS ISSUES (continued) Technology TECHNICAL ISSUES Property Held for De%elopment Debt Fraud Consideration (SAS t{2) (:-14B Statement No. 34 The Commission operates in an environment that requires the C mm on to continue to assess the security and adequacy of information systems. Maintain operations during disasters. Prevent unauthorized use of system and related data. The Commission has property purchased air right-of-way acquisition. of which a portion may not he used for project construction. The Commission. the Riverside Transit Aeen and the Sunl.ine Transit :leenc� maintain various types of deht S.1S clarifies auditor responsihihties for detecting fraud Issuance ofGASRI Statement \o. .1-I requires governmental financial statements to include management's discussion and analysis. basic financial statements and required supplementary information. Adequacy of access and programming controls on 1:1)1' controls affect the nature and extent of audit testing'.. Identification of strategy for excess property is necessary to maximize the Commission's investment. Evaluate financial feasibility scenarios. Commission requires understanding ol'and adherence to deht covenants and operating ahility to service deht. Arhitrage calculations are required Mlanagement should he aware of the risk factors related to the Commission in order to he ahle to address them The new reporting model provides basic financial statements including hoth government -wide and fund financial statements. It also requires reporting of infrastructure assets and deht in the government -wide financial statements. This statement must he implemented by fiscal ?um. Adequate disclosure in the financial statements. Compliance with debt covenants and proper accounting_ and reporting. Auditors must document their assessment of the risk and their response to the risk (actors. Review the Commission's implementation plan and discuss implementation issues. 000098 7 J ERNST & YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH." COMMUNICATION WITH THE AUDIT SUB -COMMITTEE REGARDING OUR RESPONSIBILITIES Pursuant to our 2000 contract. you have engaged us to conduct an audit of the Commission's general purpose financial statements and audits -of the TDA claimants and Measure A recipients transportation/transit financial statements for the year ended June 30. 2000 in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -I33. Audits of States. Local Governments. and Non-Prrlfit Organizations. Our responsibilities for testing and reporting on internal control and on compliance with applicable laws and regulations under those standards are described in the table below In addition. the table contrasts our responsibilities in this engagement with other procedures that we could perform in • other financial -related audits. Service That We Will Provide Our Responsibility Regarding Internal Controls Our Responsibility Regarding Compliance with Laws and Regulations Financial Statement Audit—GAAS We consider internal control to plan the nature. timing and extent of audit procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements. We report. orally or in writing. an reportable conditions. including material weaknesses. that we identify as a result of our audit procedures. Our report does not provide assurance on internal control over financial reporting We design our audit to provide reasonahle assurance of detecting fraud that is material to the financial statements and illegal acts that have a direct and material effect on the financial statement amounts. Financial Statement .\udit— (:o‘ernment Auditing Standards In addition to the (i:\A\S responsihilities. we are required to issue a written report on our consideration of internal control and identil\ reportable conditions. including material weaknesses. it an Our reports do not provide assurance on internal control over financial reporting. In addition to the GAAS responsihilities. we design our audit to provide reasonable assurance of detecting material misstatements resulting from noncompliance with provisions of contracts or grant agreements that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. We issue a written report on the results of these procedures: however. our report does not express an opinion on compliance. O\IB Circular A-133 Vie consider internal control oxer federal award program compliance Our tests of controls include the controls over all major federal programs (aggregate expenditures of all major programs are to encompass at least 2S'% of total federal program expenditures). We report on such consideration and testing and disclose reportable conditions including material weaknesses we identify Our report does not provide assurance on the internal control over compliance. We perform procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion whether major federal programs (aggregate expenditures of all major programs are to encompass at least 25'/ of total federal program expenditures) have been administered in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 8 J ERNST & YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH." 000099 COMMUNICATION WITH AUDIT SUB -COMMITTEE REGARDING OUR RESPONSIBILITIES (continued) Service That 1%'e Will Provide Our Rcsponsihilit Regarding Internal Controls Our Responsibility Regarding Compliance with Laws and Regulations Examination - Level .Attestation W'e could he engaged to examine management's written assertion as to the design and operating ellccliveness ul internal control. The engagement would he conducted in accordance with AICI'A standards for attestation 1ngagement, and would include an evaluation of the dehlgn 01 the entity's internal control. and performing tests 01 relevant internal control policies and procedures to evaluate their operating eflcctivcness .agreed -upon Procedures Let el Attestation We could he engaged to perform agreed -upon procedures related to management's written assertions as to the design and operating effectiveness of internal control The uhlective of the agreed -upon procedures is 10 present specific findings to assist users its evaluating managements assertions Our procedures general]) ma\ be as limited or extensive as the users desire as long as the users fa) participate in eslahlLshmg the procedures 10 he performed and (hi take responsihiht� for the suflicienc\ of such procedures for their purposes - We could he engaged to examine management's written assertion rcgardin2 compliance The engagement could he conducted at the financial statement level or could result in a determination as to whether all federal programs have been administered in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The engagement would he conducted in accordance with AiCPA standards for attestation engagements and would include obtaining an understanding of the specific compliance requirements. obtaining an understanding of the design of the entity's internal control over compliance. and testing compliance with specified requirements. We could he engaged to perform agreed -upon procedures related to management's written assertions regarding compliance. The objective of the agreed -upon procedures is to present specific findings to assist losers in evaluating management's assertions Our procedures generallh may he as limited or extensive as the users desire as 101111 as the users i a I participate in estahlishmg the procedures to he performed and IhI take responsibility for the sufficiency of such procedures for their purposes. 9 000100 J ERNST & YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH." REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS Professional standards require the auditor to communicate to the audit committee or an equivalent group to ensure that it is provided with additional information regarding the scope and results of the audit that may assist the group in overseeing managements financial reporting and disclosure process. Summarized below are these required communications related to our financial statement audits: Area Comments Auditors' Responsibilities under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) The general purpose financial statements are the responsibility of management Our audits were designed in accordance with GAAS and Gin.enunem Auditing Standa,d. (GAS). which provide liir reasonahle. rather than absolute. assurance that the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement We ha‘,c a responsihility to opine on whether the general purpose financial statements are fairly stated in accordance with general!_ accepted accounting principles. As a pats of our audit.. we obtain a sufficient understanding of internal control to plan our audits and to determine the nature. tinting and extent of testing to he performed. We have issued an unqualified opinion on the Commissions general purpose financial statements for the year ended June 30. 31)11)) We have issued or anticipate issuing unqualified opinions on the financial statements of the Tl)A claimants and Measure A recipients. Management did not place any restrictions on the scope of our audits. Significant Accounting Policies Initial \election of and changes in significant accounting policies in their application and new accounting and reporting standards implemented during the )ear must he reported The significant accounting policies used by the Commission are descrihed in Note I to the general purpose financial statements There were no changes in significant accounting policies or new accounting or reporting standards. except for the following: • GASB issued Technical Bulletin (TB) No. (10-1. which amended TI) No y9-1 and yS-1 and rescinded the requirement for Year 20)))) disclosures. Management Judgments and Accounting Estimates The preparation of financial statements requires the use of accounting estimates. Certain estimates are particularly sensunc due to their significance to the statements and the possihilit) that future events may differ significantly from management's expectations. There are no areas requiring significant judgments or accounting estimates in the 3111))) general purpose financial statements. Significant Audit Adjustments Commission: There was one audit adjustment related to an overstatement of accounts payable of $333.51)1. There were no audit adjustments passed. 10 J ERNST &YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.' 000101 REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS (codtinued) Area Comments Significant Audit Adjustments (continued) TDA Claimants/Measure A Recipients: 'Various audit adjustments were recorded by the TI)A claimant:, and Measure A recipients. Such adtuwtmcnis were printaril� related to hevtnning hind balance. deterred revenue .and capital grams equity. There were three audit adjustments passed. which were immaterial. related R1 an understatement of tnf¢resl income at two cities and one aeenct. Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements None Disagreements with Management on Financial Accounting None and Reporting Matters Major Issues Discussed with Management Prior to Retention None Consultation with Other Accountants Serious Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit Material Errors. Fraud and Illegal Acts None None None Significant Disclosures Not Made Most Recent Ernst & Young LLP Peer Review Results (iAS requires the independent auditor to communtc:atc the most recent peer review results to its governmental client., Management Advisory Services None KPMG Peat Marwick LLP completed the !998 peer review of Ernst & Young. The peer review results are contained in an unqualified Peer Revieli Repnrr. which indicates that the quality control policies and procedures tier Ii&Y's accounting and auditing practice are hcing complied with in such a manner as to provide the firm with rcasonahle assurance of conforming with professional standards. None 11 El ERNST & YOUNG 000102 FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.' COMMENTS ON THE 2000 COMMISSION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Condensed Operations for Five Years Sales tax revenues have increased consistently since the early 1990's recession. Reimbursement revenues fluctuate as federal and state funding sources relate to eligible projects Other sources are higher in 1998 and 1996 due to proceeds from bond issuances. • Program expenditures increased in 2000 due to increased local streets and roads and transit disbursements as well as regional arterial expenditures. Program expenditures decreased in 1999 due to a significant decrease in regional arterial program activity. • Debt service expenditures increased in 1998 as a result of the retirement of commercial paper in the amount of S44.000.000. Other uses primarily represent operating transfers to cover debt service payments. Rex enues and other sources: Sales tax Reimbursements Interest Other Subtotal Other sources Total revenues and other sources Expenditures and other uses Administrative Program Debt service Intergovernmental distributions Capital outlay Subtotal Other uses Total expenditures and other uses Net increase (decrease) Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 S 127.061.082 S 109.996.653 5 99.596.564 S 91.393.623 S 88.208.264 6.542.447 5.334.206 9.754.287 5.514.049 8.114.912 5.059.048 4.741.631 5.471.073 6.869.873 7.740.317 7.372.191 6.688.885 6.190.293 5.896.496 5.274.781 146.0 34.768 126.761.375 121.011217 109.674.041 109.338.274 32.056.359 33.127.698 96.146.074 26.316.886 106.882.232 178.091.127 3.031.640 98.323.375 30.527.304 518.609 50.319 132.451.247 32.056.359 164.507.606 159.889.073 217.158.291 135.990.927 216.220.506 2.954.923 87.155.032 30.525.757 397.302 113.241 121.146.255 33.127.698 154.273.953 2.813.814 104.875.560 74.344.388 309.000 306.660 . 2.677.290 105.374.197 25.208.531 305.095 53.677 2.732.131 106.225.072 25.327.762 367.936 144.537 182.649.422 34.716.863 217.366.285 133.618.790 26.316.886 159.935.676 134.797.438 92.254.390 227.051.828 13.583.521 115.873.240 5 129.456.761 5.615.120 110.258.120 S 115.873.240 (207.994) (23.944.749) (10.831.322) 110.466.114 134.410.863 145.242.185 S 110.258.120 5 110.466.114 S 134.410.863 12 J ERNST & YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FlI(ifl 0 1 0 3 COMMENTS ON THE 2000 TDA CLAIMANTS AND MEASURE A RECIPIENTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Balance Sheet Items The following. have a fund balance representing at least three years.of unspent monies: • County of Riverside Article 8 monies of 5680.415. representing allocations since 1994 • City of Blythe Measure A monies of 2.279.307, representing allocations since 1998. • 'city of Cathedral City Measure A monies of $2.034.785, representing allocations since 1998. City of Indio Measure A monies of $4.663.824. representing allocations since 1994. • City of Moreno Valley Measure A monies of S8.380.147. representing allocations since 1998. • City of Palm Desert M • Cit. of Perris Measure City of Riverside Meas • City of San Jacinto .Me easure A monies of 56.852.669. representing allocations since 1998 A monies of 51.522.260. representing allocations since 1998. ure A monies of S23.713.910. representing allocations since 1996. asure A monies of S1.766.864. representing allocations since 1998. Per discussion with management and/or review of budget -to -actual analysis, most of the unspent monies relate to project delays resulting from environmental. right-of-way acquisition. contractual and other project delay issues. The following cities/entities have a fund deficit at June 30. 2000: • City of Banning Transit Fund has an operating deficit of S1.606. which will be funded through fiscal year 2001 allocations or by transferring funds from the City's General Fund. • Cit, of Blythe Article 8 Fund has a deficit of SI70.055. which will be funded by the City requesting funding for the fiscal year 2000 expenditures from RCTC. as the request is required before any such allocation will be awarded. Care -A -Van Transit System. Inc. Unrestricted Fund has a deficit of 516.617. which will be funded through fiscal 2001 allocations. • Csty of Corona Dial -A -Ride Fund has an operating deficit of 51 1.689. which will be funded by transferring funds from the City's General Fund. • County of Riverside Article 3 Fund has a deficit of 530.114. which will be funded through future grant applications and claims with RCTC. 000104 13 J ERNST &YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.' COMMENTS ON THE 2000 TDA CLAIMANTS AND MEASURE A RECIPIENTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) Income Statement Items For your information. the following cities/agencies allocate indirect costs and other -overhead allocations to TDA or Measure A funds: • City of Banning • City of Beaumont • ".City of Blythe • City of Calimesa • City of Corona • City of Lake Elsinore • Family Services Association • Inland AIDS Project • Transportation Specialists • Volunteer Center of Riverside Count • City of Temecula • City of Riverside Compliance Findings The following cities charged overhead allocations to the indicated funds based on estimated costs. which were not supported by actual costs. These costs were identified as questioned costs: City of Beaumont — Transit Fund S46.000 City of Beaumont — Measure A Fund S17.000 City of Blythe — Measure A Fund S403.000 City of Calimesa — Measure A Fund S11.000 City of Lake Elsinore — Measure A Fund S3.000 City of Riverside — Special Transit Fund S142.000 City of Riverside — Measure A Fund S157.000 The City of Corona Dial -A -Ride Fund maintained a fare ratio of I9.89 and. therefore. was not in compliance with the minimum fare ratio requirement of 209. The City of Corona's management intends to transfer funds from the City of Corona's General Fund to be in compliance with the minimum fare ratio requirement. The City of Palm Desert had approximately $71.000 of Measure A expenditures that were not on the approved Measure A five-year expenditure plan. They were identified as questioned costs. The City intends to request that the submitted five-year expenditure plan be revised to include these expenditures. The City of Riverside had approximately $11.000 of Measure A expenditures that were not on the approved Measure A five-year expenditure plan. They were identified as questioned costs. The City intends to request that the submitted five-year expenditure plan be revised to include these expenditures. 14 J ERNST & YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TnIt + 05 Er Riverside County Transportation Commission Focus: 2000 Value Results 15 J ERNST &YOUNG FROM THOUGHT 70 FINISH. - 000106 THE VALUE SCORECARD In addition to providing you with the results of our audits. this meeting provides a forum to refine your expectations regarding our services going forward. We include below some recent examples of value-added assistance provided to the Commission and seek your input as to additional value we can bring to the Commission. Issue Description of Assistance Value Knowledge Transfer GFOA Certificate Accounting Assistance Public Sector Training Pntvide assistance in preparation of the general purpose financial statements for submission to obtain the C11:011 Certificate Review significant and/or unusual accounting transactions for proper accounting and reporting. Provide annual technical update sessions for financial personnel. The Commission has received the (ill )A Certificate on financial reporting excellence annually since the 9Y3 C'AJ R. The Commission has applied liar the CS1i1 () Uerltlicate on financial reporting excellence for special districts for its 2111111 CAM;. External resource to ensure that transactions are recorded and reported properl). Management prepared to oomph with future accounting and reporting developments. Project Assistance Prcaward .audits Commuter Assistance Program Arbitrage and 1 erification Calculations Penurmin agreed -upon procedures related to review of internal control and accounting systems of contractors for projects to he fedctally funded Performed agreed -upon procedures relating to the financial records and internal control over inventor) and recipient eligihilu\. including meeting with the Contractor regarding overhead allocations. Perform arhitragc calculations required h) law and refunding verification calculations required for debt financings. Specialized industry resource with experience in government contracting to ensure that the Commission is in compliance with IL'deral guidelines Contractor compliance with Commuter Assistance Incentive Programs and adequate internal control over inventor) Independent analysis and calculations. Proactive Ideas Provide suggestions relating to pussihle Suggestions are included on the following page. Improvements in operations. 16 000107 J ERNST & YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH." VALUE IDEAS — SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Riverside County Transportation Commission • Improve communication between the finance and planning and programming departments related to changes in Local Transportation Fund unclaimed apportionments and allocations available for bicycle and pedestrian projects to ensure that reserved fund balances are accurate. • install a firewall between the Commission's local area network and the County's wide area network to restrict access to the Commission's network and to prevent hacking from the County's network. • Implement a procedure to remove system access of terminated employees immediately after termination and perform a periodic review of all network and application accounts to ensure access is restricted to authorized and current employees. • Provide a secure room for the Commission's servers to restrict access to authorized individuals. • Develop and implement a formal business continuity plan to minimize the financial and operational impacts to Commission operations in the event of a disaster. TDA Claimants/Measure A Recipients • Adopt policy relating to consistent application of overhead allocations for TDA claimants and Measure A recipients • Adopt policy relating to Article 3 claimants timely remittance of any unspent Article 3 funds. • Revise Measure A five-year expenditure plan requirements to include description of specific projects rather than general street improvement projects. 17 J ERNST & YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH." 000108 IMF Riverside County Transportation Commission Looking Ahead to Next Year 18 J ERNST &YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH." 00010E TEAM CONTINUITY From listening to management and the marketplace, we know that great value is placed on having a superior service team distinguished by relevant credentials and continuity of service. There continues to be a high level of continuity among the members of the team. Their enthusiasm and commitment to the Commission ensure responsive. innovative and forward -looking service focused on its business issues. The value of the audit arises from and depends heavily on the integrated teaming of management and E&Y. Throughout the year. the E&Y audit team is in constant communication with management to facilitate efficiency and continuous improvements in our audit efforts for the Commission. Sarah Anderson, Coordinating Partner • Partner in charge of our Southern California Public Sector practice Over 25 years of experience Over 10 years serving the Commission Jim Williams, Independent Partner • National Director Public Sector Services. Governmental Accounting and Reporting Over 30 years of experience Over 8 years serving the Commission Theresia Trevino, Audit Senior Manager • Known for her experience in Governmental Accounting and Reporting Over 17 years of experience Over 10 years serving the Commission C'�nthia Morningstar, Audit Senior Nlanager • 11 years of experience specializing in public sector transportation Over 10 years serving the Commission Julia Cox, Audit Senior Manager • 10 years of experience 10 years serving the Commission, primarily on audits of TDA claimants and Measure A recipients Other Specialists as Needed • As we have in the past. we continue to draw upon key industry specialists in such areas as economics, indirect cost plans. arbitrage. information systems. and government contracting to provide the technical resources needed to bring value to the engagements. Ernst & Young continues to serve you with a multi -disciplinary team of professionals who offer both Public Sector industry expertise and a long history of involvement with the Commission. Their enthusiasm and commitment to the Commission ensure responsive, innovative and forward -looking services focused on its business issues. 19 El ERNST&YOUNG 000110 FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH." GASB ISSUES AND PRONOUNCEMENTS GASB Statement No. 33 — Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions This statement provides accounting and reporting guidance for nonexchange transactions (e.g.. most taxes.. grants and donations). This statement identifies and provides guidance on the following four classes of nonexchange transactions: derived tax revenues. imposed nonexchange revenues. government -mandated exchange transactions and voluntary nonexchange transactions. This statement is effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15. 2000. GASB No. 34 — Basic Financial Statements — and Management's Discussion and Analysis — for State and Local Governments This statement establishes financial reporting standards for state and local governments. Under the revised requirements. governmental financial statements will include management's discussion and analysis (MD&A). basic financial statements and required supplementary information. V[D&A introduces the financial statements by giving readers a brief. objective and easily readable analysis of the governments financial performance for the year and its financial position at year end. including an analysis of budgetary changes and results. Additional information to be included in MD&A consists of a description of capital asset and long-term debt activity as well as currently known facts. decisions or conditions that are expected to have a material effect on the government. Under GASB No. 34. governments will generally provide basic financial statements including both government - wide and fund financial statements. The government -wide financial statements will provide information about the primary government and its component units without displaying funds or fund types. The financial statements will distinguish between the governmental and business -type activities of the primary government. All information will he reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. The government - wide financial statements will not include fiduciary activities_ The fund financial statements will provide intormatton about the primary governments fund types. including fiduciary funds and blended component units. Governments will present separate financial statements for each fund category — governmental. proprietary and fiduciary — and will no longer present a combined balance sheet. General capital assets and general long-term liabilities will be reported only in the government -wide financial statements as assets and liabilities of governmental activities Governmental fund financial statements will focus on fiscal accountability and will report the flows and balances of current financial resources using the modified accrual basis of accounting. Proprietary and fiduciary fund financial statements will report operating results and financial position using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. A single set of notes will serve the basic financial statements. GASB No. 34 will become effective in three phases based on a government's total annual revenues in the first fiscal year ending after June 15. 2000. as follows: fiscal years beginning after June 15. 2001 for governments with total annual revenues of $100 million or more: fiscal years beginning after June 15. 2002 for governments with total annual revenues between $10 million and $ 100 million: and fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2003 for governments with total annual revenues below $10 million. The model also includes required reporting for infrastructure assets. Reporting alternatives include historical cost - based depreciation and a modified approach if the government maintains such assets at or above an established condition level. Retroactive infrastructure reporting will also become effective on a phase -in approach. 20 J ERNST &YOUNG FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH." 000111 FISCAL 2001 AUDIT PLANNING Planning for the audits will be developed in cooperation with management. As a balanced effort. it will give full recognition to the existing internal control as well as a thorough assessment of the business and control risks. Risk responsive, it will address both your and management's expectations and provide for the best utilization of external audit resources. We will continue to meet with management throughout the year to review current developments and challenge the continuing adequacy of the plan. Any significant changes to the plan will be promptly communicated to you as they occur. Major items that should be considered for early involvement include: • Timing of year-end audit procedures based on closing the general ledger. preparing all audit schedules and completing the draft of the financial statements. including all footnote disclosures. Assistance provided by Commission's Program Manager in connection with TDA/Measure A audits. Consideration of city/agency intent to select own auditors for TDA claimant and Measure A recipient audits. Coordinate with Commission staff to determine adequacy of work performed. compliance programs and reporting requirements. and extent of reviews to be performed. 21 J ERNST & YOUNG 000112 FROM THOUGHT TO FINISH.'• ERNST & YOUNG LLP 2001 Ernst & Young LLP All Rights Reserved. Ernst & Young is a re iistered trademark. No. 0101-034740 www.ey.com 000113 AGENDA ITEM 10 AGENDA ITEM #10 REVISED INLAND EMPIRE ANNUAL SURVEY 2000. Inland Empire Annual Survey Inland Empire Research Consortium Presented to RCTC 2/14/01 Prepared by: Shel Bockman, Max Neiman, and Barbara Sirotnik THE 2000 INLAND EMPIRE ANNUAL SURVEY We would like to thank the following organizations who generously contributed to this survey: SPONSORS: Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments PATRONS: Omnitrans Charter Communications BENEFACTORS: Inland Empire Economic Partnership Presley Center/UCR San Bernardino International Airport Riverside County Superintendent of Schools San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools SUPPORTER: The Business Press In addition, we'd like to thank Project Managers Bonnie Flippin and Veronica Ingersoll, without whose help this study could not have been conducted. INTRODUCTION The Inland Empire Research Consortium (IERC) is pleased to present its 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey of residents in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The IERC represents a partnership between the Institute of Applied Research and Policy Analysis at CSUSB and the Center for Social and Behavioral Sciences Research at UCR. The purpose of the Inland Empire Annual Survey is to provide policy -related research that bears on issues important to the Inland Empire region. Apart from the objectives listed below, the IERC is committed to promoting regionalism and cooperation. Another objective of the Annual Survey and other IERC projects is to project the Inland Empire onto the radar screen of other "significant actors" in the State. The Annual Survey and future IERC has become, and hopes to continue to be, a valuable area resource for initiating community discourse and helping to inform public policy, officials, and citizens. The Inland Empire Annual Survey provides decision -makers with objective, accurate and current information for: • evaluating key public and private sector services and activities (e.g., retail services, health care, education, transportation) • describing the public's current views as well as changes over time in public perceptions of such issues as: quality of life, the state of the local economy, perceptions of the region as a place to live and work, the greatest problems and issues (e.g., crime, pollution, immigration) facing the Inland Empire, commuting, traffic congestion, and promotion of economic development • providing a regional focus for the on -going discussion of key local/regional issues, and • disseminating a coherent picture of Inland Empire views, beliefs. and demographic characteristics to key decision makers within and outside the region, thus enabling comparisons to other regions. In addition, the Inland Empire Annual Survey includes (on a space available basis), some proprietary items designed to meet specific information needs of some sponsors within the Inland Empire. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 1 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey THE QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire items were selected on the following basis: Several questions were incorporated from previous annual surveys of Riverside and San Bernardino counties which were designed to track changes over time in the residents' perceptions about their quality of life and economic well-being, their views about the pressing issues of the day, and their ratings of public services and agencies. In addition, a number of standard demographic questions were included for tracking purposes and for cross tabulation of findings. Tracking questions, of course, provide public agencies and business with trend data often needed in policy making and outcome assessments. These questions are also valuable in comparing the two -county area with other counties in the state and nation. A number of sponsors also submitted questions for their proprietary use. Finally, the researchers, in consultation with sponsors, also added questions concerning current issues which have policy and research implications. A draft copy of the questionnaire was submitted to the sponsors for their approval and modified where warranted. A Spanish version of the questionnaire was also produced. The survey instrument was then pre- tested, and some minor changes to the wording and order of some items were made. The questionnaire is attached as Appendix I. SAMPLING METHODS Telephone survey respondents were randomly selected from a comprehensive sample frame consisting of all telephone working blocks which contain residential telephone numbers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. This is a standard random sampling approach for studies of this nature. In order to ensure accuracy of findings, 2,238 residents were surveyed from the two -county area for a 95 percent level of confidence and an accuracy of approximately plus/minus 2 percent for overall two -county findings. Sample size of the two counties varied slightly due to the over -sampling of the some of the regional zones in San Bernardino County and Riverside County. This over -sampling was performed at the request of some of our sponsors. As a result, 1,142 residents of Riverside County and 1,096 residents of San Bernardino County were surveyed, for an accuracy of approximately plus or minus 2.8 percent and 95 percent level of confidence for each individual county. Due to weighting considerations to remove the effects of the over -sampling, the reader will note a discrepancy between the actual sample size and the number of cases reported in the data tables (1,000 for each county). INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 2 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Telephone interviews were conducted by the Institute of Applied Research at California State University, San Bernardino using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) equipment and software. The surveys were conducted between October 13, 2000 and December 1, 2000. INTRODUCTION TO FINDINGS This section presents the major findings from this year's Annual Survey. Findings are generally presented for the two -county area (Inland Empire) as a whole. As was the case in previous surveys there are remarkably few differences between the opinions of respondents in the two counties when viewed in the aggregate. In general, therefore, the findings are applicable to the two -county area at large. In those few instances where there exist significant differences between the two counties, such dissimilarities will be noted and discussed in detail. In addition, this report includes a sufficient number of data points (4 surveys, conducted from 1997 to 2000) to conduct more extensive and more valid trend analyses than in previous reports, both for the two -county area as a whole and for each individual county. On the other hand, there are more differences within each county than there are between counties. Regional differences within each county are noted in detail in our upcoming Special Edition Zone -Specific Reports for each of the two counties. Finally, as noted in the preceding section, the tables in the data display and in the following sections of the report reflect a weighting scheme to correct for over -sampling of certain geographic areas in both counties. Throughout this.report, therefore, when we refer to the number of respondents indicating a particular view (a number that is a weighted figure), the actual number of respondents may differ slightly from the adjusted figure reported in the table. For a full data display of findings, see Appendix II. RATINGS OF THE COUNTY OVERVIEW: As in previous surveys, a substantial majority of Inland Empire residents continue to rate their respective counties as a good place to live. Riverside County residents also continue the pattern of being somewhat more positive about their county than are San Bernardino residents. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 3 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 1997 Annual Sury 1998 — 1999Annual Surve 1999 — 2000 Annual Survey 2000 Annual Surve Table 1: Ratings of the Res ective Counties as a Place to Live Very Bad 1.3 2.6 2.0 DON'T KNOW 0.7 0.7 0.7 d i Among Riverside County respondents, over 80% indicate that their county is a very good or fairly good place to live, while only about 67% of the San Bernardino County residents feel that way. Although large majorities in both counties express very positive ratings for their counties, there remains a noticeable gap between counties, with Riverside County residents somewhat more positive overall and less negative. For example, while 8.7% of the San Bernardino respondents claimed that their county was a fairly to very bad place to live, only 4.7% of the Riverside County respondents felt that way. This is a pattern that has persisted since 1997 (See Table 2). It is important to emphasize that while the differences are statistically significant, they continue to be modest. Table 2: Trend — Proportion of Inland Empire Respondents Indicating Their Res • ective Counties Are Very Good or Fairly Good Places To Live Riverside County 75.9 81.1 78.9 80.4 San Bernardino County 63.2 67.2 68.6 67.4 Inland Empire 69.0 73.7 73.8 73.9 OVERVIEW: Respondents in both counties use similar criteria (low crime, nice living area and climate) to express their positive assessments of their county as a place to live. These area, findings are consistent with previous surveys. As Table 3 shows, respondents in each of the counties cite similar criteria for formulating positive views of their county as a place to live (where "positive view" is defined as rating the County either "very good" or "fairly good" as a place to live). These findings are generally INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 4 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey consistent with previous surveys. Specifically, "nice living area," "low crime," and "not crowded" lead the list in both counties. In addition, San Bernardino County residents mentioned "affordable housing" and "good schools", whereas Riverside County residents cited "good climate", "close to everything" and "quiet area" as positive factors. Table 3: Factors (Mentioned By At Least 50 Residents of Each County) Affecting Positive Views of Their County Riverside County Respondents Nice Livin Area Low Crime Not Crowded Good Climate Close to Everything 78 Number of San Bernardino Respondents County Respondents Nice Living Area Low Crime 119 117 89 83 Affordable Housing Not Crowded Good Schools Number of Respondents 97 83 60 54 50 Quiet Area 54 OVERVIEW: Among those respondents who rated their county as a bad place to live, crime continues to be listed as the predominant reason for their negative views. Among the 87 San Bernardino County residents rating their county as fairly bad or very bad, 37 respondents indicate that high crime is the main reason for their negative rating, with another 8 mentioning gangs and 5 mentioning drugs. Only 10 Riverside County respondents find crime to be the main factor in affecting their rating of as a fairly or very bad place to live (with another 5 mentioning gangs, drugs, or graffiti). OVERVIEW: Although high crime and smog are still issues of major concern in the two - county area, in Riverside County traffic congestion is now ranked as the single worst aspect of living in the county. Climate/temperature and a good central location continue to be noted as the best things about living in the county. To further probe respondents' views about their counties, all respondents (regardless of whether they thought their county was a good or bad place to live) were asked to indicate the one BEST and one MOST NEGATIVE thing about living in the county. As in the previous Annual Survey, factors such as climate, location, general living atmosphere, and cost of living are among the most frequently mentioned factors listed as the BEST things about living in the respective counties. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 5 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Table 4: One BEST thing about living in the county (mentioned by at least 50 res i ondents in the county) When respondents were asked to cite the ONE WORST thing about living in their cou there were some interesting county differences. Riverside County respondents cited traffic nh', congestion as the number one "worst thing," followed by smog and crime. In contrast195 Bernardino respondents stated that crime was their number one issue. In addition there San were mentions of concern about gangs, obviously a crime -related issue (see Table 5). San Be 56 no County respondents rated smog as the second most often named "worst thin " about ernardty, although they also noted traffic congestion as a problem. g the county, Although this year's list of "worst things" is generally consistent with last year's list, some notable changes in rank order of the factors have occurred. Most notably, in Riverside County, traffic congestion has jumped from third place (behind crime and smog) the to to e of concern. These findings are placed in their interpretive setting in the section t p issue addressing transportation issues. his report Table 5: One WORST thing about living in the county (mentioned by at least re s ondents in the county) 50 San Bernardino County Number of Res. ondents INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 6 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey FEAR OF CRIME AND CRIME RELATED ISSUES OVERVIEW: The fear of crime in both counties is virtually identical, and the level of fear regarding crime among all respondents seems to have crept higher after slowly declining since 1997. The most important issue here is that the fear of crime and reported victimization remain persistent. In our previous report, we noted that fear of being the victim of a serious crime had steadily declined over the past 3 years. Unfortunately, that trend may be reversing itself. As shown in Table 6, the proportion of Inland Empire respondents indicating they are somewhat fearful or very fearful of being the victim of a serious crime has moved up by nearly 5 since each the last Annual Survey. There are only minor differences in perceptions of respondents in of the two counties. Table 6: Percentage of Respondents Indicating That They Are Very Fearful Or Somewhat Fearful Of Bein The Victim Of A Serious Crime Year of Surve 1 % 1997 Annual Survey 42.1 1998-1999 Annual Surve j 39.2 1999-2000 Annual Surve 2000 Annual Surve 35.2 39.8 On the other hand, as Table 7 below shows, the number of respondents who indicated that they had actually been the victim of a serious, violent, or costly crime has remained relatively constant over the past four years. Table 7: Percentage of Respondents Indicating That They Have Been The Victim Of A Costly Or Serious Crime Year of Surve 1997 Annual Surve 27.4 1998-1999 Annual Survey 23.2 28.6 1999-2000 Annual Survey 25.4 2000 Annual Survey INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 7 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey This year, a new baseline question was introduced in the survey in order to rob issue of safety a bit more. Specifically, respondents were asked the question: "Is p e the within a mile of your house in which you are afraid to walk at night?" there any area a whole, an unsettling 38% of respondents state that there are such ar" For the Inland Empire as differ significantly for respondents in each of the counties, eas. The figures do not In summary, crime and safety issues remain a major and persistent issue/ roble both counties. P m within ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OVERVIEW: Inland Empire respondents continue to express regarding their financial situation, incomes and the future state fathe irly high levels of optimism regional economy. With one exception, differences between the counties, where the exist y Overall, the patterns regarding economic evaluations are quite similar and app p ly stable small. arent across the counties. It does appear that regarding the overall rating of the respectiveeconomies, Riverside County respondents rate their county's economy more ositivel county the San Bernardino respondents. p y than do Respondents in the current Annual Survey suggest that perhaps the stead im in the finances of families in the region have perhaps peaked for now. There is a y provements decline in the proportion of this year's respondents indicating that they and th very small better off than a year ago and a very slight increase, the first in several ear air family are respondents indicating they are worse off (Table 8). years, in the proportion of Table 8: Perceptions Of Inland Empire Respondents Regardin . Finances Com s ared to Year A. o Year of Surve 1997 Annual Surve 1998-1999 Annual Surve 1999-2000 Annual Surve 2000 Annual Surve Better Off Same 33.6 42.8 42.5 40.8 51.0 45.2 46.4 Worse Off 15.3 9.7 47.7 10.6 A majority of the Inland Empire respondents continue to rate the economy as excellent or good (51.2%). This rating is virtually identical to last year. Similarly imila ly the region rly,asmthe INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 8 ROTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey previous year, there are differences between the counties, with Riverside County respondents continuing to rate their county's economy as good or excellent in significantly higher proportions (58.6%) than their San Bernardino County counterparts (44.8%). The biggest gap between the counties is among the respondents who rate the economies of the respective counties as only "fair" (San Bernardino County: 42.9% vs. Riverside County: 33.0%). buy asked whether household income "is enough so that you can save money oru y some extras, just enough to pay the bills, or not enough" we find that there is negligible change over last year. However, there is a noticeable, if ever so slight increase in the proportion of respondents indicating that there is not enough money in the household to pay bills and obligations. Although it is unwarranted to ring alarms it is worth looking closely at trends over the coming year to see if these data are heralding a change in the region's economy. The findings (Table 9) suggest that for many Inland Empire residents (57.4%), household income is either just enough or not enough to pay bills, with no room for extras. Table 9: Responses Concerning Whether Household Income Is Sufficient Save and Buy Extras Year of Surve % 1997 Annual Surve 34.1 1998-1999 Annual Survey 41.7 1999-2000 Annual Survey 41.7 2000 Annual Survey 41.5 To Pay Bills 50.9 46.1 47.8 45.4 Not Enough cyo 15.0 10.2 9.7 12.0 There is a continued pattern of modestly higher levels of optimism in Riverside County when it comes to buying a home as an investment. Considering all respondents, 67.3% of all Inland Empire respondents felt it was an excellent or good investment to buy a home in the Inland empire (68.5% last year). Among Riverside County respondents, 73.8% indicated that a home purchase was a good to excellent investment, while 60.9% of San Bernardino respondents felt that way (as compared to 64.1% last year). This gap between counties has been nearly the same for a several years. How do the respondents feel about the future? When asked whether the respondents believed that their families would be better off, the data indicate a majority of the Inland Empire's respondents in nearly equal measure are optimistic about the future, with 53.7% of INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 9 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Riverside County respondents and 56.7% of the San Bernardino respondents feeling their families would be better off next year. These results are nearly identical to lastyear, that there is still a fundamental optimism at work among Inland Empire respondents' suggesting Last year it was said that many Inland Empire respondents continue to be optimistic about their financial future. We still see evidence, however, that there are significant pockets of insecurity and stress, despite the overall improvements and optimism. There are still unchanged proportion of respondents with constrained incomes, who feel they are lim dito finally purchasing "extras." The data suggest that it is worth exploring how the Inland Empire n sta comparison to other regions in Southern California with respect to economic optimism andnds in insecurity. Finally, this year a new question was added to the survey: "What do you think is the main reason why many of our region's college graduates leave the area after graduation?" The majority of respondents in both counties (51.3% overall) indicated that there are not high -paying jobs in the area. When asked to specify the type of jobs needed in the Inenough Empire, the most often mentioned jobs were in the areas of technology and education. COMMUTING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OVERVIEW: Total, to -and -from commuting times for most Inland Empire co remain under one hour. Very substantial majorities of commuters do not comma eaters their respective counties. out of Commuting times have remained pretty much the same as in the previous although there seems to be a slight increase this year among the 2-3 hourcomm several yea . commutes (Table 100)). Table 10: Commutin Time, To And From Work Less Than 1 Hour Year of Survey 1997 Annual Surve 1998-1999 Annual Surve 1999-2000 Annual Surve 2000 Annual surve 56.8 60.1 61.7 58.9 1 to < 2 Hours 23.4 2 to < 3 Hours 11.6 10.8 8.5 23.0 11.3 3 to < 4 Hours 4.4 3.8 4.6 4.8 4 Hours Or More 3.6 2.0 1.9 INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 10 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey More specifically, a significant majority (58.9%) of the Inland Empire respondents had commuting times of less than one hour, in contrast to last year's 61.7%. However, i indicate e examine the data by county, we find that only 56.4% of Riverside County respondents hi commutes of less than one hour, which is a 6% decline over last year's percentage. This TT s smay falling suggest the beginning of a trend of higher proportions of Riverside County co into the longer commute -time categories. The proportion of less -than -one -hour commuters in San Bernardino, as reported by the respondents, is approximately the same as last year (61.2% this year; 61.5% last year). If the data suggest the beginning of a trend, they indicate that increasing commute times are concentrated among Riverside County co ount co to workut report that they The overwhelming majority of those respondents who commute travel to work within their own county (Table 11). This pattern was noted in the previous proportion Annual Survey and it continues this year with nearly identical patterns. Last year, the p p of Riverside County respondents indicating that they commuted to work within their home county was nearly 73%, while this year it is 72%. San Bernardino County pattern also remain relatively unchanged,with 70% of San Bernardino County commuters from this year's survey indicating that they drive to work within their home county, versus 73% from last year. Of course, the other way to look at the data is that nearly 3 out of every 10 people commute outside their own county to work, a figure which clearly underscores the importance of immediate action to handle the increasingly severe problem of freeway congestion. Riverside County commuters who travel outside their county to work appear to be distributed among San Bernardino (9.4%), Orange (7.2%), Los Angeles (5.1%), and San Di o (4.0%) counties. As in the previous annual surveys, the largest proportion of the San Bernardino County commuters who travel out of the county continue to go to Los Angeles County (15.3%), Table 11: Distribution of Commutin Destinations County to Which Respondent Commutes Riverside San Bernardino Orange Los Angeles San Diego Other Riverside County Respondents 1999-2000 Riverside County Respondents 2000 San Bernardino County Respondents 1999-2000 San Bernardino County Respondents 2000 INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 11 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey with the next highest proportion traveling to Riverside County (7.1 %), follow County (4.4%). A negligible proportion ro ortion of San Bernardino County co ed by Orange San Diego County. These data do not differ significantly over the rev�uters (0.6%) head for p ious The In previous surveys, respondents were asked to indicate how serious a probl Survey. traffic is for them on a typical Problem freeway day. responses have been nearly identical each year. This . year the question was asked of Riverside County respondents only and the proportion respondents indicating that freeway traffic is typically a large problem is similar th of of last year (Table 12), although there does seem to be a slight increase the responses traffic as a large problem in this year's Annual Survey. ease in the concern over local Table 12: Proportion Of Respondents Indicating That Traffic Is A Large Problem On Freeways And Local Roads On Freewa s On Local Roads Riverside Riverside 1999-2000 2000 34.9 15.2 19.6 This year we asked our respondents to address the following hypothetical "Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably nacce tabl lon question: following represents the alternative choices and responses b county would (Table 133).. Table 13. "Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you 3' do?" —Respondents checked as many as a •lied* *Since respondents can mark more than one category 6.7 sum to 100% the columns will nor INLAND E 'FIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 12 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey The data in Table 13 have fascinating implications if, in fact, we are to believe that respondents' respondents' behavior will indeed reflect their "abstract" answer. Consider the e commutes,most frequently offered answer — that faced with a situation of unacceptably nacceptabll lo they would switch jobs. That option assumes, however, that there are (and be) jobs available in the Inland Empire with shorter commutes at some acceptable salary. Given the likelihood that traffic (and thus commute times) will increase in the short run, andthat at population will also increase, policy -makers are faced with pressures to step up their expanding economic development in the region. Obviously, however, developing jobs in the Inland Empire to stabilize the commuting population is not cost-free. Further, it must be acknowledged that job -development programs might not produce the requisite number of jobs required to make a dent in reducing long-distance commuters. Of course, the definition of an "unacceptably long" commute time is a subjective one. It is interesting that when respondents were asked for their personal definition, 81.1% mdic that total round-trip commutes longer than one hour are too long. This is a fascinating result considering that approximately 41% of the respondents do have a round-trip commute Tomore than than one hour, with 18% of the commuting respondents indicating that they commute ore two hours (Table 10). Clearly, commuting is a burden for many Inland Empire workers, and suggests that given an opportunity to work in the area, they would gladly do so. Thus long- distance commuters should be seen as an important part of the Inland Empire's labor pool (especially considering that many of them are highly skilled workers, i.e., managers, administrators, health care workers and educators). There is clearly some potential relationship between Inland Empire job -development and managing commuting burdens for Inland Empire residents. However, more study is required to clarify the linkage between the job base and commuting patterns in the Inland Empire, as well as better understanding of the trade- offs people are likely to make between salaries/wages and commuting distances/times. Energy prices in particular, indeed energy issues generally, have become pressing issues in the past year. The Annual Survey asked respondents this year to respond to the following question, "Has the increase in gas prices during the past year caused you to drive less?" ess . results are reported in Table 14. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 13 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Res once No Table 14. "Has the increase in gas prices durin the last year caused you to drive less? Riverside San Bernardino Coun % Coun % 42.8 47.4 Although a majority of respondent55.6 s in both counties claimth have 50. driving due to an increase in gas prices, it is noteworthy that a fairly large not reduced their entage that they have (with a somewhat higher percentage of San Bernardino County res span indicate dents Riverside respondents reporting such a reduction). Those reporting driving a were paske to than ss d indicate what changes they had made in the way they travel, and the mostfrequent responses involved carpooling/vanpooling and various forms of reducing driving such as combining trips ("planning better"), reducing driving, and staying home more often. Of the car respondents in both counties indicating that they reduced their driving, 192 saidthey or vanpooled, 112 said they drove less, 96 indicated they combined trips, 61 walked carpooled took fewer trips or vacations, 36 changed jobs or moved, and 30 said they took the more, 47 of the responses were distributed in fairly low numbers across a host of other g bus. The rest example, 20 respondents claimed they bought a smaller car, 17 indicated they took es. For or train, and only 1 respondent respectively said he or she telecommuted, worked the Metused the Fastrak, and bought less expensive gas. Obviously, the emphasis is on c at ghame, used vanpooling and various methods of driving and traveling less. carpooling/ The Annual Survey also probed how respondents felt about alternative wa of improving traffic conditions in the respondents' area. They were read a list ys sp strategies and asked to indicate which one strategy they felt was the most important m or f 5 trransportation p rt was the least important in terms of improving traffic conditions (Table 15 at and which ). Table 15. Which Transportation Improvement Strategies Considered MOST LEAST Im' ortant Amono Inland Em ire Survey Res i ondets and % Considering Strategy MOST Im • ortant Re.air/maintain existin streets/freewa s Increase + ublic bus fre• uenc and routes Build/widen local streets and roads Increase commuter rail service and routes ntJ1 »- INLAAD EMPIRE RE5'E,4RC'N CONSORTIUM 14 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey The results in the previous two tables emphasize strongly the overall preference for increasing the capacity of freeways by building and widening freeways. Clearly the respondents are less optimistic about the strategies involving public transportation, whether rail or bus, as a means of improving traffic problems. Respondents were also asked whether they favored the development of toll roads in Southern California as an effective way of funding transportation improvements. Among San no Coun respondents, 44.8% felt that toll roads were effective as a funding method. Bernardi h' Since toll roads are a more salient and controversial issue in Riverside County, it ispe an not surprising that only 38.4% of the Riverside County respondents felt that toll roads were effective method of funding transportation projects. Respondents were asked how likely they are to support a number of methods to pay for transportation projects. The results of these items are summarized in Table 16. Table 16. How Likely Respondents Are to Support Methods to Pay for Trans , ortation Pro' ects (% "Very likely" or "Somewhat likely") Riverside San Bernardino InEmpire and County County P 64.6 Continue existing sales tax New development fees 44.8 More toll lanes 40.5 26. 25.2 2 . Charges to use freewa s 27.2 24.82 25.52 Fees based on miles drive 26.3 Hi her gas taxes 11.6 11.0 11.3 The results in Table 16 suggest that there is substantial support for continuing the existing sales tax as a method of financing new transportation projects (68.4% among Riverside County respondents, and 64.6% among San Bernardino County respondents). Respondents in both counties overwhelmingly reject higher gas taxes. New development fees seem to have moderate support, with 54% of Riverside County respondents indicating that they are either very or somewhat likely to support new development fees to finance transportation projects, and 40.8% opposed. The figures for San Bernardino County respondents are 51.7% in support, and 42,3% opposed. Clearly, policies that place the financing burden squarely on freeway users and drivers tend to elicit strong levels of opposition. 68.4 66.6 52.8 42.6 INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 15 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey It should be pointed out that carpool lanes continue to receive the fairly high levels that have been expressed inprevious surveys. g support p Y Among Riverside County respondents, 53.3% found carpool lanes very helpful in managing traffic problems. When consider the "very helpful" and the "somewhat helpful" categories, the level of confidence in carpool both lanes rises to 86%, indicating very impressive levels of support for this method • traffic problems. The figures are virtually the same for San Bernardino County re managing spondents. SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION ITEMS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY A number of transportation -related items were asked of Riverside Count res only, and the results are summarized as follows: y • 35% of the Riverside County respondents indicated that freeway traffic is a problem," approximately the same proportion as in the previous year (33%) "large • 20% of the Riverside County respondents indicate that local traffic is a large problem, which is a 5% increase over the previous year, suggesting a small b significant increase in perceived severity of local traffic ut Additionally, Riverside County respondents were asked a series of items de support for a variety of transportation and traffic management policies, including variety y with and fee approaches. Riverside County respondents were asked if the recalled a vaeyty of tan 1988 regarding Measure A (a measure which originally Y how they voted in largest source of transportation funding in the co passed by 78.9% of the voters and is the voting going back over 10 years should be interpreted Of course, any reports of retrospective indicate: with considerable caution. The data • 25.1% recall voting in favor of Measure A • 11.5% indicate they voted against the measure • Approximately 60% either couldn't didn't know how they voted, claime didn't vote, or didn't live in Riverside County at the time. d they The Annual Survey this year also probed the Riverside County residents for their views al regarding the balance between new transportation projects and environment protection. INLAND EAIpIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 16 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Specifically, respondents were asked which of a series of statements best reflected their view of this balance between transportation projects and protection of the environment. Table 17 summarizes the results of these responses. Table 17. Distribution of Agreement Among Riverside Respondents with Series of Statements Regarding Environment and Trans ' ortation Tradeoff Transportation improvements are always more important than protecting the environment Transportation improvements are more important, but actions to protect the environment must be taken Protecting the environment is more important than transportation improvements, but some limited improvements could be built No transportation improvements should be constructed in sensitive areas. Don't Know/Refused to answer 6.0 41.8 31.1 10.8 10.3 Neither of the extreme statements have much support, although a slightly larger proportion of the respondents assert unqualified priority for "sensitive areas" over transportation improvements. On the other hand a moderately higher proportion (42%) place a higher priority on transportation improvements, while simultaneously expressing some concern for protecting the environment; 31% of the respondents, on the other hand, concede the need for some transportation improvements, while placing a higher priority on the environment. The data indicate that some level of increased activity for transportation improvements is there, although it is also likely that planning transportation projects will require considerable attention to environmental issues. EVALUATIONS OF SELECTED PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SERVICES OVERVIEW: In general, Inland Empire respondents continue to show stability in their regarding the private and public services included in previous Annual Surveys. Police/Sheriff INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUhI 17 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey services, shopping, and parks/recreation services are rated quite highly. On the Street/road maintenance, entertainment, and transportation options other hand, ue problem areas. Evaluations of public schools continue to decline among San Bernardino to be County respondents. County Each year the Annual Survey includes questions regarding respondents' evalua local services from both the private and public sectors. The data (Table 18) sh dons of stability over time in rankings, with only slightly fewer respondents ratio se ow relative "excellent" or "good" when compared with the previous survey. g rvices as Table 18. Percent Rating Local Services as Excellent or Good Police/Sheriff Parks/Recreation Streets/Roads Public Schools Sho. . ire Trans ortation Museum EMEMMIll 2000 Annual Survey Riverside County 66.1 62.5 San Bern. Inland County Empire % 64.0 58.2 43.8 33.0 46.3 40.8 66.1 62.5 38.4 30.1 41.4 24.2 43.2 65.1 60.3 38.4 43.5 64.3 42.3 1999- 2000 Annual Survey 1998- 1999 Annual Surve Inland j Inland Empire Empire 69.1 60.5 42.5 46.2 68.4 NA NA 49.3 66.6 39.4 48.7 65.4 NA NA 46.9 Police/sheriff services continue to receive the highest rankings within eac shopping tied for first in Riverside County, and ranking a close second in h county, with County. Parks and recreation services also continue to receive high mark San Bernardino s. Within Riverside County, the public school system received virtually the same evaluations as last year. In contrast, evaluations given by San Bernardino C have declined (from 51.3% rating schools as "excellent "good" i or ounty respondents 40.8% in this report). This does not mean, however, that a huge proportion rated schools as n 1998, to 46.2% in 1999, to "poor." Rather, it is to be noted that respondents within both number of "don't know" responses to this question. This suggestscounties recorded the highest p public school systems may wish to consider concentrated pub relations within both counties the campaign. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CpNS,pRTIUA? 18 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Street and road maintenance services continue to be rated quite low among respondents of both counties. Continuing a trend from the last report, Riverside County respondents tend to be more positive about street and road maintenance than were San Bernardino County respondents, however it is to be noted that the rankings in both counties are relatively low. Entertainment and cultural opportunities (museums) are also given low marks, as are local transportation options. CONCLUSIONS In this report we have provided a general overview of highlights of the 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey. The reader is urged to review the full data display (attached) for the complete listing of survey results. Subsequent papers will address issues such as fair treatment by police and sheriffs, immigration, and other issues. Further, zone reports for each county will be published in the near future. For questions about the Inland Empire Annual Survey, please feel free to call the authors: Shel Bockman (909-880-5733), Max Neiman (909-787-2196), and Barbara Sirotnik (909-880- 5729). INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 19 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey APPENDIX I Questionnaire INLAND EMPIRE ANNUAL SURVEY, 2000 Following is a copy of the 2000 survey. Please be aware of the following notations: • Baseline questions (questions we ask each year) are numbered starting with a B (e.g. BI) • Questions to be conducted with a sample of 1,000 for the entire Inland Empire (rather than 1, 000 for each county) are numbered with the designation S (e.g. SB18, a baseline question, or S55, a sponsor question) SHELLO Hello, I am calling from the Institute of Applied Research at Cal State San Bernardino. SHEAD Are you the head of this household or his or her spouse? 1. Yes [SKIP TO INTRO] 2. No [CONTINUE] 3. DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE 4. REFUSED SHEAD2 Is the head of the household or his or her spouse at home? 1. Yes [SKIP TO INTRO] 2. No [CONTINUE] 3. DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE 4. REFUSED INTRO California State University San Bernardino and the University of California Riverside are conducting a scientific study of public opinion on a variety of issues. Answers to this survey will be used by Inland Empire officials to make policy decisions and your opinions are very important to represent your point of view in our study. This survey takes about 15 minutes to complete. Your identity and your responses will remain completely anonymous and confidential, and of course,. you are free to decline to answer any particular survey question. I should also mention that this call may be monitored by my supervisor for quality control purposes only. Is it alright to ask you these questions now? 1. YES [SKIP TO BEGIN] 2. NO APPT Is it possible to make an appointment to ask you the survey questions at a more convenient time? 1. Yes (SPECIFY) 2. No Institute of Applied Research 1 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey BEGIN I'd like to begin by asking you some general questions. B 1. First, what city do you live in? 1. Code directly 2. DON'T KNOW 3. REFUSED B2. What is your zip code? 1. Code directly 2. DON'T KNOW 3. REFUSED B3. Overall, how would you rate County as a place to live? Would you say it is Very Good, Fairly Good, Neither Good Nor Bad, Fairly Bad, or Very Bad? 1. Very good 2. Fairly good 3. Neither good nor bad 4. Fairly bad 5. Very bad 6. DON'T KNOW 7. REFUSED B4. What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Specify) DON'T KNOW REFUSED ROTATE THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS (B3 and B4) B5. In your opinion, what is the ONE best thing about living in County? (Specify DON'T KNOW REFUSED * USE CODING FROM LAST YEAR B6. In your opinion, what would you say is the ONE most negative thing about living in County? (Specify) DON'T KNOW REFUSE * USE CODING FROM LAST YEAR Institute of Applied Research 2 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 7. Please tell me how strongly do you agree with the following statement: Strongly Strongly DON'T Agree Agree Disagree Disagree KNOW REF Continued POPULATION growth in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 Inland Empire will produce mainly positive results for residents. B8. In comparison to a year ago, would you say that you and your family are financially better off or worse off or the same? 1. Better off 2. Same 3. Worse off 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSE B9. Thinking about your household income, would you say that it is enough so that you can save money and buy some extras, just enough to meet your bills and obligations, or is it not enough to meet your bills and obligations? 1. Enough to save and buy extras 2. Just enough to pay bills 3. Not enough 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSE B10. Now looking ahead, do you think that a year from now you and your family will be Better off, worse off, or just about the same as you are now? 1. Better off 2. Same 3. Worse off 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSE B11. Are you currently employed? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON T KNOW 4. REFUSED B12. ASK ONLY IF CURRENTLY EMPLOYED: Do you work full time or part time? 1. Full time 2. Part time 3. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 3 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 1 B13. ASK ONLY IF CURRENTLY EMPLOYED: What is your occupation? Specify * USE CODING FROM LAST YEAR B14. ASK ONLY IF CURRENTLY EMPLOYED: How concerned are you that you might lose your job? Would you say you are: 1. . Very concerned 2. Somewhat concerned 3. Not at all concerned 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED B15. In general, how would you rate the economy in County today? Would you say that it is Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor? 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED IEEP 16. Many of our region's college graduates leave the area after graduation. What do you think is the main reason for their leaving: 1. There are not enough jobs 2. There are not enough high -paying jobs 3. They want to try a different living environment 4. OTHER 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED IEEP 17. The Inland Empire needs more jobs in which of the following areas: [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] 1 Manufacturing 2. Distribution 3. Industry 4. High technology 5. Medical field 6. Education 7. Retail 8. Construction 9. Government 10. Engineering 11. Aerospace 12. Any other [SPECIFY: ] 13. NO RESPONSE Institute of Applied Research 4 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey BUSINESS PRESS 18. What publication is your primary source of printed LOCAL business news? [INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ CHOICES] 1. The Business Press 2. The Press -Enterprise 3. The San Bernardino County Sun 4. The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin 5. The Los Angeles Times 6. OTHER [DON'T SPECIFY] 7. I DON'T READ BUSINESS NEWS 8. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED BUSINESS PRESS 19. As a reader, what kind of features do you read the most in a LOCAL business publication? [INTERVIEWER: DON'T READ CHOICES, TAKE FIRST RESPONSE] 1. News stories about local companies 2. News stories about business trends affecting the entire Inland Empire region 3. Profiles of local business people and companies 4. Special -interest columns 5. Opinion -editorials 6. Lists ranking the top local companies 7. National economic news/trends 8. Special advertising supplements 9. OTHER [SPECIFY...] 10. DON'T KNOW 11. REFUSED B20. - Da you think, in general that buying a home in County today is an excellent, good, only fair, or a poor investment? 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED B21. Considering all of the problems that face YOUR community or city, which ONE city or community problem do you consider to be the most important? 1. (SPECIFY ) 2. DON'T KNOW 3. REFUSED *USE THE CODING CATEGORIES FROM LAST YEAR Institute of Applied Research 5 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey i PRESLEY CITY OF RIVERSIDE ONLY 22. Project Bridge is an effort by the City of Riverside to provide street outreach services and counseling to gang involved youth of value to the community, along with increased enforcement of gang related crimes and laws. Have you heard of Project Bridge? 1. Yes 2. Not Sure [SKIP TO #24] 3. No [SKIP TO #24] 4. REFUSED [SKIP TO #24] CITY OF RIVERSIDE ONLY 23. Do you believe that Project Bridge has made a significant contribution, some contribution, not much of a contribution, or no contribution at all to local efforts to reduce gang related violence and crime in Riverside? 1. Significant contribution 2. Some contribution 3. Not much of a contribution 4. No contribution at all 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED CITY OF RIVERSIDE ONLY 24. Do you think that gang related crime and violence have decreased in the last few years in Riverside? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED *NOTE: THE NEXT THREE QUESTIONS (#19, #20, #21) REQUIRE A SAMPLE SIZE OF 1,000 FOR THE ENTIRE INLAND EMPIRE, RATHER THAN 1,000 FOR EACH COUNTY THE DESIGNATION SB INDICATES SHORT SAMPLE QUESTION SB25. In general, how fearful are you that YOU will be the victim of a serious crime, such as a violent or costly crime? Would you say that you are... 1. Very fearful 2. Somewhat fearful 3. Not too fearful, or .. . 4. Not at all fearful 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED SB26. Have you ever been the victim of a serious, violent, or costly crime? 1 Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 6 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey S27. Is there any area within one mile of your house in which you are afraid to walk at night? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED TRANS: I would now like to ask you some questions about voting. B28. Are you currently registered to vote? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON T KNOW 4. REFUSED TO ANSWER B29. Which of the following best describes your political party affiliation: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or some other party? 1. Democrat 2. Republican 3. Independent 4. Some other Party 5. None 5. DON T KNOW 6. REFUSED TO ANSWER B30. Would you say that you vote in all elections, only some, hardly ever or never? 1. In all elections 2. Only in some 3. Hardly ever 4. Never 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED B31. Politically, do you consider yourself to be INTERVIEWER: READ OPTIONS 1. Very liberal 2. Somewhat liberal 3. Middle of the road 4. Somewhat conservative 5. Very conservative 6. DON T KNOW 7. REFUSED Now I am going to ask you a few questions about immigration. 32. Regarding LEGAL immigration, should the level of legal immigration into the United States be reduced? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON T KNOW 4. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 7 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 33. How friendly would you say the relationship is today between the United States and Mexico? Would you say this relationship is: 1. Very friendly 2. Somewhat friendly 3. Not very friendly or 4. Hostile 5. DON T KNOW 6. REFUSED (TRANS) Now, I'd like to ask you how you rate some of the local public and private services you are supposed to receive. For each would you let me know if you believe the service is excellent, good, fair, or poor. (ROTATE B28 - B33) Excellent Good Fair Poor DON'T KNOW REFUSE B34. Police/Sheriff 1 2 3 4 5 6 B35. Parks and Recreation B36. The way streets and roads are kept up B37. Public schools 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 B38. Shopping 1 2 3 4 5 6 39. Transportation 1 2 3 4 5 6 40. Museum 1 2 3 4 5 6 B41. Entertainment 1 2 3 4 5 6 42. _ How strongly do you agree with the following statement: Generally, all Inland Empire residents can expect to be treated fairly by policemen or sheriffs. Do you: 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Can't say 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. REFUSED B43. How much confidence do you have that the elected officials in your city will adopt policies that will benefit the general community? Would you say you have a "great deal", "some", "not much," or "no confidence?" 1. A great deal of confidence 2. Some confidence 3. Not much confidence 4. No confidence Institute of Applied Research 8 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS The next few questions concern local public schools: 44. Which of the following statements comes CLOSEST to your point of view? The best way to improve local public schools is to: • 1. Set higher standards for student academic achievement 2. Set higher standards for student discipline 3. Increase school funding 4. Increase teacher training 45. California schools rank 40`h nationwide in school funding. If schools were to be funded closer to the national average how should we spend the increased funds? [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] 1. Textbooks and classroom supplies 2. Computers and Internet access 3. Increasing teachers' salaries 4. Improvement to school facilities 5. More school safety officers 6. More school site counselors 7. OTHER: Specify 8. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED 46. Local schools have implemented a number of reforms in the past few years, including Class Size Reduction and a Statewide Assessment System. How much do you think the statewide assessment system has improved your local schools? Has it improved them a lot, some, or not at all? 1. A lot 2. Some 3. Not at all 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED 47. How about class size reduction? 1. A lot 2. Some 3. Not at all 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED TRANS: Now I am going to ask you a series of questions regarding transportation issues. [ONLY ASK NEXT QUESTION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING] Institute of Applied Research 9 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey B48. When thinking about your travel to and from work, on the average, how much total time, in minutes, do you spend commuting both ways each day? 1. Doesn't apply; don't work outside home or I am not employed 2. Average total time: MINUTES 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED 49. Some commuters complain that they spend too much time on the road each day. For you, what would be a round-trip commute time that you would consider to be too long? [INTERVIEWER: RECORD ROUND TRIP TIME IN MINUTES] 50. Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you do? [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] (ONLY IF NEED TO PROBE: Would you...) 1. Switch jobs 2. Move 3. Carpool 4. Take the Metrolink 5. Take the bus 6. Telecommute 7. OTHER: (Specify) B51. What county do you work in? 1. Riverside 2. San Bernardino 3. Orange 4. Los Angeles 5. San Diego 6. Other: SANBAG AND RCTC QUESTIONS: 52. - Has the increase in gas prices during the past year caused you to drive less? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP #53] 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED 53. If yes, what changes have you made in the way you travel? [ONE ANSWER] 1. Carpooling and/or vanpooling 2. Metrolink 3. Riding the bus 4. Taking the train 5. Walking 6. Bicycling 7. Changed jobs or moved 8. Other (please specify) 9. DON'T KNOW 10. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 10 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 54. Traffic congestion in the Inland Empire is going to continue to worsen. I am about to read a list of five transportation strategies that may help improve traffic conditions in your area. Once I've read the list, please tell me what you believe to be the MOST important strategy that should be pursued in your county. 1. Build and/or widen freeways 2. Build and/or widen local streets and roads 3. Repair and maintain the condition of existing freeways and streets 4. Increase commuter rail service frequency and routes 5. Increase public bus frequency and routes 6. Another strategy that is not listed 7. DON'T KNOW 8. REFUSED 55. I'm going to read that list one more time. This time please tell me what you think would be the LEAST important strategy. 1. Build and/or widen freeways 2. Build and/or widen local streets and roads 3. Repair and maintain the condition of existing freeways and streets 4. Increase commuter rail service frequency and routes 5. Increase public bus frequency and routes 6. Some other strategy that is not listed 7. DON'T KNOW 8. REFUSED SB COUNTY AND RIV COUNTY 56. In many states, toll roads have been built as an alternative to paying for transportation improvements. In recent years, toll roads have been built in Southern California. Do you favor the development of toll roads in Southern California as an effective way of funding transportation improvements? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED ASK VV RESPONDENTS ONLY [DETERMINE BY CITY 1 57. In the Victorville area, a "down the hill" premium commuter bus service will soon be offered to transport High Desert riders to San Bernardino and Rancho Cucamonga. Is this a service you would consider using? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 11 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey SB COUNTY ONLY 58. The Metrolink train provides service to Los Angeles, Orange County and other destinations. Are you aware of the Metrolink? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED SB COUNTY ONLY 59. Have you ever used the Metrolink? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO #61] 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED SB COUNTY ONLY 60. If yes, for what purpose? 1. Business/commuting to work 2. Trips for entertainment/pleasure 3. Both 4. Other (SPECIFY) 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED SB COUNTY ONLY 61. In 1989, San Bernardino County residents approved Measure I, a '/2 cent sales tax to pay for transportation improvements. Are you aware of Measure I? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO #63) 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED SB COUNTY ONLY 62. Can you tell me how these funds are being used? RIV COUNTY ONLY 63. On a typical day, how much of a problem is FREEWAY traffic? Would you say it is .. . 1. No problem at all 2. Somewhat of a problem 3. A large problem 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 12 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RIV COUNTY ONLY 64. On a typical day, how much of a problem is LOCAL traffic? Would you say it is.. . 1. No problem at all 2. Somewhat of a problem 3. A large problem 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED RIV COUNTY ONLY 65. In 1988, Riverside County residents voted on a ballot proposition called MEASURE A which increased the sales tax by %2 cent to pay for transportation improvements. Measure A passed by 78.9%. Can you recall if you supported or opposed this measure? 1. Supported. 2. Opposed 3. Didn't vote or didn't live in Riverside County in 1988 4. DON'T KNOW/RECALL 5. REFUSED RIV COUNTY ONLY 66. The Measure A transportation sales tax is set to expire in 2009. Today it is the primary source of transportation funding in the county, surpassing what the county receives from state or federal sources. If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a ballot measure to extend the half -cent sales tax to fund transportation projects in Riverside County? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED RIV COUNTY ONLY 67. Do you favor allowing local sales taxes for transportation to pass with a simple majority instead of a two-thirds vote? 1. Favor a majority vote 2. Oppose (favor requiring a two-thirds vote) 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED RIV COUNTY ONLY 68. In recent years, concern for the environment has become an important public interest. Of the following statements, which BEST describes your position regarding the importance of new transportation projects versus protection of the environment? 1. Transportation improvements are always more important than protecting the environment. 2. Transportation improvements are more important, but actions to protect the environment must be taken. 3. Protecting the environment is more important than transportation improvements Institute of Applied Research 13 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey but some limited improvements could be built. 4. No transportation improvements should be constructed in environmentally sensitive areas. 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED 69. How likely are you to support the following methods to pay for transportation projects? Are you very likely, somewhat likely, or not at all likely to support these methods? VL SL NL 1. Higher gas taxes 1 2 3 2. Continue existing transportation sales taxes 1 2 3 3. More toll lanes 1 2 3 4. Fees based on the number of miles you drive 1 2 3 5. Special charges to use the freeways during rush hour 1 2 3 6. New development fees 1 2 3 70. Carpool lanes are designed for use by vehicles with two or more passengers and reduce the number of cars using the other adjacent lanes on the freeway. Do you feel these lanes are: very helpful, somewhat helpful, or not helpful at all. 1. Very helpful 2. Somewhat helpful 3. Not helpful at all 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED OMNITRANS ASK IN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES: 71. Can you tell me the name of your local bus service? (DO NOT PROMPT) 1. Omnitrans [SKIP TO #73] 2. No / Don't know 3. Other: Specify ASK IN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES: 72. If did NOT answer Omnitrans: Have you heard of Omnitrans? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED ASK IN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES: 73. Have you used either Omnitrans Regular Bus Service or Omnitrans Access or Dial -A - Ride Service in the past 6 months? 1. Omnitrans Regular Bus Service Institute of Applied Research 14 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 2. Access or Dial -A -Ride Service 3. Both 4. Neither 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED ASK IN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES: 74. How would you rate your overall perception of Omnitrans, even if you have never used it personally? Would you say that Omnitrans is: 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED ASK IN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES: 75. Have you seen or heard any advertising for Omnitrans in the past 6 months? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO #77] 3. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO #77] 4. REFUSED [SKIP TO #77] 76. If yes: Where did you see or hear the advertising? 1. TV 2. Radio 3. Newspaper 4. Direct Mail 5. Bus Shelters 6. Side of Buses 7. Movie Theatre 8. OTHER: Specify... 9. DON'T KNOW 10. REFUSED IVDA 77. Have you used air travel for business or pleasure within the past year? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO #81] 3. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO #81] 4. REFUSED [SKIP TO #81] 78. If yes: From which airport did you travel? [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] 1. LAX 2. Ontario Institute of Applied Research 15 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 3. From another airport: Specify... 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED 79. Would you like to have San Bernardino as a local option for air travel? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO #81] 3. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO #81] 4. REFUSED [SKIP TO #81] 80. If yes: If you had other local airport options such as San Bernardino, where would you travel to? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] 1. Western part of the US 2. Midwest or the Eastern part of the US 3. Commute to LAX 4. OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED CHARTER DIGITAL CABLE (TRANS)The following questions will be concerning your home television viewing. 81. Do you currently subscribe to: [INTERVIEWER: READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] 1. Cable [SKIP TO # 84] 2. Satellite 3. Wireless [SKIP TO #86] 4. Don't subscribe to any [SKIP TO #86] 5. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO #86] 6. REFUSED [SKIP TO #86] 82. If they subscribe to satellite: Who is your satellite provider? [INTERVIEWER: DON'T READ LIST] 1. The Dish 2. Echo Star 3. Direct TV 4. DBS 5. OTHER 6. DON'T KNOW 7. REFUSED 83. If they subscribe to satellite: Why did you decide to use a satellite vs. using the local cable provider? [INTERVIEWER: DON'T READ LIST] [ONE ANSWER] 1. Channel selection 2. Prices Institute of Applied Research 16 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 3. Technology 4. Sport packages 5. Angry at local cable company 6. OTHER 7. DON'T KNOW 8. REFUSED 84. If they subscribe to cable: Can you tell me who your cable company is? 1. Charter Communications 2. Other (SKIP TO #86] 3. DON'T KNOW £SKIP TO #86] 4. REFUSED LSKIP TO #86] 85. If they subscribe to cable with Charter: Overall, how would you rate Charter Communications as your television provider? Would you say that it is: 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED 86. Do you know if Charter Communications offers any other services besides cable television? (IF YES, "COULD YOU PLEASE LIST THEM?") 87. Have you heard of Charter Digital Cable? 1. Yes.... Please tell me what is different about Charter Digital Cable from other cable company providers that you have used. [INTERVIEWER: DON'T READ LIST] [ONE ANSWER] a. more channels b. better picture quality c. interactive preview channel d. better viewing options e. OTHER: Specify f. DON'T KNOW g. REFUSED 2. No 88. Have you ever heard about Charter Pipeline service? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 17 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 89. Do you currently subscribe to DSL? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED (TRANS) And finally we'd like to ask a few questions about you and your background... B90. ASK IF CURRENTLY UNEMPLOYED: Previously you indicated that you are currently unemployed. Are you... 1. Looking for work 2. A housewife/househusband and not looking for work outside the home; or 3. Not currently in workforce 4. REFUSED B91. Which of the following best describes your marital status? 1. Single, never married [SKIP TO #92] 2. Married 3. Divorced [SKIP TO #92] 4. Widowed [SKIP TO #92] 5. REFUSED [SKIP TO #92] B92. IASK ONLY IF THE PERSON IS MARRIED] Which of the following describes your spouse's status? Employed full time, employed part time, homemaker, unemployed and looking for work, or unemployed and NOT currently looking for work? 1. Employed full-time 2. Employed part-time 3. Home -maker 4. Unemployed, looking for work 5. Unemployed, not currently looking for work 6. DON'T KNOW 7. REFUSED . B93. Do you have any children that are under the age of 18? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON T KNOW 4. REFUSED B94. How would you describe your race and ethnicity? 1. Asian (Specify) 2. Black or African American 3. Hispanic or Latino 4. Caucasian or White 5. Other ethnic group (specify) 6. DON T KNOW 7. REFUSED B95. What was the last grade of school that you completed? Institute of Applied Research 18 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 1. Some high school or less 2. High school graduate 3. Some college 4. College graduate (Bachelor s degree) 5. Some graduate work 6. Post -graduate degree 7. DON T KNOW 8. REFUSED B96. How many cars do you have for your household? cars B97. What was your age at your last birthday? Years - B98. How long have you lived in County? Years (ROUND UP) B99. Which of the following categories best describes your total household or family income before taxes, from all sources, for 1999? 1. Less than $25,000 2. $25,000 to $35,999 3. 536,000 to $49,999 4. 550,000 to $65,999 5. $66,000 to $79,999 6. $80,000 to $110,000 7. Over $110,000 8. DON T KNOW 9. REFUSED Well, that's it. Thank you very much for your time - we appreciate it. INTERVIEWER QUESTIONS IQ 1. The respondant was... 1. Male - 2. Female 3. Couldn't tell IQ2. How cooperative was the respondent? 1. Cooperative 2. Uncooperative 3. Very Uncooperative IQ3. How well did the respondent understand the questions? 1. Very easily 2. Easily 3. Some difficulty 4. Great deal of difficulty IQ4. In what language was the interview conducted? 1. English 2. Spanish Institute of Applied Research 19 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey APPENDIX II Data Display 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary QUESTION B3: Overall, how would you rate the County as a place to live? Would you say it is Very Good, Farily Good, Neither Good Nor Bad, Fairly Bad, or Very Bad? - Total # of Riverside. San Bemardino respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Very good 281 28.1% 149 14.9% 431 21.5% Fairly good 523 52.3% 524 52.5% 1047 52.4% Neither good nor bad 143 14.3% 232 23.2% 375 18.7% Fairly bad 33 3.3% 61 6.1% 94 4.7% Very bad 14 1.3% 26 2.6% 39 2.0% DONT KNOW 7 .7% 7 .7% 14 .7% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as VERY GOOD or FAIRLY GOOD) Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Col Col Col Response Response Response Cases % Cases % Cases % Nice living area Low 119 16.5% 97 15.7% 216 16.1% crime Not 117 16.3% 83 13.5% 201 15.0% crowded Close 89 12.4% 60 9.7% 149 11.1% to everything Good Climate 78 10.8% 49 7.9% 127 9.5% Affordable housing, good 84 11.6% 34 5.4% 117 8.7% variety 44 6.1% 54 8.8% 98 7.3% Good schools Quiet 47 6.5% 50 8.1% 97 7.2% area Good 54 7.4% 40 6.5% 94 7.0% people Low 37 5.1% 30 4.9% 67 5.0% cost of living Clean 32 4.4% 22 3.6% 54 4.0% Job 33 4.5% 15 2.5% 48 3.6% variety, availability Good 26 3.6% 17 2.8% 44 3.3% air quality High 23 3.2% 19 3.1% 42 3.1% crime Good 10 1.4% 29 4.7% 39 2.9% community service Close to mountains, 16 2.2% 18 3.0% 34 2.5% beach, desert, river, etc. 11 1.6% 17 2.7% 28 2.1% Better than a big city (LA) Bad 9 1.2% 17 2.8% 26 1.9% air quality Good 15 2.1% 7 1.1% 22 1.6% economy Good 7 1.0% 12 1.9% 19 1.4% quality of life Good 10 1.3% 9 1.5% 19 1.4% police 6 .9% 10 1.7% 17 mcirF• non„io ,.,e.,, .,ll 1.2% owed to indicate more man one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 1 QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as VERY GOOD or FAIRLY GOOD) Riverside San Bemardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % _ Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % No traffic 11 1.6% 5 .8% 16 1.2% Too much traffic 14 1.9% 1 .2% 15 1.1% Good place to raise family 7 1.0% 8 1.2% 15 1.1% Entertainment, lots to do 6 .9% 8 1.3% 14 1.1% Too crowded 12 1.6% 2 .4% 14 1.0% Low taxes 6 .8% 8 1.3% 14 1.0% Good growth 9 1.2% 5 .8% 14 1.0% No gangs 5 .7% 8 1.2% 13 1.0% Transportion, good (public) 3 .4% 10 1.6% 1.0% 13 Good place for kids 9 1.2% 4 .6% 13 .9% Clean and not run down 4 .5% 8 1.3% 12 .9% Good city council 7 .9% 5 .8% 11 .9% Good shopping centers .7. 1.0% 4 .7% 11 .8% Close to family and friends 6 .9% 4 .6% 10 .7% High activity, gangs 2 .2% 8 1.2% 9 .7% Good streets 6 .8% 4 .6% 9 .7% Bad police 4 .6% 5 .8% 9 .7% Need more jobs 5 .8% 3 .5% 9 .7% Good public transportation 5 .8% 3 .5% 8 .6% Bad appearance 1 .2% 7 1.1% 8 .6% Bad Streets 1 .2% 6 1.0% 8 .6% Easy access to freeways 4 .5% 4 .6% 7 .6% Good county 5 .7% 2 .3% 7 .5% Variety of people 4 .6% 2 .4% 7 .5% Lack of community services 6 .8% 1 .1% 7 .5% Far from everything 3 .5% 3 .5% 7 .5% Growth, too much 2 .2% 5 .8% 6 .5% Good medical 4 .5% 3 .4% 6 .5% Bad climate 3 .3% 4 .6% 6 .5% Bad city council 1 .1% 5 .8% 6 .4% Need more industry 2 .3% 3 .5% 5 .4% Poor economy 1 .1% 4 .6% 5 .3% Bad housing 1 .1% 4 .6% 4 .3% Good laws 2 .3% 2 .3% 4 .3% Good property value 1 .2% 2 .4% 4 .3% Bad county 2 .3% 1 .2% 3 .3% Too much racism 2 .3% 1 .2% 3 .2% No graffiti 3 .5% 3 .2% Graffiti 2 .3% 1 .2% 3 .2% High activity, drugs 1 .1% 2 .3% 3 .2% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 2 QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as VERY GOOD or FAIRLY GOOD) Riverside San Bemardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response High povery 1 .1% 2 .3% 3 .2% High cost of living 2 -.2% 1 .2% 3 .2% Bad finance 1 .1% 2 .3% • 3 .2% Good finance 2 .2% 1 .1% 2 2% Lack of activities for youth 2 . .2% 1 .1% 2 .2% No street lights 2 .4% 2 2% Environmental issues 1 .1% 1 .2% 2 .2% Bad public transportation 2 .3% 0 .0% 2 .2% Bad image 1 .2% 1 .1% 2 .1% No growth 2 .3% 2 .1% Lack of accessibility for disabled 1 .2% 1 .1% Desert is ignored, out of the loop 1 .2% 1 .1% Nothing to do 1 .1% 1 .1% 1 1% Poor medical 1 .2% 1 .1% Too many insects (ants) 1 .2% 1 .1% Politicians, bad 1 .2% 1 .1% Too much industry 1 .2% 1 1% Bad people 1 .2% 1 .1 Historical landmarks 1 .1% 1 .1% Welfare, homeless low 1 .1% 1 1 Lack of technology 1 .1% 1 .1% No activity, drugs 1 .2% 1 .1% Poor water quality 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .1% Good place for kids 1 .1% 1 1% Unsafe drivers 1 .1% 1 .1% Good for seniors 1 .1% 1 1% Bad laws 1 .1% 1 .1% Bad freeway Lack of consideration for 1 .1% 1 .1% seniors 0 .0% 0 .0% Total # of cases 722 147.4% 618 141.7% 1339 144.8% VlITC. people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 3 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD) Riverside San Bemardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response High crime 12 11.0% 45 25.2% 57 19.9% Nice living area 11 9.9% 15 8.6% 26 9.1% Bad air quality 7 6.2% 11 6.4% 18 6.3% Low crime 5 4.8% 12 6.9% 18 6.1% Transportion, good (public) 5 4.5% 10 5.7% 15 5.3% High activity, gangs 6 5.2% 9 5.2% 15 5.2% Quiet area 5 4.8% 8 4.7% 14 4.8% Too crowded 5 5.1% 8 4.4% 13 4.7% Clean and not run down 2 2.0% 9 5.2% 11 4.0% Need more jobs 5 4.6% 6 3.5% 11 3.9% Close to everything 3 3.2% 7 3.8% 10 3.6% Bad appearance 2 1.9% 8 4.6% 10 3.6% Bad climate 3 3.1% 7 3.6% 10 3.4% Job variety, availability 2 2.1% 7 4.0% 9 3.3% Affordable housing, good variety 1 .6% 8 4.6% 9 3.1% Too much traffic 6 5.8% 2 1.0% 8 2.8% High activity, drugs 3 2.4% 6 3.1% 8 2.8% Good schools 4 3.8% 3 1.9% 8 2.6% Good Climate 2 1.5% 6 3.3% 7 2.6% Far from everything 3 2.9% 3 1.9% 7 2.3% Variety of people 4 3.9% 2 1.2% 6 2.2% Nothing to do 4 3.6% 2 1.2% 6 2.1% Bad people 1 .9% 5 2.6% 6 2.0% Bad public transportation 3 2.9% 2 1.3% 5 1.9% Lack of community services 4 4.2% 1 .5% 5 1.9% Bad police 3 2.6% 2 1.1% 5 1.7% Good economy 2 2.1% 2 1.3% 5 1.6% Bad Streets 5 2.6% 5 1.6% Growth, too much 2 1.8% 2 1.3% 4 1.5% Not crowded 3 2.8% 1 .6% 4 1.4% Bad finance 3 2.5% 1 .6% 4 1.3% Low cost of living 4 2.1% 4 1.3% High cost of living 3 3.2% 3 1.2% Close to mountains, beach, desert, river, etc. 1 1.1% 2 1.3% 3 1.2% No gangs 3 1.7% 3 1.1% Poor economy 1 .6% 2 1.3% 3 1.1% Clean 1 .6% 2 1.3% 3 1.0% Good people 1 .9% 2 1.0% 3 1.0% Bad laws 2 1.6% 1 .7% 3 1.0% E: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 4 QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD) Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response Bad county 2 1.5% 1 .6% CO 01 N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 CD CO N 1.0% Bad city council 1 .9% 2 9% 9% No traffic 2 2.3% .9% Lack of youth guidance 1 1.1% 1 .7% .8% Welfare, homeless high 2 1.3% .8% Good air quality 1 .8% 1 .8% .8% Graffiti 1 .9% 1 .6% .7% Good community service 2 2.0% .7% Entertainment, lots to do 2 1.0% .7% Bad shopping centers 2 1.4% .5% OTHER 1 .7% .4% Minorities, too many 1 .7% .4% Too much racism 1 .7% .4% High child support 1 .7% .4% High poverty 1 .7% .4% Unsafe drivers 1 .7% .4% Bad image 1 .6% .4% Bad housing 1 .6% .4% Noise 1 .6% .4% Low taxes 1 .6% .4% Good quality of life 1 .6% .4% Need more industry 1 .6% .4% Better than a big city (LA) 1 .9% .3% Good police 1 .9% .3% Close to family and friends 1 9,/O 3% ° Bad freeway . 1 .9% .3% Good county - 1 .8% .3% Good public transportation 1 8% • .3 °/° DONT KNOW 1 .4% .2% Dumps, landfills 1 .4% .2% Lack of culture 1 .6% .2% Poor water quality 1 .6% .2% Need more restaurants 1 .6% .2% Good growth 0 .1% .1% Don't like the desert 0 .1% .1% Good property value 0 .1% .1% Total # of respondents 107 139.1% 179 146.4% 143.7% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 5 QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as FAIRLY BAD or VERY BAD) High crime Bad air quality Clean and not run down Bad people High activity, gangs Too crowded Transportion, good. (public) High activity, drugs Bad appearance Too much traffic Need more jobs Bad police Bad county Poor economy Nothing to do Bad laws High povery Bad climate Bad image Bad Streets High cost of living Bad city council Low crime Too much racism Lack of youth guidance Illegal immigrants Unsafe drivers . • Lack of community services Bad finance Growth, too much Graffiti Welfare, homeless high Nice living area Good schools No gangs Affordable housing, good variety Variety of people Bad housing Noise Lack of culture Riverside San Bemardino Cases CoI Response Cases Col Response 10 6 4 1 1 7 1 2 1 4 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 22.1% 13.0% 8.4% 1.9%- 2.6% 15.9% 3.3% 4.1% 2.2% 8.2% 8.5% 2.2% 4.8% 4.8% 1.9% 1.9% 3.7% 6.6% 4.4% 5.2% 2.6% 2.2% 2.6% 4.1% 4.0% 2.2% 3.6% 1.9% 2.6% 37 10 7 9 7 1 5 4 5 1 0 3 2 4 1 2 2 1 1 0 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 45.1% 11.6% 8.3% 10.7% 9.0% 1.7% 5.9% 4.9% 5.5% 1.4% .3% 3.6% 2.2% 4.5% 1.7% 2.8% 2.8% 1.7% 2.0% .8% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% Total # of cases Cases CoI Response 47 15 11 10 9 9 6 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium 37.0% 12.1% 8.4% 7.6% 6.7% 6.7% 5.0% 4:6% 4.4% 3.8% 3.2% 3.1% 3.1% 2.9% 2.8% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.0% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% .9% .9% .9% .9% .9% Page 6 QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as FAIRLY BAD or VERY BAD) Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Cases CoI Response % Cases Col Response % Cases CoI Response ok No growth 1 1.9% 1 .7% Church 1 1.9% 1 .7% Increasing taxes 1 1.9% 1 .7% Desert is ignored, out of the loop 1 .8% 1 .5% Job variety, availability 1 .8% 1 .5% Far from everything 1 1.5% 1 5% Not crowded 1 1.4% 1 5% Good place for kids 0 .3% 0 .2% Good public transportation 0 .3% 0 .2% Poor water quality 0 .3% 0 2% Total # of cases 45 159.8% 83 150.7% 128 153.9% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents who DIDN'T KNOW how to rate the county) Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases CoI Response % Nice living area 2 48.2% 2 38.9% Low crime 1 100.0% 1 19.4% OTHER 1 24.1% 1 19.4% Close to everything 1 20.9% 1 16.8% Bad air quality 1 17.5% 1 14.1% Too crowded 1 17.5% 1 14.1% Lack of community services 1 13.4% 1 10.8% Total # of respondents 5 141.6% 1 100.0% 6 133.5% Nu i t: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 7 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B5: In your opinion, what is the ONE best thing about living in the County? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Climate/temperature 153 17.3% 98 11.1% 252 14.2% Good central location 121 13.7% 122 13.8% 243 13.7% Affordable housing 55 6.2% 68 7.7% 124 7.0% Good living areas 56 6.3% 62 _ 7.0% 118 6.7% Affordable cost of living, low taxes 44 4.9% 66 7.5% 110 6.2% Not crowded 40 4.6% 65 7.3% 105 5.9% Quiet and peaceful 55 6.3% 44 5.0% 100 5.6% Close to mountains, beach, desert, river 22 2.5% 58 6.6% 80 4.5% Friendly people 39 4.4% 39 4.4% 78 4.4% Rural environment 34 3.9% 36 4.1% 70 4.0% Less crime -- feel safe 34 3.9% 35 4.0% 69 3.9% Schools 31 3.5% 32 3.6% 63 3.5% Family 27 3.0% 28 3.2% 55 3.1% Scenery, beautiful, good views 26 3.0% 26 3.0% 52 3.0% Air quality -- little smog 25 2.8% 24 2.7% 49 2.8% Job availability 23 2.6% 26 2.9% 49 2.8% Lots of space 19 2.1% 27 3.1% 46 2.6% Access to shopping, entertainment, culture 14 1.5% 20 2.3% 34 1.9% Recreation (golf, hobbies, parks,etc) 22 2.5% 10 1.2% 32 1.8% Less traffic 24 2.7% 8 .9% 32 1.8% NOTHING 13 1.4% 9 1.0% 22 1.2% Availability of public services 11 1.3% 9 1.0% 20 1.1% Diversity of people 6 .6% 8 1.0% 14 .8% Good politicians 10 1.1% 4 .4% 14 .8% Medical community 8 .9% 5 .6% 14 .8% Growth, progressive area 6 .7% 4 .5% 10 .6% Good quality of life 5 .6% 5 .5% 10 .6% Economy, good 4 .5% 2 .3% 7 .4% Good freeways 4 .4% 2 .3% 6 .3% Other 1 .1% 4 .4% 5 .3% EVERYTHING 1 .1% 3 .3% 4 .2% Church 3 .3% 1 .1% 4 .2% Good transportation 2 .2% 2 .2% 4 .2% Friendly business atmosphere 1 .1% 1 .1% 2 .1% Area allows animals 2 .2% 0 .0% 2 .1% Variety of living options 0 .0% 2 .2% 2 .1% Kids, more aware 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% Total # of cases 886 106.3% 884 108.3% 1770 107.3% people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 8 QUESTION B6: In your opinion, what is the ONE most negative thing about living in the County? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Crime 80 9.2% .195 22.0% 275 15.6% Smog 98 11.2% 113 12.8% 211 12.0% Traffic congestion 122 14.0% 58_ 6.6% 181 10.3% NOTHING 65 7.4% 42 4.7% 106_ 6.0% Atmosphere 67 7.7% 38. 4.3% 105 6.0% Overpopulated 68 7.8% 36 4.1% 104 5.9% Gangs 38 4.3% 56 6.4% 94 5.3% Not enough jobs 27 3.1% 40 4.5% 67 3.8% Cleanliness, run down 21 2.4% 36 4.1% 57 3.2% Long commute 31 3.5% 19 2.1% 49 2.8% Drugs 21 2.4% 24 2.8% 45 2.6% Roads need improvement 21 2.4% 22 2.5% 43 2.5% Inefficient political system 22 2.5% 20 2.3% 43 2.4% Poor school systems 23 2.7% 15 1.7% 38 2.2% Police department 21 2.4% 17 2.0% 38 2.2% Lack of entertainment 27 3.0% 12 1.3% 38 2.2% Poor public transportation 21 2.4% 17 1.9% 37 2.1% Other 16 1.8% 13 1.5% 29 1.6% Too far from things 14 1.6% 13 1.5% 27 1.5% Graffiti 7 .8% 17 1.9% 24 1.4% Low wages 11 1.2% 11 1.2% 22 1.2% Wind 6 .7% 15 1.6% 21 1.2% Poverty 3 .4% 17 2.0% 21 1.2% Unfriendly people 12 1.3% 7 .8% 19 1.1% Taxes 11 1.2% 7 .7% 17 1.0% Large number of welfare recipients/homeless/poor 4 .5% 9 1.0% 13 .7% Too expensive 5 .5% 6 .7% 11 .6% Economy is bad 1 .1% 9 1.1% 10 .6% Racial problems • 9 1.1% 1 .1% 10 .6% Poor shopping 7 .8% 3 .3% 10 .6% Lack of cultural activities 3 .4% 6 .7% 10 .6% Too large 0 .0% 9 1.0% 9 .5% Don't like the area 0 .0% 8 .9% 8 .5% Bad image 0 .0% 8 .9% 8 .5% Lack of services 3 .3% 5 .5% 7 .4% Gas prices 5 .6% 2 .2% 7 .4% Ignore desert, don't do anything to upgrade it 2 .2% 5 .5% 7 .4% Illegal immigrants 5 .5% 2 .2% 6 .4% No programs for children 2 .2% 4 .5% 6 .3%° Conservative views 4 .4% 1 .2% 5 .3% Lack of medical care 4 .5% 1 .1% 5 .3% Too much construction 0 .0% 5 .5% 5 .3% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 9 QUESTION B6: In your opinion, what is the ONE most negative thing about living in the County? Too far from LA and other major cities Parol inmates in the area Growth, too slow Too far from the water Lack of a sense of community High cost of living High cost, water, insurance, gas, food English- lack of english speaking people Cow smell Overpopulated schools Parental involvement is lacking Distance to shopping Everything geared toward main cities (Riv and SB) Not enough access to other counties Discrimination City of San Bernardino Too much diversity Pollution Environment disregarded The city of Fontana Post office, not good Poor quality of life Transportation, bus Utilities too high Noise (trains, airplanes) Salespeople, solicitors Liberal views Total # of cases Riverside San Bernardino Cases 2 1 2 3 2 4 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 874 Col Response .2% .1% .2% .3% .2% .4% .2% .2% .0% .0% .1% .1% .2% .2% .2% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .1% .0% .1% .1%. .0% .0% 106.4% Cases 3 4 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 884 Col Response .3% .2% .0% .2% .1% .3% .3% .1% .2% .1% .0% Total # of cases Cases 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 Col Response .3% .2% .2% .2% .2% .2% .2% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .1% .0% .0% .0% .0% 108.4% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1758 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Pa a 10 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium 9 QUESTION 7: Continued POPULATION growth in the Inland Empire will produce mainly positive results for residents. Do you: Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Strongly Agree 34 6.9% 43 8.5% 77 7.7% Agree 199 40.6% 200 39.3% 400 39.9% Disagree 146 29.7% 172 33.7% 317 31.7% Strongly Disagree 89 18.1% 75 14.7% 164 16.4% DONT KNOW 15 3.1% 19 3.8% 35 3.5% REFUSED 8 1.6% 0 .1% 8 .8% Total # of respondents 491 100.0% 509 100.0% 1000 100.0% QUESTION B8: In comparison to a year ago, would you say that you and your family are financially better off or worse off or the same? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count Col % Better off 403 40.3% 413 41.4% 817 40.8% Same 483 48.3% 470 47.0% 953 47.7% Worse off 104 10.4% 107 10.7% 212 10.6% DONT KNOW 5 .5% 8 .8% 13 .6% REFUSE 4 .4% 1 .1% 6 .3% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B9: Thinking about your household income, would you say that it is enough so that you can save money or buy some extras, just enough to meet your bills and obligations, or is it not enough to meet your bills and obligations? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Enough to save and buy extras 428 42.8% 402 40.2% 830 41.5% Just.enough to pay bills 441 44.1% 467 46.7% 908 45.4% Not enough 118 11.8% 122 12.2% 240 12.0% DONT KNOW 8 .8% 4 .4% 11 .6% REFUSE 6 .6% 5 .5% 11 .6% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 11 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B10: Now looking ahead, do you think that a year from now you and your family will be better off, worse off, or just about the same as you are now? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count Col % Better off 537 53.7% 567 56.7% 1105 55.2% Same 363 36.3% 358 35.8% 722 36.1% Worse off 41 4.1% 36 - 3.6% 77 3.9% DON'T KNOW 54 5.4% 34 3.4% 89 4.4% REFUSE 4 .4% 4 .4% 8 .4% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B11: Are you currently employed? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count CoI % Yes 612 61.2% 670 67.0% 1282 64.1% No 381 38.1% 327 32.7% 709 35.4% DONT KNOW 4 .4% 1 .1% 5 .3% REFUSED 3 .3% 1 .1% 4 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B12: Do you work full time or part time? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Full time 513 83.9% 563 84.1% 1077 84.0% Part time 98 16.0% 107 15.9% 205 16.0% REFUSED 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .1% Total # of respondents 612 100.0% 670 100.0% 1282 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 12 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B13: What is your occupation? San Bernardino Riverside Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Service workers except private household (e.g. bartenders) 98 14.9% 88 14.6% 186 14.7% Education (teacher, tutor) 80 12.2% 64 10.6% 144 • 11.5% Manager and administrators 60 9.1% 65 10.8% 125 9.9% Sales workers (e.g. salespeople, insurance agents, real est) 35 5.4% 50 8.2% 85 _ 6.7% Clerical and "kindred" workers (e.g. secretaries, insurance) 48 7.4% 36 6.0% 85 6.7% Health care (e.g. nurse, X-ray) "kindred" 46 7.0% 36 5.9% 81 6.5% Crafts & workers (e.g. construction, electricians) 34 Laborer, except farm (e.g. 47 7.1% ° 5.6 /° 80 6.4% gardeners) 29 4.4% 37 6.2% 66 5.2% Self employed - business owner 25 3.8% 22 3.6% 47 3.7% Professional -Technical (e.g. physician, lawyer, engineer) 18 2.7% 26 4.3% 43 3.4% Transport Equipment Operative (e.g. truck driver, delivery) 20 3 1 % 17 2.8% 37 3.0% Operatives, except transport (e.g. welders, dressmakers) 20 3.0% 16 ° 2.7 /° 36 2.8% Supervisor 19 2.8% 14 2.4% 33 2.6% Police, firefighter 19 2.9% 8 1.3% 27 2.1% Technician 13 1.9% 14 2.3% 27 2.1% Counselor (social worker) 10 1.5% 13 2.1% 23 1.8% Accountant, Financial Planner 9 1.4% 10 1.6% 19 1.5% Government 8 1.2% 8 1.4% 16 1.3% Computer programmer 8 1.2% 8 1.4% 16 1.3% Private household workers 9 1.4% 5 .8% 14 1.1% Military 6 .9% 6 .9% 12 .9% Consultant 4 .6% 7 1.1% 11 .9% Church worker 5 7% 4 7% 9 7% Specialist 5 .7% 2 .3% 6 .5% Research 4 ..5% 2 .4% 6 .5% Artist 2 .4% 3 .4% 5 .4% Investigator 4 .6% 1 .2% 5 .4% Writer 4 .6% 1 .1% 4 .3% Farmers and farm managers 0 .0% 3 .5% 3 .3% Student 0 .0% 3 .4% 3 .2% REFUSED 1 .2% 1 .2% 2 2% Retired 1 .2% 1 .1% 2 .1% Housewife -househusband 1 .2% 0 .0% 1 .1% Total # of respondents 658 100.0% 602 100.0% 1260 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 13 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B14: How concerned are you that you might lose your job? Would you say you are: Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count Col % Very concerned 27 4.4% 42 6.3% 70 5.4% Somewhat concerned 81 13.2% 128 19.1% 209 16.3% Not at all concerned 499 81.5% 497 74.2% 996 77.7% DONT KNOW 3 .5% 3 .4% 5 . .4% REFUSED 2 .4% 0 .0% 2 .2% Total # of respondents 612 100.0% 670 100.0% 1282 100.0% QUESTION B15: In general, how would you rate the economy in your county today? Would you say that It is Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Excellent 94 9.4% 30 3.1% 124 6.2% Good 492 49.2% 407 40.7% 899 45.0% Fair 330 33.0% 429 42.9% 759 37.9% Poor 54 5.4% 102 10.2% 156 7.8% DONT KNOW 31 3.1% 31 3.1% 62 3.1% REFUSED 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .0% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 16: Many of our regions college graduates leave the area after graduation. What do you think is the main reason for their leaving? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % There are not enough jobs 119 11.9% 127 12.7% 246 12.3% There are not enough high -paying jobs 521 52.1% 512 51.2% 1033 51.7% They want to try a different living environment 277 27.7% 299 29.9% 577 28.8% Other 32 3.2% 28 2.8% 60 3.0% DONT KNOW 42 4.2% 33 3.3% 76 3.8% REFUSED 9 .9% 0 .0% 9 .4% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 14 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 16: Many of our regions college graduates leave the area after graduation. What do you think is the main reason for their leaving (OTHER)? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count _ Count Count All No high tech industry Move home after graduation San Bemardino county reputation Better opportunities elsewhere Taxes Heat Crime rate Overcrowded Smog Total # of respondents 2 2 2 1 • 7 2 1 1 2 1 20 5 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 0 0 19 7 4 3 2 11 3 3 2 2 1 39 QUESTION 17: The Inland Empire needs more jobs in which of the following areas: Riverside San Bernardino Total # of Respondents Col Col Col Response Response Response Cases % Cases % Cases Manufacturing Distribution 458 45.8% 428 42.8% 886 44.3% Industry 350 35.0% 314 31.5% 664 33.2% Technology 440 44.0% 460 46.0% 900 45.0% Medical 665 66.5% 668 66.8% 1333 66.7% Field Education 493 49.3% 490 49.0% 983 49.1% Retail 587 58.7% 591 59.1% 1178 58.9% Construction 249 24.8% 253 25.3% 501 25.1% Government 286 28.6% 332 33.3% 619 30.9% Engineering 246 24.6% 247 24.7% 494 24.7% Aerospace 431 43.0% ' 422 42.2% 853 42.6% Any Other 378 37.8% 387 38.7% 765 38.3% No Response 35 3.5% 54 5.4% 89 4.5% Total # Respondents 84 8.4% 47 4.7% 131 6.6% of 1000 470.1% 1000 469.7% 2000 469.9% man one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Pa a 15 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium 9 QUESTION 17: The Inland Empire needs more jobs in which of the following areas (OTHER): Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count Civil service O — (O sr r- r r - C) O O O N N N U) V' OD .— N O.— 0 N 0 0 0 CO r) 1 Financial industry 4 Farming, agriculture 8 All 8 Recreation 4 Entertainment, arts 9 Environment 2 Law enforcement, firemen 7 Secretarial 2 Catering 1 Unskilled labor 1 Service industry 2 Transportation 1 Management, business 2 Tourism 1 Technical 3 Sciences 1 Military 1 Small industry 1 Total # of respondents 60 QUESTION B20: Do you think, in general that buying a home in the County today is an excellent, good, only fair, or a poor investment? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Excellent 239 23.9% 149 14.9% 388 19.4% Good 499 49.9% 459. 46.0% 959 47.9% Fair 176 17.6% . 273 27.3% 449 22.5% Poor 57 5.7% 82 8.2% 139 6.9% DON'T KNOW 29 2.9% 35 3.5% 64 3.2% REFUSED 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 16 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B21: Considering all the problems that face you community, which ONE city or community problem do you consider to be the most important? Riverside San Bemardino • Total # of cases Cases CoI Response % Cases CoI Response % Cases Col Response ok Crime 145 17.1% 208 23.1% 352 20.2% Schools 123 14.5% 118 13.1% 240 13.8% Gangs 74 8.8% 80 8.9% 155 8.9% Lack of jobs 43 5.0% 68 7.6% 111 6.3% Too much traffic 75 8.9% 23 2.5% 98 5.6% Drugs 50 5.9% 44 4.9% 94 5.4% Bad streets 39 4.6% 36 4.0% 76 4.3% Lack of growth planning and management 37 4.3% 30 3.3% 66 3.8% Lack of guidance for youth 26 3.0% 30 3.3% 55 3.2% Police 33 3.8% 20 2.2% 52 3.0% Political corruption and government 20 2.3% 28 3.1% 48 2.8% Crowded 29 3.4% 18 2.0% 46 2.7% Security 15 1.8% 29 3.3% 45 2.5% Few activities for young people 19 2.3% 9 1.0% 28 1.6% Pollution 12 1.4% 15 1.7% 27 1.6% Public transportation 11 1.3% 15 1.7% 26 1.5% Aesthetics -- make things look better, cleaner 8 1.0% 17 1.9% 26 1.5% Graffiti 7 .8% 18 2.0% 25 1.4% Welfare, homeless problems 10 1.2°/, 15 1.6% 25 1.4% NOTHING 13 1.5% 12 1.3% 25 1.4% Economy 5 .6% 16 1.8% 21 1.2% Taxes 10 1.2% 10 1.1% 20 1.2% Getting a house 11 1.2% 9 1.0% 20 1.1% City finances 5 .6% 14 1.6% 19 1.1% Racism 13 1.5% 6 .6% 19 1.1% Need more retail (shopping) 7 .9% . 10 1.1% 17 1.0% Bad people 7 .8% 9 1.0% 16 .9% Poverty 6 .7% 10 1.1% 15 .9% Health care 9 1.0% 5 .6% 14 .8% City, less involvement and attention to community 6 .7% 7 .8% 13 .7% Lack of funding for family oriented activities 9 1.0% 3 .3% 12 .7% Bad services (lighting, street maintenance, etc.) 7 .8% 5 .5% 11 7% Society -- bad relations/attitudes/morals 5 .6% 5 .6% 10 .6% Housing density 4 .5% 6 .6% 10 .6% Law, prosecution 1 .1% 9 1.0% 10 .6% people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 17 QUESTION B21: Considering all the problems that face you community, which ONE city or community problem do you consider to be the most important? Riverside San Bemardino • Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Poor quality water 1's Lt) "I' N N .- N N CO N N V) V7 ,- C) .- .- 1- .- 0 .- NNN .- ON N NN 00 1-- .- .8% 2 .2% 9 5% Language barrier .6% 2- .3% 7 4% High cost utilities .5% 2 .2% 6 .3% Need better quality of life .3% 3 .4% 6 .3% No community involvement .2% 4 .4% 5 .3% Location, far from things .1% 5 .5% 5 .3% Decreased property values 2% 4 .4% 5 .3% Cost of living .2% 4 .4% 5 .3% Need more entertainment/things to do .3% 2 .2% 5 .3% Unsafe drivers .3% 2 .2% 5 .3% Climate, weather .2% 3 .3% 4 .3% High water cost .3% 2 .2% 4 .3% Water shortage .5% 0 .0% 4 .3% City needs to be incorporated .1% 3 .4% 4 .2% Family breakdown .3% 1 .1% 4 .2% Other .1% 3 .3% 4 .2% Zoning .1% 2 .3% 3 .2% High rent and/or lease for businesses .1% 2 .3% 3 .2% Need more/better social services .1% 2 .3% 3 .2% Illegals, immigrants .1% 2 .2% 3 .2% Adult schools .0% 2 - .3% 2 .1% Pregnancy rates .1% 1 .1% 2 .1% Fire department .3% 0 .0% 2 .1% Gambling .3% . 0 .0% 2 .1% Child Abuse .2% 0 .0% 2 1% Strengthning public image .1% 1 .1% 2 .1% Uneducated people .0% 2 .2% 2 .1% Flood control .2% 0 .0% 2 .1% Need to enforce leash law for dogs .2% 0 .0% 2 .1% Smog .2% 0 .0% 2 .1% Dumps, landfills .2% 0 .0% 2 .1% Insects, bugs .0% 1 .1% 1 .1% Noise .0% 1 .1% 1 .1% Disaster preparation .1% 0 .0% 1 .1% Need more restaurants .1% 0 .0% 1 .1% Minorities, too many .1% 0 .0% 1 .0% people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 18 QUESTION B21: Considering all the problems that face you community, which ONE city or community problem do you consider to be the most important? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases CoI Response Col Response Col Response Cases % Cases % Cases % People are not religious enough 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 ..0% No freedom of speech 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .0% Need to attract industry 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .0% Total # of cases 847 112.9% 901 112.9% 1748 112.9% : people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% QUESTION SB25: In general, how fearful are you that YOU will be the victim of a serious crime, such as a violent or costly crime? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Very fearful 44 8.6% 38 7.7% 81 8.1% Somewhat fearful 153 30.0% 164 33.4% 317 31.7% Not too fearful 186 36.6% 165 33.7% 351 35.2% Not at all fearful 126 24.7% 119 24.3% 245 24.5% DONT KNOW 1 .1% 5 1.0% 6 .6% Total # of respondents 509 100.0% 491 100.0% 1000 100.0% QUESTION SB26: Have you ever been the victim of a serious, violent, or costly crime? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Yes 131 25.8% 123 25.0% 254 25.4% No 374 73.4% 368 75.0% 742 74.2% DONT KNOW 4 .7% 0 .0% 4 .4% REFUSED 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .1% Total # of respondents 509 100.0% 491 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 19 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION SB27: Is there any area within one mile of your house in which you are afraid to walk at night? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Yes 198 38.9% 181 36.8% 379 37.9% No 300 59.0% 295 60.1% 595 59.5% DONT KNOW 11 2.1% 14 3.0% 25 2.5% REFUSED 0 .O% 1 .1% 1 .1% Total # of respondents 509 100.0% 491 100.0% 1000 100.0% QUESTION B28: Are you currently registered to vote? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Yes 747 74.7% 796 79.6% 1542 77.1% No 246 24.6% 202 20.2% 448 22.4% DONT KNOW 5 .5% 2 .2% 7 .3% REFUSED " 3 .3% 0 .0% 3 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B29: Which of the following best describes your political party affiliation? Democrat, Republican, Independent, or some other party? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Democrat 269 36.0% 318 39.9% 587 38.0% Republican 315 42.2% 292 36.7% 607 39.4% Independent 89 11.9% 97 12.2% 186 12.0% Some other Party 24 3.3% 24 - 3.0% 48 3.1% None 18 2.4% 34 4.2% 51 3.3% DONT KNOW 8 1.1%- 15 1.9% 23 1.5% REFUSED 23 3.1% • 16 2.1% 40 2.6% Total # of respondents 747 100.0% 796 100.0% 1542 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 20 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B30: Would you say that you vote in all elections, only some, hardly ever or never? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count Col In all elections 570 76.3% 547 68.7% 1117 72.4% Only in some 138 18.4% 198 24.9% 335 21.8% Hardly ever 25 3.3% 30 . 3.8% 55 3.6% Never 13 1.8% 17 2.2% 30 2.0% DONT KNOW 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .1% REFUSED 1 .2% 2 .3% 3 .2% Total # of respondents 747 100.0% 796 100.0% 1542 100.0% QUESTION B31: Politically, do you consider yourself to be Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Very liberal 64 6.4% 82 8.2% 146 7.3% Somewhat liberal 188 18.8% 189 18.9% 376 18.8% Middle of the road 300 30.0% 335 33.5% 635 31.8% Somewhat conservative 271 27.1% 245 24.5% 516 25.8% Very conservative 117 11.7% 110 11.0% 227 11.3% Social liberal but economic conservative 45 4.5% 27 2.7% 72 3.6% DONT KNOW 16 1.6% 11 1.1 % 27 1.4% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 32: Regarding LEGAL immigration, should the level of legal immigration into the United States be reduced? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count CoI % Yes 399 39.9% 391 39.1% 790 39.5% No 530 52.9% 535 53.5% 1064 53.2% DONT KNOW 68 6.8% 73 7.3% 141 7.0% REFUSED 4 .4% 2 .2% 5 .3% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 21 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 33: How friendly would you say the relationship is today between the United States and Mexico? Would you say this relationship is: Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Very friendly 121 12.1% 139 13.9% 260 13.0% Somewhat friendly 567 56.7% 588 58.8% 1154 57.7% Not very friendly 200 20.0% 168 _ 16.8% 368 18.4% Hostile 46 4.6% 44 4.4% 89 4.5% DONT KNOW 66 6.6% 58 5.8% 125 6.2% REFUSED 1 .1% 3 .3% 4 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B34: How would you rate local POLICE/SHERIFF services? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Excellent 163 16.3% 141 14.1% 304 15.2% Good 498 49.8% 499 49.9% 997 49.9% Fair 240 24.0% 265 26.5% 505 25.2% Poor 82 8.2% 71 7.1% 153 7.7% DONT KNOW 17 1.7% 24 2.4% 40 2.0% REFUSE 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .0% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B35: How would you rate local PARKS AND RECREATION services? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col Excellent 140 14.0% 113 11.3% 253 12.6% Good 485 48.5% 469 46.9% 954 47.7% Fair 230 23.0% 269 26.9% 499 25.0% Poor 102 10.2% 112 11.2% 214 10.7% DONT KNOW 43 4.3% 36 3.6% 79 4.0% REFUSE 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .0% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 22 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B36: How would you rate the way local STREETS AND ROADS are kept up? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count Col % Excellent 84 8.4% 56 5.6% 140 7.0% Good 354 35.4% 274 27.4% 628 31.4% Fair 305 30.5% 335 33.5% 639 32.0% Poor 255 25.5% 331 33.1% 586 29.3% DONT KNOW 3 .3% 2 .2% 5 .3% REFUSE 0 .0% 2 .2% 2 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B37: How would you rate local PUBLIC SCHOOLS? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Excellent 96 9.6% 74 7.5% 171 8.5% Good 368 36.7% 333 33.3% 701 35.0% Fair 283 .28.3% 356 35.6% 638 31.9% Poor 169 16.9% 165 16.5% 334 16.7% DONT KNOW 85 8.5% 67 6.7% 152 7.6% REFUSE 1 .1% 4 .4% 4 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B38: How would you rate local SHOPPING? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col Excellent 184 18.4% 132 13.2% 316 15.8% Good . 477 47.7% 493 49.3% 970 48.5% Fair _ 246 24.6% 268 26.8% 514 25.7% Poor 83 8.3% 100 10.0% 183. 9.2% DONT KNOW 9 .9% 8 .8% 17 .9% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 23 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 39: How would you rate local TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Excellent 55 5.5% 46 4.6% 101 5.1% Good 329 32.9% 311 31.1% 640 32.0% Fair 246 24.5% 315 31.5% 561 28.0% Poor 275 27.5% 239 - 23.9% 513 25.7% DONT KNOW 94 9.4% 88 8.8% 183 9.1% REFUSE 1 .1% 1 .1% 2 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 40: How would you rate local MUSEUMS? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Excellent 50 5.0% 36 3.6% 86 4.3% Good 251 25.1% 206 20.6% 458 22.9% Fair 247 24.6% 315 31.5% 561 28.1% Poor 309 30.9% 323 32.3% 632 31.6% DONT KNOW 143 14.3% 118 11.8% 261 13.0% REFUSE 0 .0% 3 .3% 3 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B41: How would you rate local ENTERTAINMENT? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count CoI % Excellent 75 7.5% 69 6.9% 143 7.2% Good 339 33.9% 363 36.3% 702 35.1% Fair 322 32.2% 314 31.4% 636 31.8% Poor 224 22.4% 218 21.8% 442 22.1% DONT KNOW 40 4.0% 33 3.3% 73 3.7% REFUSE 1 .1% 3 .3% 4 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 24 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 42: Generally, all Inland Empire residents can expect to be treated fairly by policemen or sheriffs. Do you: Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Strongly Agree 121 12.1% 115 11.5% 236 11.8% Agree 351 35.0% 392 39.2% 742 37.1% Can't say 263 26.3% 242 - 24.2% 504 25.2% Disagree 172 17.2% 177 17.7% 349 17.5% Strongly Disagree 73 7.3% 60 6.0% 133 6.7% REFUSED 21 2.1% 14 1.4% 35 1.8% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B43: How much confidence do you have that the elected officials in your city will adopt policies that will benefit the general community? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count CoI % A great deal of confidence 117 11.7% 91 9.1% 208 10.4% Some confidence 510 51.0% 549 54.9% 1059 53.0% Not much confidence 229 22.9% 202 20.2% 431 21.5% No confidence 102 10.2% 111 11.1% 213 10.6% DON'T KNOW 42 4.2% 43 4.3% 85 4.3% REFUSED 0 .0% 4 .4% 4 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 44: Which of the following statements comes CLOSEST to your point of view? The best way to improve local public schools is to: Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Set higher standards for student academic achievement 268 26:8% 249 24.9% 517 25.8% Set higher standards for student discipline 213 21.3% 199 19.9% 412 20.6% Increase school funding 200 20.0% 217 21.7% 417 20.8% Increase teacher training 254 25.4% 284 28.4% 538 26.9% DONT KNOW 55 5.5% 44 4.4% 98 4.9% REFUSED 11 1.1% 7 .7% 18 .9% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 25 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 45: California schools rank 40th nationwide in school funding. If schools were to be funded closer to the national average how should we spend the increased funds? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of Cases Cases CoI Response % Cases Col Response % Cases CoI Response Textbooks and classroom supplies 566 56.6% 601 60.1% 1166 58.3% Computers and Internet access 459 45.9% . 489 48.9% 948 _ 47.4% Increasing teachers' salaries 522 52.1% 545 54.5% 1067 53.3% Improvement to school facilities 500 50.0% 533 53.3% 1033 51.7% More school safety officers 327 32.7% 332 33.2% 658 32.9% More school site counselors 329 32.9% 335 33.5% 664 33.2% OTHER 100 10.0% 122 12.2% 222 11.1% DONT KNOW 52 5.2% 24 2.4% 76 3.8% REFUSED 34 3.4% 15 1.5% 49 2.5% Total # of Cases 1000 . 288.8% 1000 299.5% 2000 294.2% : people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 26 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 45: California schools rank 40th nationwide in school funding. If schools were to be funded closer to the national average how should we spend the increased funds (OTHER)? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count Reduce class size 11 23 33 More parent participation, training 6 9 15 More tutors 1 0 1 More teachers 4 8 12 More discipline • 2 5 7 More learning for Special Ed. 0 1 1 More activities 6 7 13 More teacher training 14 8 23 More teacher aids 3 1 4 School vouchers 2 2 4 More schools 8 10 18 Better school transportation 2 0 2 After school programs 5 3 8 More spent on substitutes 0 1 1 Drug and alcohol prevention 0 1 1 Test teachers every year 1 2 3 Video cameras 1 1 2 More nurses 0 1 1 School uniforms 0 1 1 Put lockers back in schools 1 0 1 Reading programs 1 0 1 Spend more on curriculum 2 1 4 Total # of respondents 68 89 157 QUESTION 46: How much do you think the STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM has improved your local schools? Has it improved them a lot, some, or not at all? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % A lot 91 9.1% 86 8.6% 177 8.9% Some 452 45.2% 506 50.6% 958 47.9% Not at all 197 19.7% 190 19.0% 387 19.4% DONT KNOW 221 22.1% 206 20.7% 427 21.4% REFUSED 39 3.9% 11 1.1% 50 2.5% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 27 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 47: How much do you think CLASS SIZE REDUCTION has improved your local schools? Has it improved them a lot, some, or not at all? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count CoI % Much Improvement 234 23.4% 230 23.0% 464 23.2% Some Improvement 353 35.3% 414 41.4% 767 38.3% No Improvement 188 18.8% 195 19.5% 383 19.1% DONT KNOW 191 19.1% 154 15.4% 345 17.3% REFUSED 34 3.4% 7 • .7% 41 2.0% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 48: Average total time to get to and from work each day Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count CoI % Less than 1 hour 318 56.4% 388 61.2% 706 58.9% 1- <2 hours 134 23.7% 142 22.5% 276 23.0% 2- <3 hours 71 12.6% 64 10.1% 135 11.3% 3- <4 hours 30 5.3% 28 4.4% 58 4.8% 4 or more hours 11 1.9% 12 1.9% 23 1.9% Total # of respondents 563 100.0% 634 100.0% 1197 100.0% Descriptive Statistics Average total time (in minutes) to get to and from work each day Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Std Deviation Riverside 563 1 300 60.83 40 55.37 San Bernardino 634 1 480 58.15 40 55.14 Total Inland Empire 1197 1 480 59.41 40 55.24 QUESTION 49: Some commuters complain that they spend too much time on the road each day. For you, what would be a ROUND-TRIP commute time that you would consider to be TOO LONG? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Less than 1 hour 112 21.3% 107 17.0% 219 18.9% 1- <2 hours 248 47.0% 313 49.7% 561 48.5% 2- <3 hours 117 22.2% 160 25.4% 277 23.9% 3- <4 hours 33 6.3% 34 5.4% 68 5.8% 4 or more hours 17 3.2% 16 2.5% 33 2.8% Total # of respondents 527 100.0% 630 100.0% 1157 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 28 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Descriptive Statistics What would be a ROUND-TRIP commute time that you would consider to be TOO LONG? Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Std Deviation Riverside 527 2 480 86.30 60 53.91 San Bernardino 630 1 540 88.27 61 51.07 Total Inland Empire 1157 1 540 87.37 60 52.37 QUESTION 50: Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you do? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of Cases CoI Response CoI Response Col Response -, Cases % Cases % Cases Switch Jobs 258 45.2% 285 44.4% 543 44.8% Carpool 185 32.5% 217 33.8% 402 .33.2% Take the Metrolink 72 12.7% 116 18.0% 188 15.5% Take the Bus 46 8.0% 43 6.7% 89 7.3% Telecommute 68 11.9% 80 12.5% 148 12.2% Other 127 22.3% 117 18.2% 244 20.1% Total # of Cases 570 132.7% 643 133.5% 1213 133.1% nnTr. people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% QUESTION 50: Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you do (OTHER)? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count Move 50 40 91 Deal with it, drive anyway 11 21 32 Quit 3 1 4 Take an alternative route 5 4 8 Retire 2 5 7 Work at home 1 0 1 Transfer 0 3 3 Leave earlier 2 1 3 Shorter week, longer hours 0 2 2 Ask for a raise 0 1 1 Stay in a Motel orApartment 0 2 2 Toll lanes 1 0 1 Ride bike 1 1 2 Walk 0 1 1 Look for other transportation 3 0 3 Buy a car 1 0 1 Total # of respondents 80 84 164 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 29 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B51: What county do you work in? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of • respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Riverside 442 72.3% 47 7.1% 490 38.2% San Bemardino 58 9.4% 470 70.1% 528 41.2% Orange 44 7.2% 29 4.4% 73 5.7% Los Angeles 31 5.1% 103 -15.3% 134 10.5% San Diego 25 4.0% 4 .6% 29 2.2% Other 12 2.0% 17 2.5% .29 2.2% Total # of respondents 612 100.0% 670 100.0% 1282 100.0% QUESTION B51: What county do you work in (OTHER)? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count Several counties Ventura Total # of respondents 7 0 7 11 0 11 18 0 18 QUESTION 52: Has the increase in gas prices during the past year caused you to drive less? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Yes 428 42.8% 474 47.4% 902 45.1% No 556 55.6% 509 50.9% 1064 53.2% DONT KNOW 14 1.4% 16 1.6% 30 1.5% REFUSED 2 .2% 1 .1% 3 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 53: What changes have you made in the way you travel? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Carpooling and/or vanpooling 74 17.3% 118 25.0% 192 21.3% Metrolink 4 .8% 5 1.0% 8 .9% Riding the bus 13 3.1% 17 3.6% 30 3.4% Taking the train 6 1.4% 4 .7% 9 1.0% Walking 29 6.9% 31 6.6% 61 6.7% Bicycling 12 2.8% 9 1.8% 21 2.3% Changed job or Moved 13 3.0% 23 4.9% 36 4.0% Other 234 54.6% 201 42.4% 435 48.2% DONT KNOW 37 8.6% 54 11.3% 91 10.0% REFUSED 6 1.4% 12 2.5% 18 2.0% Total # of respondents 428 100.0% 474 100.0% 902 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 30 QUESTION 53: What changes have you made in the way you travel (OTHER)? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count _ Col % Count , CoI % . Count Col % Make one trip, plan better N N CV N.- r r 0 N •- r- 0 0 0 N CO 31.5% 38 22.9% 96 27.4% Stay home, don't go out 14.8% 34 20.3% 61 17.5% Buy smaller cars, use car with better gas mileage 6.6% 7 4.5% 20 5.6% Fewer trips, vacations 15.0% 20 11.8% 47 13.5% Drive less 28.0% 61 36.5% 112 32.1% Telecommute .4% 0 .0% 1 .2% Fast Track .5% 0 .0% 1 .3% Go home for lunch less .0% 1 .7% 1 .3% Less recreation 1.0% 3 1.7% 5 1.4% Work at home .5% 0 .0% 1 .3% Buy cheaper gas .5% 0 .0% 1 .3% Leave earlier .0% 1 .7% 1 .3% Don't use AC .0% 1 .4% 1 .2% Work longer but less days .0% 1 .4% 1 .2% Use freeway more than backstreets, shortest way 1.0% 0 .0% 2 .5% Total # of respondents 100.0% 167 100.0% 349 100.0% QUESTION 54: Please tell me what you believe to be the MOST important strategy that may help improve traffic conditions in your area. Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Build and/or widen freeways 313 31.3% 327 32.7% 640 32.0% Build and/or widen local streets and roads 153 15.3% 110 11.0% 263 13.2% - Repair & maintain the condition of existing freeways & stree 162 16.2% 187 18.7% 349 17.4% Increase commuter rail service frequency and routes 116 11.6% 137 13.7% 254 12.7% Increase public bus frequency and routes 165 16.5% 163 16.3% 328 16.4% Or some other strategy that is not listed 29 2.9% 45 4.5% 74 3.7% DONT KNOW 31 3.0% 27 2.7% 57 2.9% REFUSED 33 3.3% 4 .4% 36 1.8% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 31 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 55: Please tell me what you believe to be the LEAST important strategy that may help improve traffic conditions in your area. Build and/or widen freeways Build and/or widen local streets and roads Repair & maintain the condition of existing freeways & streets Increase commuter rail service frequency and routes Increase public bus frequency and routes Or some other strategy that is not listed DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents Riverside Count 164 173 93 213 228 11 78 40 1000 CoI % 16.4% 17.3% 9.3% 21.3% 22.8% 1.1% 7.8% 4.0% 100.0% San Bernardino Count 174 162 76 180 182 15 65 4 858 CoI % 20.3% 18.8% 8.9% 21.0% 21.2% 1.7% 7.6% .5% 100.0% Total # of respondents Count 338 335 169 393 409 26 143 45 1858 QUESTION 56: Do you favor the development of toll roads as an effective way of funding transportation improvements? CoI % 18.2% 18.0% 9.1% 21.1% 22.0% 1.4% 7.7% 2.4% 100.0% Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Yes No 384 38.4% 448 44.8% 832 41.6% DONT 533 53.3% 499 50.0% 1032 51.6% KNOW REFUSED 63 6.3% 50 5.0% 114 5.7% Total 20 2.0% 3 .3% 23 1.1% # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 63: On a typical day, how much of a problem is FREEWAY traffic? Would you say it is... Not a problem at all Somewhat of a problem A large problem DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents Riverside Count CoI % 300 308 349 42 1 1000 30.0% 30.8% 34.9% 4.2% .1% 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Pa a 32 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium 9 QUESTION 64: On a typical day, how much of a problem is LOCAL traffic? Would you say it is... Riverside Count CoI % Not a problem at all Somewhat of a problem A large problem DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents 349 439 196 . 13 3 1000 34.9% 43.9% 19.6% 1.3% .3% 100.0% QUESTION 65: Can you recall if you supported or opposed Measure A? Supported Opposed Didn't vote or didn't live in Riverside County in 1988 DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents Riverside Count CoI % 251 115 364 238 32 1000 QUESTION 66: If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a ballot measure to extend the half -cent sales tax to fund transportation projects in Riverside County? 25.1% 11.5% 36.4% 23.8% 3.2% 100.0% Yes No DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents Riverside Count CoI % 521 309 133 38 1000 52.0% 30.9% 13.3% 3.8% 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 33 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 67: Do you favor allowing local sales taxes for transportation to pass with a simple majority instead of a two-thirds vote? Riverside Count CoI % Favor a majority vote Oppose (favor requiring a two-thirds vote) DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents 415 454 115 15 1000 41.5% 45.4% 11.5% 1.5% 100.0% QUESTION 68: Of the following statements, which BEST describes your position regarding the importance of new transportation projects versus protection of the environment? Transportation improvements are ALWAYS more important than protecting the environment Transportation improvements are more important BUT actions to protect the environment must be taken Protecting the environment is more important than transportation improvements, BUT some limited improvements could be built NO transportation improvements should be constructed in environmentally sensitive areas DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents Riverside Count CoI % 60 418 312 109 55 48 1000 5.5% 4.8% 100.0% QUESTION 69a: How likely are you to support HIGHER GAS TAXES to pay for transportation projects? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Very likely 30 3.0% 36 3.6% 66 3.3% Somewhat likely 86 8.6% 74 7.4% 160 8.0% Not at all likely 856 85.6% 877 87.7% 1733 86.7% DONT KNOW 15 1.5% 12 1.2% 27 1.3% REFUSED 13 1.3% 1 .1% 14 .7% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 34 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 69b: How likely are you to support CONTINUE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SALES TAXES to pay for transportation projects? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Very likely 316 31.6% 253 25.3% 570 28.5% Somewhat likely 368 36.8% 393 39.3% 762 38.1% Not at all likely 264 26.4% 289 28.9% 553 27.6% DONT KNOW 38 3.8% 61 p.1% 99 5.0% REFUSED 13 1.3% 3 .3% 17 :8% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION .69c: How likely are you to support MORE TOLL LANES to pay for transportation projects? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count Col % Very likely 177 17.7% 172 17.2% 348 17.4% Somewhat likely 228 22.8% 276 27.6% 504 25.2% Not at all likely 554 55.4% 519 51.9% 1072 53.6% DONT KNOW 29 2.9% 31 3.1% 60 3.0% REFUSED 13 1.3% 2 .2% 15 .8% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 69d: How likely are you to support FEES BASED ON THE NUMBER OF MILES YOU DRIVE to pay for transportation projects? Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Very likely 91 9.1% 74 7.4% 165 8.2% Somewhat likely 172 17.2% 174 17.4% 347 17.3% Not at all likely 678 67.8% 708 70.8% 1386 69.3% DONT KNOW 46 4.6% 42 4.2% 88 4.4% REFUSED 14 1.4% 1 .1% 15 .7% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 35 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 69e: How likely are you to support SPECIAL CHARGES TO USE THE FREEWAYS DURING RUSH HOUR to pay for transportation projects? Riverside San Bemardino Total respondents Count # of Col Count CoI % Count CoI % Very likely 96 9.6% 110 11.0% 206 10.3% Somewhat likely 176 17.6% 142 14.2% 318 15.9% Not at all likely 690 69.0% 717 - 71.7% 1407 70.3% DONT KNOW 28 2.8% 28 2.8% 56 2.8% REFUSED 10 1.0% 3 .3% 14 .7% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 69f: How likely are you to support NEW DEVELOPMENT FEES to pay for transportation projects? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count CoI % Very likely 188 18.8% 159 15.9% 347 17.4% Somewhat likely 350 35.0% 358 35.8% 708 35.4% Not at all likely 406 40.6% 407 40.7% 813 40.6% DONT KNOW 39 3.9% 73 7.3% 111 . 5.6% REFUSED 18 1.8% 3 .3% 21 1.0% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 70: Carpool lanes are designed for use by vehicles with two or more passengers and reduce the number of cars using the other adjacent lanes on the freeway. Do you feel these lanes are: Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Very helpful 533 53.3% 532 53.2% 1066 53.3% Somewhat helpful - 327 32.7% 364 36.4% 691 34.5% Not helpful at all 120 12.0% 86 8.6% 207 10.3% DONT KNOW 16 1.6% 17 1.7% 32 1.6% REFUSED 4 .4% 1 .1% 5 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 36 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B90: Previously, you indicated that you are currently unemployed. Are you... Looking for work A housewife/househusband and not looking for work Not currently in the workforce REFUSED Total # of respondents Riverside San Bernardino Count Col % Count Col % Total # of respondents Count CoI % 43 90 243 5 381 11.4% 23.6% 63.7% 1:3% 100.0% 52 82 172 20 327 16.0% 25.2% 52.6% 6.2% 100.0% 96 173 415 25 709 QUESTION B91: Which of the following best describes your marital status: 13.5% 24.4% 58.6% 3.6% 100.0% Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Single, never married 161 16.0% 178 17.8% 339 16.9% Married Divorced 648 64.8% 599 60.0% 1247 62.4% Widowed 104 10.4% 156 15.6% 260 13.0% REFUSED 79- 7.9% 60 6.0% 139 6.9% Total 9 .9% 6 .6% 15 7% # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B92: Which of the following describes your spouse's status? Employed full-time Employed part-time Home -maker Unemployed, looking for work Unemployed, not currently looking for work DON'T KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents Riverside San Bernardino Count 390 65 91 12 81 4 5 648 Col % 60.1% 10.0% 14.0% 1.9% 12.6% .6% .8% 100.0% Count 394 46 76 14 62 1 5 599 Col % 65.8% 7.7% 12.6% 2.4% 10.4% .2% .9% 100.0% Total # of respondents Count 784 111 166 27 144 5 10 1247 QUESTION B93: Do you have any children that are under the age of 18? Col % 62.8% 8.9% 13.3% 2.1% 11.5% .4% .8% 100.0% Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Yes No 477 47.7% 503 50.5% 980 49.1% DONT KNOW 521 52.1% 494 49.5% 1015 50.8% REFUSED Total 1 1 .1% .1% 0 0 .0% .0% 1 0% # of respondents 1000 100.0% 996 100.0% 1997 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 37 QUESTION B94: How would you describe your race and ethnicity (other)? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count European 8 LS) �- 1 In In CO f- 0 CO N 13 Indo-Chinese 2 3 Other Asian 1 2 Asian Chinese 2 7 Pacific Islander . • 1 6_ Mixed race 3 11 Filipino 3 10 Indian -Pak 4 7 Native American 14 34 Total # of respondents 37 95 QUESTION B95: What was the last grade of school that you completed? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Some high school or less 98 9.8% 125 12.5% 223 11.1% High school graduate 243 24.3% 224 22.4% 467 23.3% Some college 343 34.3% 364 36.4% 707 35.3% College graduate (Bachelor's degree) 167 16.7% 181 18.1% 348 17.4% Some graduate work 56 5.6% 33 3.3% 88 4.4% Post -graduate degree 86 8.6% 66 6.6% 152 7.6% DONT KNOW 5 .5% 4 .4% 8 .4% REFUSED 3 .3% 5 .5% 7 .4% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B96: How many cars do you have for your household? Riverside • San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % 0 40 4.0% 33 3.3% 73 3.7% 1 279 28.0% 263 26.4% 542 27.2% 2 438 43.9% 459 46.0% 897 45.0% 3 163 16.3% 157 15.7% 320 16.0% 4 48 4.8% 63 6.4% 111 5.6% 5 18 1.8% 8 .8% 26 1.3% 6 5 .5% 10 1.0% 16 .8% 7 4 .4% 1 .1% 5 .3% 8 1 .1% 1 .1% 2 .1% 11 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .0% 12 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .1% Total # of respondents 997 100.0% 998 100.0% 1995 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 38 QUESTION B97: What was your age at your last birthday? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col 17 years 2 .2% 1 .1% 2 .1% 18 --> 25 81 8.4% 93- 9.6% 174 9.0% 26 --> 35 207 21.4% 224 23.0% 431 22.2% 36 --> 45 258 26.8% 262 26.9% 520 26.8% 46 --> 55 164 17.0% 190 19.5% 354 18.3% 56 --> 65 96 10.0% 107 .10.9% 203 10.5% 66+ years 156 16.2% 97 10.0% 253 13.1% Total # of respondents 963 100.0% 974 100.0% 1937 100.0% Descriptive Statistics What was your age at your last birthday? Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Std Deviation Riverside 963 15 90 45.95 43 16.30 San Bernardino 974 17 93 43.52 41 14.65 Total Inland Empire 1937 15 93 44.73 42 15.53 QUESTION B98: How long have you lived in the County? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % 5 or less years 275 27.6% 225 22.6% 500 25.1% 6 --> 15 374 37.6% 350 35.0% 724 36.3% 16 --> 25 167 16.7% 162 16.2% 329 16.5% 26 --> 50 163 16.3% 221 22.1% 384 19.2% 51+ years 18 1.8% 40 4.0% 58 2.9% Total # of respondents 997 100.0% 999 100.0% 1996 100.0% Descriptive Statistics How long have you lived in the County? Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Std Deviation Riverside 997 1 74 14.70 11 12.66 San Bernardino 999 1 89 17.94 13 15.35 Total Inland Empire 1996 1 89 16.32 12 14.16 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 39 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B99: Which of the following categories best describes your total household or family income before taxes, from all sources, for 1998? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Less than $25,000 185 18.5% 221 22.1% 406 20.3% $25,000 to $35,999 141 14.1% 156 15.6% 297 14.9% $36,000 to $49,999 135 13.5% 129 12.9% 264 13.2% $50,000 to $65,999 156 15.6% 170 17.0% 326 16.3% $66,000 to $79,999 94 9.4% 88 8.8% 182 9.1% $80,000 to $110,000 114 11.4% 94 9.4% 209 10.4% Over $110,000 52 5.2% 48 4.8% 100 5.0% DONT KNOW 24 2.4% 20 2.0% 44 2.2% REFUSED 98 9.8% 74 7.4% 173 8.6% Total # of respondents _ 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% Gender of respondent Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count CoI % Male 413 41.3% 396 39.6% 809 40.4% Female 585 58.4% 604 60.4% 1189 59.4% Couldn't tell 3 .3% 0 .0% 3 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% How cooperative was the respondent Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count CoI % Cooperative 956 95.6% 981 98.1% 1937 96.9% Uncooperative 35 3.5% 16 1.6% 52 2.6% Very uncooperative 9 .9% 3 .3% 11 .6% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% How well did the respondent understand the questions? Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count CoI % Very easily 735 73.5% 632 63.2% 1367 68.4% Easily 186 18.6% 268 26.8% 454 22.7% Some difficulty 71 7.1% 96 9.6% 167 8.4% Great deal of difficulty 8 .8% 3 .3% 12 .6% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 40 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium In what language was the interview conducted? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of 'respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count CoI % English 901 90.0% 898 89.8% 1799 89.9% Spanish 100 10.0% 102 10.2% 201 10.1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100M% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 41 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium 1 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2001 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: - John Standiford, Public Information Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director - SUBJECT: Presentation Regarding the Inland Empire Annual Survey STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to receive and file the 2000/2001 Inland Empire Annual Survey from the Inland Empire Research Consortium. BACKGROUND INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Max Neiman from the University of California, Riverside (UCR) will present the transportation findings and results from this year's survey. He is one of three researchers conducting the survey. Other preparers include Shel Bockman and Barbara Sirotnik of California State University, San Bernardino (CSUSB). The project represents a partnership between the Institute of Applied Research and Policy Analysis at CSUSB and the Center for Social and Behavioral Sciences Research at UCR. The Inland Empire Annual Survey has been conducted since 1997, and surveys more than 2400 residents in both San Bernardino and Riverside Counties on a wide variety of issues. Among the questions are a number of queries regarding commuter behavior and attitudes regarding transportation. The large sample size ensures a high level of confidence and accuracy. Also, by conducting this sort of survey on an annual basis, there is the opportunity to obtain the public's current views on important issues, as well as ascertaining changes in those opinions over time. The survey has included a series of baseline questions designed to track changes over time in residents' perceptions about their quality of life and economic well-being, their views about current issues and their ratings of public services and agencies. RCTC, along with SANBAG are the survey's major sponsors and both agencies actively participate in working with the researchers in developing transportation oriented questions. The effort also receives financial support from many other sources throughout the Inland Empire. Over the last few years, media attention and sponsorship has grown making the survey an increasingly effective tool in measuring public opinion in the Inland Empire. 00011. • 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey Inland Empire • Research Consortium • Presented to RCTC 2/14/01 Prepared by: Shel Bockman, Max Neiman, and Barbara Sirotnik 000115 • THE 2000 INLAND EMPIRE ANNUAL SURVEY We would like to thank the following organizations who generously contributed to this survey: SPONSORS: Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments PATRONS: Omnitrans Charter Communications BENEFACTORS: Inland Empire Economic Partnership Presley Center/UCR San Bernardino International Airport Riverside County Superintendent of Schools San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools SUPPORTER: The Business Press In addition, we'd like to thank Project Managers Bonnie Flippin and Veronica Ingersoll, without whose help this study could not have been conducted. 000116 INTRODUCTION The Inland Empire Research Consortium (IERC) is pleased to present its 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey of residents in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The IERC represents a partnership between the Institute of Applied Research and Policy Analysis at CSUSB and the Center for Social and Behavioral Sciences Research at UCR. The purpose of the Inland Empire Annual Survey is to provide policy -related research that bears on issues important to the Inland Empire region. Apart from the objectives listed below, the IERC is committed to promoting regionalism and cooperation. Another objective of the Annual Survey and other IERC projects is to project the Inland Empire onto the radar screen of other "significant actors" in the State. The Annual Survey and future IERC has become, and hopes to continue to be, a valuable area resource for initiating community discourse and helping to inform public policy, officials, and citizens. The Inland Empire Annual Survey provides decision -makers with objective, accurate and current information for: • evaluating kev public and private sector services and activities (e.g., retail services, health care, education, transportation) • describing the public's current views as well as changes over time in public perceptions of such issues as: quality of life, the state of the local economy, perceptions of the region as a place to live and work, the greatest problems and issues (e.g., crime, pollution, immigration) facing the Inland Empire, commuting, traffic congestion, and promotion of economic development • providing a regional focus for the on -going discussion of key local/regional issues, and • disseminating a coherent picture of Inland Empire views, beliefs, and demographic characteristics to key decision makers within and outside the region, thus enabling comparisons to other regions. In addition, the Inland Empire Annual Survey includes (on a space available basis), some proprietary items designed to meet specific information needs of some sponsors within the Inland Empire. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 1 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000117 THE QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire items were selected on the following basis: Several questions were incorporated from previous annual surveys of Riverside and San Bernardino counties which were designed to track changes over time in the residents' perceptions about their quality of life and economic well-being, their views about the pressing issues of the day, and their ratings of public services and agencies. In addition, a number of standard demographic questions were included for tracking purposes and for cross tabulation of findings. Tracking questions, of course, provide public agencies and business with trend data often needed in policy making and outcome assessments. These questions are also valuable in comparing the two -county area with other counties in the state and nation. A number of sponsors also submitted questions for their proprietary use. Finally, the researchers, in consultation with sponsors, also added questions concerning current issues which have policy and research implications. A draft copy of the questionnaire was submitted to the sponsors for their approval and modified where warranted. A Spanish version of the questionnaire was also produced. The survey instrument was then pre- tested, and some minor changes to the wording and order of some items were made. The questionnaire is attached as Appendix I. SAMPLING METHODS Telephone survey respondents were randomly selected from a comprehensive sample frame consisting of all telephone working blocks which contain residential telephone numbers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. This is a standard random sampling approach for studies of this nature. In order to ensure accuracy of findings, 2,238 residents were surveyed from the two -county area for a 95 percent level of confidence and an accuracy of approximately plus/minus 2 percent for overall two -county findings. Sample size of the two counties varied slightly due to the over -sampling of the some of the regional zones in San Bernardino County and Riverside County. This over -sampling was performed at the request of some of our sponsors. As a result, 1,142 residents of Riverside County and 1,096 residents of San Bernardino County were surveyed, for an accuracy of approximately plus or minus 2.8 percent and 95 percent level of confidence for each individual county. Due to weighting considerations to remove the effects of the over -sampling, the reader will note a discrepancy between the actual sample size and the number of cases INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 2 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000118 reported in the data tables (1,000 for each county). Telephone interviews were conducted by the Institute of Applied Research at California State University, San Bernardino using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) equipment and software. The surveys were conducted between October 13, 2000 and December 1, 2000. INTRODUCTION TO FINDINGS This section presents the major findings from this year's Annual Survey. Findings are generally presented for the two -county area (Inland Empire) as a whole. As was the case in previous surveys there are remarkably few differences between the opinions of respondents in the two counties when viewed in the aggregate. In general, therefore, the findings are applicable to the two -county area at large. In those few instances where there exist significant differences between the two counties, such dissimilarities will be noted and discussed in detail. In addition, this report includes a sufficient number of data points (4 surveys, conducted from 1997 to 2000) to conduct more extensive and more valid trend analyses than in previous reports, both for the two -county area as a whole and for each individual county. On the other hand, there are more differences within each county than there are between counties. Regional differences within each county are noted in detail in our upcoming Special Edition Zone -Specific Reports for each of the two counties. Finally, as noted in the preceding section, the tables in the data display and in the following sections of the report reflect a weighting scheme to correct for over -sampling of certain geographic areas in both counties. Throughout this report, therefore, when we refer to the number of respondents indicating a particular view (a number that is a weighted figure), the actual number of respondents may differ slightly from the adjusted figure reported in the table. For a full data display of findings, see Appendix II. RATINGS OF THE COUNTY OVERVIEW: As in previous surveys, a substantial majority of Inland Empire residents continue to rate their respective counties as a good place to live. Riverside County residents also continue the pattern of being somewhat more positive about their county than are San Bernardino residents. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 3 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000119 Table 1: Ratings of the Respective Counties as a Place to Live Riverside County % San Bernardino County % Inland Empire % Very Good 28.1 14.9 21.5 Fairly Good 52.3 52.5 52.4 Neither Good nor Bad 14.3 23.2 18.7 Fairly Bad 3.3 6.1 4.7 Very Bad 1.3 2.6 2.0 DON'T KNOW 0.7 0.7 0.7 Among Riyerside County respondents, over 80% indicate that their county is a very good or fairly good place to live, while only about 67% of the San Bernardino County residents feel that way. Although large majorities in both counties express very positive ratings for their counties, there remains a noticeable gap between counties, with Riverside County residents somewhat more positive overall and less negative. For example, while 8.7% of the San Bernardino respondents claimed that their county was a fairly to very bad place to live, only 4.7% of the Riverside County respondents felt that way. This is a pattern that has persisted since 1997 (See Table 2). It is important to emphasize that while the differences are statistically significant, they continue to be modest. Table 2: Trend - Proportion of Inland Empire Respondents Indicating Their Respective Counties Are Very Good or Fairly Good Places To Live Riverside County % San Bernardino County % Inland Empire % 1997 Annual Survey 75.9 63.2 69.0 1998 - 1999Annual Survey 81.1 67.2 73.7 1999 - 2000 Annual Survey 78.9 68.6 73.8 2000 Annual Survey 80.4 67.4 73.9 OVERVIEW: Respondents in both counties use similar criteria (low crime, nice living area, and climate) to express their positive assessments of their county as a place to live. These findings are consistent with previous surveys. As Table 3 shows, respondents in each of the counties cite similar criteria for formulating positive views of their county as a place to live (where "positive view" is defined as rating the County either "very good" or "fairly good" as a place to live). These findings are generally INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 4 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 00010 consistent with previous surveys. Specifically, "nice living area," "low crime," and "not crowded" lead the list in both counties. In addition, San Bernardino County residents mentioned "affordable housing" and "good schools", whereas Riverside County residents cited "good climate", "close to everything" and "quiet area" as positive factors. Table 3: Factors (Mentioned By At Least 50 Residents of Each County) Affecting Positive Views of Their Coun Riverside County Respondents Number of Respondents V San Bernardino County Respondents Number of Respondents Nice Living Area 119 Nice Living Area 97 Low Crime 117 Low Crime 83 Not Crowded 89 Not Crowded 60 Good Climate 83 Affordable Housing 54 Close to Everything 78 Good Schools 50 Quiet Area 54 OVERVIEW: Among those respondents who rated their county as a bad place to live, crime continues to be listed as the predominant reason for their negative views. Among the 87 San Bernardino County residents rating their county as fairly bad or very bad, 37 respondents indicate that high crime is the main reason for their negative rating, with another 8 mentioning gangs and 5 mentioning drugs. Only 10 Riverside County respondents find crime to be the main factor in affecting their rating of as a fairly or very bad place to live (with another 5 mentioning gangs, drugs, or graffiti). OVERVIEW: Although high crime and smog are still issues of major concern in the two - county area, in Riverside County traffic congestion is now ranked as the single worst aspect of living in the county. Climate/temperature and a good central location continue to be noted as the best things about living in the county. To further probe respondents' views about their counties, all respondents (regardless of whether they thought their county was a good or bad place to live) were asked to indicate the one BEST and one MOST NEGATIVE thing about living in the county. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 5 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 1 ::000121 As in the previous Annual Survey, factors such as climate, location, general living atmosphere, and cost of living are among the most frequently mentioned factors listed as the BEST things about living in the respective counties. Table 4: One BEST thing about living in the county (mentioned by at least 50 respondents in the county) Riverside County Number of Respondents San Bernardino County Number of Respondents Climate/Temperature 153 Central location 122 Central location 121 Climate/Temperature 98 Good living area 56 Affordable housing 68 Affordable housing 55 Affordable cost of living/low taxes 66 Quiet and peaceful 55 Not crowded 65 Good living area 62 Close to mountains, desert, beach, river 58 When respondents were asked to cite the ONE WORST thing about living in their county, there were some interesting county differences. Riverside County respondents cited traffic congestion as the number one "worst thing," followed by smog and crime. In contrast, 195 San Bernardino respondents stated that crime was their number one issue. In addition, there were 56 mentions of concern about gangs, obviously a crime -related issue (see Table 5). San Bernardino County respondents rated smog as the second most often named "worst thing" about the county, although they also noted traffic congestion as a problem. Although this year's list of "worst things" is generally consistent with last year's list, some notable changes in rank order of the factors have occurred. Most notably, in Riverside County, traffic congestion has jumped from third place (behind crime and smog) to the top issue of concern. These findings are placed in their interpretive setting in the section of this report addressing transportation issues. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 6 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000122 Table 5: One WORST thing about living in the county (mentioned by at least 50 respondent Riverside County Number of Respondents San Bernardino County Number of Respondents 195 Traffic congestion 122 Crime Smog 98 Smog 113 Crime 80 Traffic Congestion 58 Overpopulated 68 Gangs 56 Atmosphere 67 FEAR OF CRIME AND CRIME RELATED ISSUES OVERVIEW: The fear of crime in both counties is virtually identical, and the level of fear regarding crime among all respondents seems to have crept higher after slowly declining since 1997. The most important issue here is that the fear of crime and reported victimization remain persistent. In our previous report, we noted that fear of being the victim of a serious crime had steadily declined over the past 3 years. Unfortunately, that trend may be reversing itself. As shown in Table 6, the proportion of Inland Empire respondents indicating they are somewhat fearful or very fearful of being the victim of a serious crime has moved up by nearly 5% since the last Annual Survey. There are only minor differences in perceptions of respondents in each of the two counties. Table 6: Percentage of Respondents Indicating That They Are Very Fearful Or Somewhat Fearful Of Being The Victim Of A Serious Crime Year of Survey % 1997 Annual Survey 42.1 1998-1999 Annual Survey 39.2 1999-2000 Annual Survey 35.2 2000 Annual Survey 39.8 On the other hand, as Table 7 below shows, the number of respondents who indicated that they had actually been the victim of a serious, violent, or costly crime has remained relatively constant over the past four years. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 7 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000123 Table 7: Percentage of Respondents Indicating That They Have Been The Victim Of A Costly Or Serious Crime Year of Survey % 1997 Annual Survey 27.4 1998-1999 Annual Survey 23.2 1999-2000 Annual Survey 28.6 2000 Annual Survey 25.4 This year, a new baseline question was introduced in the survey in order to probe the issue of safety a bit more. Specifically, respondents were asked the question: "Is there any area within a mile of your house in which you are afraid to walk at night?" For the Inland Empire as a whole, an unsettling 38% of respondents state that there are such areas. The figures do not differ significantly for respondents in each of the counties. In summary, crime and safety issues remain a major and persistent issue/problem within both counties. ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OVERVIEW: Inland Empire respondents continue to express fairly high levels of optimism regarding their financial situation, incomes and the future state of the regional economy. With one exception, differences between the counties, where they exist are very small. Overall, the patterns regarding economic evaluations are quite similar and apparently stable across the counties. It does appear that regarding the overall rating of the respective county economies, Riverside County respondents rate their county's economy more positively than do the San Bernardino respondents. Respondents in the current Annual Survey suggest that perhaps the steady improvements in the finances of families in the region have perhaps peaked for now. There is a very small decline in the proportion of this year's respondents indicating that they and their family are better off than a year ago and a very slight increase, the first in several years, in the proportion of respondents indicating they are worse off (Table 8). • INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 8 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000124 Table 8: Perceptions Of Inland Empire Respondents Regarding Finances Compared to Year A Year of Survey Better Off % Same % Worse Off % 1997 Annual Survey 33.6 51.0 15.3 1998-1999 Annual Survey 42.8 45.2 11.3 1999-2000 Annual Survey 42.5 46.4 9.7 . 2000 Annual Survey 40.8 47.7 10.6 A majority of the Inland Empire respondents continue to rate the economy of the region as excellent or good (51.2%). This rating is virtually identical to last year. Similarly, as in the previous year, there are differences between the counties, with Riverside County respondents continuing to rate their county's economy as good or excellent in significantly higher proportions (58.6%) than their San Bernardino County counterparts (44.8%). The biggest gap between the counties is among the respondents who rate the economies of the respective counties as only "fair" (San Bernardino County: 42.9% vs. Riverside County: 33.0%). When asked whether household income "is enough so that you can save money or buy some extras, just enough to pay the bills, or not enough" we find that there is negligible change over last year. However, there is a noticeable, if ever so slight increase in the proportion of respondents indicating that there is not enough money in the household to pay bills and obligations. Although it is unwarranted to ring alarms it is worth looking closely at trends over the coming year to see if these data are heralding a change in the region's economy. The findings (Table 9) suggest that for many Inland Empire residents (57.4%), household income is either just enough or not.enough to pay bills, with no room for extras. Table 9: Responses Concerning Whether Household Income I Year of Survey Save and Buy Extras % To Pay Bills % Not Enough % 1997 Annual Survey 34.1 50.9 15.0 1998-1999 Annual Survey 41.7 46.1 10.2 1999-2000 Annual Survey 41.7 47.8 9.7 2000 Annual Survey 41.5 45.4 12.0 INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 9 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000125 There is a continued pattern of modestly higher levels of optimism in Riverside County when it comes to buying a home as an investment. Considering all respondents, 67.3% of all Inland Empire respondents felt it was an excellent or good investment to buy a home in the Inland empire (68.5% last year). Among Riverside County respondents, 73.8% indicated that a home purchase was a good to excellent investment, while 60.9% of San Bernardino respondents felt that way (as compared to 64.1 % last year). This gap between counties has been nearly the same for a several years. How do the respondents feel about the future? When asked whether the respondents believed that their families would be better off, the data indicate a majority of the Inland Empire's respondents in nearly equal measure are optimistic about the future, with 53.7% of Riverside County respondents and 56.7% of the San Bernardino respondents feeling their families would be better off next year. These results are nearly identical to last year, suggesting that there is still a fundamental optimism at work among Inland Empire respondents. Last year it was said that many Inland Empire respondents continue to be optimistic about their financial future. We still see evidence, however, that there are significant pockets of insecurity and stress, despite the overall improvements and optimism. There are still a virtually unchanged proportion of respondents with constrained incomes, who feel they are limited in purchasing "extras." The data suggest that it is worth exploring how the Inland Empire stands in comparison to other regions in Southern California with respect to _economic optimism and insecurity. Finally, this year a new question was added to the survey: "What do you think is the main reason why many of our region's college graduates leave the area after graduation?" The majority of respondents in both counties (51.3% overall) indicated that there are not enough high -paying jobs in the area. When asked to specify the type of jobs needed in the Inland Empire, the most often mentioned jobs were in the areas of technology and education. COMMUTING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OVERVIEW: Total, to -and -from commuting times for most Inland Empire commuters remain under one hour. Very substantial majorities of commuters do not commute out of INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 10 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000126 their respective counties. Moreover, truck traffic on freeways is seen by a majority of the Inland Empire respondents as an increasing problem. San Bernardino County respondents are more critical of truck traffic. Commuting times have remained pretty much the same as in the previous several years, although there seems to be a slight increase this year among the 2-3 hour commutes (Table 10). Table 10: Commuting Time, To • Year of Survey Less Than 1 Hour % 1 to < 2 Hours % 2 to < 3 Hours % 3 to < 4 Hours % 4 Hours Or More % 1997 Annual Survey 56.8 23.3 11.6 4.4 3.6 1998-1999 Annual Survey 60.1 23.4 10.8 3.8 2.0 1999-2000 Annual Survey 61.7 22.7 8.5 4.6 2.5 2000 Annual survey 58.9 23.0 11.3 4.8 1.9 More specifically, a significant majority (58.9%) of the Inland Empire respondents had commuting times of less than one hour, in contrast to last year's 61.7%. However, if we examine the data by county, we find that only 56.4% of Riverside County respondents indicate commutes of less than one hour, which is a 6% decline over last year's percentage. This may suggest the beginning of a trend of higher proportions of Riverside County commuters falling into the longer commute -time categories. The proportion of less -than -one -hour commuters in San Bernardino, as reported by the respondents, is approximately the same as last year (61.2% this year; 61.5% last year). If the data suggest the beginning of a trend, they indicate that increasing commute times are concentrated among Riverside County commuters. The overwhelming majority of those respondents who commute to work report that they travel to work within their own county (Table 11). This pattern was noted in the previous Annual Survey and it continues this year with nearly identical patterns. Last year, the proportion of Riverside County respondents indicating that they commuted to work within their home county was nearly 73%, while this year it is 72%. San Bernardino County patterns remain relatively unchanged, with 70% of San Bernardino County commuters from this year's survey indicating that they drive to work within their home county, versus 73% from last year. Of course, the other way to look at the data is that nearly 3 out of every 10 people commute outside INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 11 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey ,000127 their own county to work, a figure which clearly underscores the importance of immediate action to handle the increasingly severe problem of freeway congestion. Riverside County commuters who travel outside their county to work appear to be distributed among San Bernardino (9.4%), Orange (7.2%), Los Angeles (5.1%), and San Diego (4.0%) counties. As in the previous annual surveys, the largest proportion of the San Bernardino County commuters who travel out of the county continue to go to Los Angeles County (15.3%), with the next highest proportion traveling to Riverside County (7.1 %), followed by Orange County (4.4%). A negligible proportion of San Bernardino County commuters (0.6%) head for San Diego County.. These data do not differ significantly over the previous Annual Survey. Table 11: Distribution of Commuting Destinations County to Which Respondent Commutes Riverside County Respondents 1999-2000 • Riverside County Respondents 2000 San Bernardino County Respondents 1999-2000 San Bernardino County Respondents 2000 Riverside 72.5 72.3 5.7 7.1 San Bernardino 8.6 9.4 73.3 70.1 Orange 7.2 7.2 3.2 4.4 Los Angeles 5.0 5.1 14.8 15.3 San Diego 2.9 4.0 0.4 0.6 Other 3.9 2.0 2.5 2.5 _In previous surveys, respondents were asked to indicate how serious a problem freeway traffic is for them on a typical day. The responses have been nearly identical each year. This year the question was asked of Riverside County respondents only and the proportion of respondents indicating that freeway traffic is typically a large problem is nearly similar to the responses of last year (Table 12), although there does seem to be a slight increase in the concern over local traffic as a large problem in this year's Annual Survey. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 12 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000128 Table 12: Proportion Of Respondents Indicating That Traffic Is A Large Problem On Freeways And Local Roads Riverside % 1999-2000 Riverside % 2000 On Freeways 33.5 34.9 On Local Roads 15.2 19.6 This year we asked our respondents to address the following hypothetical question: "Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you do?" The following represents the alternative choices and responses by county (Table 13). Table 13. "Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you do?" — Respondents checked as many as applied* Riverside County (% checked) San Bernardino County (% checked) Switch jobs 45.2 44.4 Carpool 32.5 33.8 Take the Metrolink 12.7 18.0 Telecommute 11.9 12.5 Move 8.7 6.2 Take the bus 8.0 6.7 *Since respondents can mark more than one category, the columns will not sum to 100% The data in Table 13 have fascinating implications if, in fact, we are to believe that respondents' behavior will indeed reflect their "abstract" answer. Consider the respondents' most frequently offered answer — that faced with a situation of unacceptably long commutes, they would switch jobs. That option assumes, however, that there are (and will be) jobs available in the Inland Empire with shorter commutes at some acceptable salary. Given the likelihood that traffic (and thus commute times) will increase in the short run, and that population will also increase, policy -makers are faced with pressures to step up their efforts at expanding economic development in the region. Obviously, however, developing jobs in the Inland Empire to INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 13 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000129 stabilize the commuting population is not cost-free. Further, it must be acknowledged that job - development programs might not produce the requisite number of jobs required to make a dent in reducing long-distance commuters. Of course, the definition of an "unacceptably long" commute time is a subjective one. It is interesting that when respondents were asked for their personal definition, 81.1% indicated that total round-trip commutes longer than one hour are too long. This is a fascinating result considering that approximately 41% of the respondents do have a round-trip commute of more than one hour, with 18% of the commuting respondents indicating that they commute more than two hours (Table 10). Clearly, commuting is a burden for many Inland Empire workers, and suggests that given an opportunity to work in the area, they would gladly do so. Thus long- distance commuters should be seen as an important part of the Inland Empire's labor pool (especially considering that many of them are highly skilled workers, i.e., managers, administrators, health care workers and educators). There is clearly some potential relationship between Inland Empire job -development and managing commuting burdens for Inland Empire residents. However, more study is required to clarify the linkage between the job base and commuting patterns in the Inland Empire, as well as better understanding of the trade- offs people are likely to make between salaries/wages and commuting distances/times. Energy prices in particular, indeed energy issues generally, have become pressing issues in the past year. The Annual Survey asked respondents this year to respond to the following question, "Has the increase in gas prices during the past year caused you to drive less?" The results are reported in Table 14. Table 14. "Has the increase in gas prices during the past year caused you to drive less? Response Riverside County % San Bernardino County % Yes 42.8 47.4 No 55.6 50.9 Although a majority of respondents in both counties claim they have not reduced their driving due to an increase in gas prices, it is noteworthy that a fairly large percentage indicate that they have (with a somewhat higher percentage of San Bernardino County respondents than INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 14 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000130 Riverside respondents reporting such a reduction). Those reporting driving less were asked to indicate what changes they had made in the way they travel, and the most frequent responses involved carpooling/vanpooling and various forms of reducing driving such as combining car trips ("planning better"), reducing driving, and staying home more often. Of the 902 respondents in both counties indicating that they reduced their driving, 192 said they carpooled or vanpooled, 112 said they drove less, 96 indicated they combined trips, 61 walked more, 47 took fewer trips or vacations, 36 changed jobs or moved, and 30 said they took the bus. The rest of the responses were distributed in fairly low numbers across a host of other categories. For example, 20 respondents claimed they bought a smaller car, 17 indicated they took the Metrolink or train, and only 1 respondent respectively said he or she telecommuted, worked at home, used the Fastrak, and bought less expensive gas. Obviously, the emphasis is on carpooling/vanpooling and various methods of driving and traveling less. The Annual Survey also probed how respondents felt about alternative ways of improving traffic conditions in the respondents' area. They were read a list of 5 transportation strategies and asked to indicate which one strategy they felt was the most important and which was the least important in terms of improving traffic conditions (Table 15). Table 15. Which Transportation Improvement Strategies Considered MOST and �...a-aU = =ai,Yv, laUL tiiivng inlana Empire Survey Respondents Strategy % Considering Strategy MOST Important % Considering Strategy LEAST Important Build/widen freeways 32.0 18.2 Repair/maintain existing streets/freeways 17.4 9.1 Increase public bus frequency and routes 16.4 22.0 Build/widen local streets and roads 13.2 18.0 Increase commuter rail service and routes 12.7 21.1 Other 3.7 1.4 Don't Know/refused 4.7 10.1 The results in the previous two tables emphasize strongly the overall preference for increasing the capacity of freeways by building and widening freeways. Clearly the respondents are less optimistic about the strategies involving public transportation, whether rail or bus, as a means of improving traffic problems. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 15 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000131 Respondents were also asked whether they favored the development of toll roads in Southern California as an effective way of funding transportation improvements. Among San Bernardino County respondents, 44.8% felt that toll roads were effective as a funding method. Since toll roads are a more salient and controversial issue in Riverside County, it is perhaps not surprising that only 38.4% of the Riverside County respondents felt that toll roads were an effective method of funding transportation projects. Respondents were asked how likely they are to support a number of methods to pay for transportation projects. The results of these items are summarized in Table 16. Table 16. How Likely Respondents Are to Support Methods to Pay for Transportation Projects (% "Very likely" or "Somewhat likely") Riverside County San Bernardino County Inland Empire % Continue existing sales tax 68.4 64.6 66.6 New development fees 53.8 51.7 52.8 More toll lanes 40.5 44.8 42.6 Charges to use freeways 27.2 25.2 26.2 Fees based on miles drive 26.3 24.8 25.5 Higher gas taxes 11.6 11.0 11.3 - The results in Table 16 suggest that there is substantial support for continuing the existing sales tax as a method of financing new transportation projects (68.4% among Riverside County respondents, and 64.6% among San Bernardino County respondents). Respondents in both counties overwhelmingly reject higher gas taxes. New development fees seem to have moderate support, with 54% of Riverside County respondents indicating that they are either very or somewhat likely to support new development fees to finance transportation projects, and 40.8% opposed. The figures for San Bernardino County respondents are 51.7% in support, and 42,3% opposed. Clearly, policies that place the financing burden squarely on freeway users and drivers tend to elicit strong levels of opposition. It should be pointed out that carpool lanes continue to receive the fairly high support levels that have been expressed in previous surveys. Among Riverside County respondents, 53.3% found carpool lanes very helpful in managing traffic problems. When considering both INLAND P ,RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 16 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000 :. • • • the "very helpful" and the "somewhat helpful" categories, the level of confidence in carpool lanes rises to 86%, indicating very impressive levels of support for this method of managing traffic problems. The figures are virtually the same for San Bernardino County respondents. SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION ITEMS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY A number of transportation -related items were asked of Riverside County respondents only, and the results are summarized as follows: • 35% of the Riverside County respondents indicated that freeway traffic is a "large problem," approximately the same proportion as in the previous year (33%) • 20% of the Riverside County respondents indicate that local traffic is a large problem, which is a 5% increase over the previous year, suggesting a small but significant increase in perceived severity of local traffic Additionally, Riverside County respondents were asked a series of items dealing with support for a variety of transportation and traffic management policies, including a variety of tax and fee approaches. Riverside County respondents were asked if they recalled how they voted in 1988 regarding Measure A (a measure which originally passed by 78.9% of the voters and is the largest source of transportation funding in the county). Of course, any reports of retrospective voting going back over 10 years should be interpreted with considerable caution. The data indicate: • 25.1% recall voting in favor of Measure A • 11.5% indicate they voted against the measure • approximately 60% either couldn't didn't know how they voted, claimed they didn't vote, or didn't live in Riverside County at the time The Annual Survey this year also probed the Riverside County residents for their views regarding the balance between new transportation projects and environmental protection. Specifically, respondents were asked which of a series of statements best reflected their view of INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 17 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000133 this balance between transportation projects and protection of the environment. Table 17 summarizes the results of these responses. Table 17. Distribution of Agreement Among Riverside Respondents with Series of Statements Regarding Environment and Transportation Tradeoff % Transportation improvements are always more important than protecting the environment 6.0 Transportation improvements are more important, but actions to protect the environment must be taken 41.8 Protecting the environment is more important than transportation improvements, but some limited improvements could be built 31.1 No transportation improvements should be constructed in sensitive areas. 10.8 Don't Know/Refused to answer 10.3 Neither of the extreme statements have much support, although a slightly larger proportion of the respondents assert unqualified priority for "sensitive areas" over transportation improvements. On the other hand a moderately higher proportion (42%) place a higher priority on transportation improvements, while simultaneously expressing some concern for protecting the environment; 31% of the respondents, on the other hand, concede the need for some transportation improvements, while placing a higher priority on the environment. The data indicate that some level of increased activity for transportation improvements is there, although it is also likely that planning transportation projects will require considerable attention to environmental issues. EVALUATIONS OF SELECTED PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SERVICES OVERVIEW: In general, Inland Empire respondents continue to show stability in their views regarding the private and public services included in previous Annual Surveys. Police/Sheriff INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 18 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000134 services, shopping, and parks/recreation services are rated quite highly. On the other hand, Street/road maintenance, entertainment, and transportation options continue to be problem areas. Evaluations of public schools continue to decline among San Bernardino County respondents. Each year the Annual Survey includes questions regarding respondents' evaluations of . local services from both the private and public sectors. The data (Table 18) show relative stability over time in rankings, with only slightly fewer respondents rating services as "excellent" or "good" when compared with the previous survey. Table 18. Percent Rating Local Services as Excellent or Good Police/Sheriff 2000 Annual Survey Riverside County San Bern. County Inland Empire 1999- 2000 Annual Survey Inland Empire 1998- 1999 Annual Survey Inland Empire Parks/Recreation Streets/Roads 66.1 62.5 43.8 64.0 58.2 33.0 65.1 60.3 38.4 Public Schools Shopping Transportation Museum Entertainment 46.3 66.1 38.4 30.1 41.4 40.8 62.5 35.7 24.2 43.2 43.5 64.3 37.1 27.2 42.3 69.1 60.5 42.5 46.2 68.4 NA NA 49.3 66.6 57.5 39.4 48.7 65.4 NA NA 46.9 Police/sheriff services continue to receive the highest rankings within each county, with shopping tied for first in Riverside County, and ranking a close second in San Bernardino County. Parks and recreation services also continue to receive high marks. Within Riverside County, the public school system received virtually the same evaluations as last year. In contrast, evaluations given by San Bernardino County respondents have declined (from 51.3% rating schools as "excellent" or "good" in 1998, to 46.2% in 1999, to 40.8% in this report). This does not mean, however, that a huge proportion rated schools as "poor." Rather, it is to be noted that respondents within both counties recorded the highest INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 19 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 00.01,35 number of "don't know" responses to this question. This suggests that within both counties the public school systems may wish to consider concentrated public relations campaign. Street and road maintenance services continue to be rated quite low among respondents of both counties. Continuing a trend from the last report, Riverside County respondents tend to be more positive about street and road maintenance than were San Bernardino County respondents, however it is to be noted that the rankings in both counties are relatively low. Entertainment and cultural opportunities (museums) are also given low marks, as are local transportation options. CONCLUSIONS In this report we have provided a general overview of highlights of the 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey. The reader is urged to review the full data display (attached) for the complete listing of survey results. Subsequent papers will address issues such as fair treatment by police and sheriffs, immigration, and other issues. Further, zone reports for each county will be published in the near future. For questions about the Inland Empire Annual Survey, please feel free to call the authors: Shel Bockman (909-880-5733), Max Neiman (909-787-2196), and Barbara Sirotnik (909-880- 5729). INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 20 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey 000136 2000. Inland Empire Annual Survey Inland Empire Research Consortium Presented to RCTC 2/14/01 Prepared by: Shel Bockman, Max Neiman, and Barbara Sirotnik THE 2000 INLAND EMPIRE ANNUAL SURVEY We would like to thank the following organizations who generously contributed to this survey: SPONSORS: Riverside County Transportation Commission San Bernardino Associated Governments PATRONS: Omnitrans Charter Communications BENEFACTORS: Inland Empire Economic Partnership Presley Center/UCR San Bernardino International Airport Riverside County Superintendent of Schools San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools SUPPORTER: The Business Press In addition, we'd like to thank Project Managers Bonnie Flippin and Veronica Ingersoll, without whose help this study could not have been conducted. INTRODUCTION The Inland Empire Research Consortium (IERC) is pleased to present its 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey of residents in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The IERC represents a partnership between the Institute of Applied Research and Policy Analysis at CSUSB and the Center for Social and Behavioral Sciences Research at UCR. The purpose of the Inland Empire Annual Survey is to provide policy -related research that bears on issues important to the Inland Empire region. Apart from the objectives listed below, the IERC is committed to promoting regionalism and cooperation. Another objective of the Annual Survey and other IERC projects is to project the Inland Empire onto the radar screen of other "significant actors" in the State. The Annual Survey and future IERC has become, and hopes to continue to be, a valuable area resource for initiating community discourse and helping to inform public policy, officials, and citizens. The Inland Empire Annual Survey provides decision -makers with objective, accurate and current information for: • evaluating key public and private sector services and activities (e.g., retail services, health care, education, transportation) • describing the public's current views as well as changes over time in public perceptions of such issues as: quality of life, the state of the local economy, perceptions of the region as a place to live and work, the greatest problems and issues (e.g., crime, pollution, immigration) facing the Inland Empire, commuting, traffic congestion, and promotion of economic development • providing a regional focus for the on -going discussion of key local/regional issues, and • disseminating a coherent picture of Inland Empire views. beliefs. and demographic characteristics to key decision makers within and outside the region, thus enabling comparisons to other regions. In addition, the Inland Empire Annual Survey includes (on a space available basis), some proprietary items designed to meet specific information needs of some sponsors within the Inland Empire. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 1 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey THE QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire items were selected on the following basis: Several questions were incorporated from previous annual surveys of Riverside and San Bernardino counties which were designed to track changes over time in the residents' perceptions about their quality of life and economic well-being, their views about the pressing issues of the day, and their ratings of public services and agencies. In addition, a number of standard demographic questions were included for tracking purposes and for cross tabulation of findings. Tracking questions, of course, provide public agencies and business with trend data often needed in policy making and outcome assessments. These questions are also valuable in comparing the two -county area with other counties in the state and nation. A number of sponsors also submitted questions for their proprietary use. Finally, the researchers, in consultation with sponsors, also added questions concerning current issues which have policy and research implications. A draft copy of the questionnaire was submitted to the sponsors for their approval and modified where warranted. A Spanish version of the questionnaire was also produced. The survey instrument was then pre- tested, and some minor changes to the wording and order of some items were made. The questionnaire is attached as Appendix I. SAMPLING METHODS Telephone survey respondents were randomly selected from a comprehensive sample frame consisting of all telephone working blocks which contain residential telephone numbers in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. This is a standard random sampling approach for studies of this nature. In order to ensure accuracy of findings, 2,238 residents were surveyed from the two -county area for a 95 percent level of confidence and an accuracy of approximately plus/minus 2 percent for overall two -county findings. Sample size of the two counties varied slightly due to the over -sampling of the some of the regional zones in San Bernardino County and Riverside County. This over -sampling was performed at the request of some of our sponsors. As a result, 1,142 residents of Riverside County and 1,096 residents of San Bernardino County were surveyed, for an accuracy of approximately plus or minus 2.8 percent and 95 percent level of confidence for each individual county. Due to weighting considerations to remove the effects of the over -sampling, the reader will note a discrepancy between the actual sample size and the number of cases reported in the data tables (1,000 for each county). INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 2 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Telephone interviews were conducted by the Institute of Applied Research at California State University, San Bernardino using computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) equipment and software. The surveys were conducted between October 13, 2000 and December 1, 2000. INTRODUCTION TO FINDINGS This section presents the major findings from this year's Annual Survey. Findings are generally presented for the two -county area (Inland Empire) as a whole. As was the case in previous surveys there are remarkably few differences between the opinions of respondents in the two counties when viewed in the aggregate. In general, therefore, the findings are applicable to the two -county area at large. In those few instances where there exist significant differences between the two counties, such dissimilarities will be noted and discussed in detail. In addition, this report includes a sufficient number of data points (4 surveys, conducted from 1997 to 2000) to conduct more extensive and more valid trend analyses than in previous reports, both for the two -county area as a whole and for each individual county. On the other hand, there are more differences within each county than there are between counties. Regional differences within each county are noted in detail in our upcoming Special Edition Zone -Specific Reports for each of the two counties. Finally, as noted in the preceding section, the tables in the data display and in the following sections of the report reflect a weighting scheme to correct for over -sampling of certain geographic areas in both counties. Throughout this report, therefore, when we refer to the number of respondents indicating a particular view (a number that is a weighted figure), the actual number of respondents may differ slightly from the adjusted figure reported in the table. For a full data display of findings, see Appendix II. RATINGS OF THE COUNTY OVERVIEW: As in previous surveys, a substantial majority of Inland Empire residents continue to rate their respective counties as a good place to live. Riverside County residents also continue the pattern of being somewhat more positive about their county than are San Bernardino residents. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 3 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Table 1: Ratings of the Respective Counties as a Place to Live Riverside County % San Bernardino County % Inland Empire % Very Good 28.1 14.9 21.5 Fairly Good 52.3 52.5 52.4 Neither Good nor Bad 14.3 23.2 18.7 Fairly Bad 3.3 6.1 4.7. Very Bad 1.3 2.6 2.0 DON'T KNOW 0.7 0.7 0.7 Among Riverside County respondents, over 80% indicate that their county is a very good or fairly good place to live, while only about 67% of the San Bernardino County residents feel that way. Although large majorities in both counties express very positive ratings for their counties, there remains a noticeable gap between counties, with Riverside County residents somewhat more positive overall and less negative. For example, while 8.7% of the San Bernardino respondents claimed that their county was a fairly to very bad place to live, only 4.7% of the Riverside County respondents felt that way. This is a pattern that has persisted since 1997 (See Table 2). It is important to emphasize that while the differences are statistically significant, they continue to be modest. Table 2: Trend - Proportion of Inland Empire Respondents Indicating Their Respective Counties Are Very Good or Fairly Good Places To Live Riverside County San Bernardino County Inland Empire 1997 Annual Survey 75.9 63.2 69.0 1998 - 1999Annual Survey 81.1 67.2 73.7 1999 - 2000 Annual Survey 78.9 68.6 73.8 2000 Annual Survey 80.4 67.4 73.9 OVERVIEW: Respondents in both counties use similar criteria (low crime, nice living area, and climate) to express their positive assessments of their county as a place to live. These findings are consistent with previous surveys. As Table 3 shows, respondents in each of the counties cite similar criteria for formulating positive views of their county as a place to live (where "positive view" is defined as rating the County either "very good" or "fairly good" as a place to live). These findings are generally INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 4 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey consistent with previous surveys. Specifically, "nice living area," "low crime," and "not crowded" lead the list in both counties. In addition, San Bernardino County residents mentioned "affordable housing" and "good schools", whereas Riverside County residents cited "good climate", "close to everything" and "quiet area" as positive factors. Table 3: Factors (Mentioned By At Least 50 Residents of Each County) Affecting Positive Views of Their County Riverside County Respondents Number of Respondents San Bernardino County Respondents Number of Respondents Nice Living Area 119 Nice Living Area 97 Low Crime 117 Low Crime 83 Not Crowded 89 Not Crowded 60 Good Climate 83 Affordable Housing 54 Close to Everything 78 Good Schools 50 Quiet Area 54 OVERVIEW: Among those respondents who rated their county as a bad place to live, crime continues to be listed as the predominant reason for their negative views. Among the 87 San Bernardino County residents rating their county as fairly bad or very bad, 37 respondents indicate that high crime is the main reason for their negative rating, with another 8 mentioning gangs and 5 mentioning drugs. Only 10 Riverside County respondents find crime to be the main factor in affecting their rating of as a fairly or very bad place to live (with another 5 mentioning gangs, drugs, or graffiti). OVERVIEW: Although high crime and smog are still issues of major concern in the two - county area, in Riverside County traffic congestion is now ranked as the single worst aspect of living in the county. Climate/temperature and a good central location continue to be noted as the best things about living in the county. To further probe respondents' views about their counties, all respondents (regardless of whether they thought their county was a good or bad place to live) were asked to indicate the one BEST and one MOST NEGATIVE thing about living in the county. As in the previous Annual Survey, factors such as climate, location, general living atmosphere, and cost of living are among the most frequently mentioned factors listed as the BEST things about living in the respective counties. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 5 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Table 4: One BEST thing about living in the county (mentioned by at least 50 respondents in the county) Riverside County Number of Respondents San Bernardino County Number of Respondents 122 Climate/Temperature 153 Central location Central location 121 Climate/Temperature 98 Good living area 56 Affordable housing 68 Affordable housing 55 Affordable cost of living/low taxes - 66 Quiet and peaceful 55 Not crowded 65 Good living area 62 Close to mountains, desert, beach, river 58 When respondents were asked to cite the ONE WORST thing about living in their county, there were some interesting county differences. Riverside County respondents cited traffic congestion as the number one "worst thing," followed by smog and crime. In contrast, 195 San Bernardino respondents stated that crime was their number one issue. In addition, there were 56 mentions of concern about gangs, obviously a crime -related issue (see Table 5). San Bernardino County respondents rated smog as the second most often named "worst thing" about the county, although they also noted traffic congestion as a problem. Although this year's list of "worst things" is generally consistent with last year's list, some notable changes in rank order of the factors have occurred. Most notably, in Riverside County, traffic congestion has jumped from third place (behind crime and smog) to the top issue of concern. These findings are placed in their interpretive setting in the section of this report addressing transportation issues. Table 5: One WORST thing about living in the county (mentioned by at least 50 respondents in the count Riverside County Number of Respondents San Bernardino County Number of Respondents Traffic congestion 122 Crime 195 Smog 98 Smog 113 Crime 80 Traffic Congestion 58 Overpopulated 68 Gangs 56 Atmosphere 67 INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 6 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey FEAR OF CRIME AND CRIME RELATED ISSUES OVERVIEW: The fear of crime in both counties is virtually identical, and the level of fear regarding crime among all respondents seems to have crept higher after slowly declining since 1997. The most important issue here is that the fear of crime and reported victimization remain persistent. In our previous report, we noted that fear of being the victim of a serious crime had steadily declined over the past 3 years. Unfortunately, that trend may be reversing itself. As shown in Table 6, the proportion of Inland Empire respondents indicating they are somewhat fearful or very fearful of being the victim of a serious crime has moved up by nearly 5% since the last Annual Survey. There are only minor differences in perceptions of respondents in each of the two counties. Table 6: Percentage of Respondents Indicating That They Are Very Fearful Or Somewhat Fearful Of Being The Victim Of A Serious Crime Year of Survey 1997 Annual Survey 1998-1999 Annual Survey 1999-2000 Annual Survey 2000 Annual Survey 42.1 39.2 35.2 39.8 On the other hand, as Table 7 below shows, the number of respondents who indicated that they had actually been the victim of a serious, violent, or costly crime has remained relatively constant over the past four years. Table 7: Percentage of Respondents Indicating That They Have Been The Victim Of A Costly Or Serious Crime Year of Survey 1997 Annual Survey 1998-1999 Annual Survey 1999-2000 Annual Survey 2000 Annual Survey 27.4 23.2 28.6 25.4 INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 7 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey This year, a new baseline question was introduced in the survey in order to probe the issue of safety a bit more. Specifically, respondents were asked the question: "Is there any area within a mile of your house in which you are afraid to walk at night?" For the Inland Empire as a whole, an unsettling 38% of respondents state that there are such areas. The figures do not differ significantly for respondents in each of the counties. In summary, crime and safety issues remain a major and persistent issue/problem within both counties. ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS OVERVIEW: Inland Empire respondents continue to express fairly high levels of optimism regarding their financial situation, incomes and the future state of the regional economy. With one exception, differences between the counties, where they exist are very small. Overall, the patterns regarding economic evaluations are quite similar and apparently stable across the counties. It does appear that regarding the overall rating of the respective county economies, Riverside County respondents rate their county's economy more positively than do the San Bernardino respondents. Respondents in the current Annual Survey suggest that perhaps the steady improvements in the finances of families in the region have perhaps peaked for now. There is a very small decline in the proportion of this year's respondents indicating that they and their family are better off than a year ago and a very slight increase, the first in several years, in the proportion of respondents indicating they are worse off (Table 8). Table 8: Perceptions Of Inland Empire Respondents ompared to Year Ago ---a-- ----a Better Off Same Worse Off Year of Survey % % % 1997 Annual Survey 33.6 51.0 15.3 1998-1999 Annual Survey 42.8 45.2 11.3 1999-2000 Annual Survey 42.5 46.4 9.7 2000 Annual Survey 40.8 47.7 10.6 A majority of the Inland Empire respondents continue to rate the economy of the region as excellent or good (51.2%). This rating is virtually identical to last year. Similarly, as in the INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 8 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey previous year, there are differences between the counties, with Riverside County respondents continuing to rate their county's economy as good or excellent in significantly higher proportions (58.6%) than their San Bernardino County counterparts (44.8%). The biggest gap between the counties is among the respondents who rate the economies of the respective counties as only "fair" (San Bernardino County: 42.9% vs. Riverside County: 33.0%). When asked whether household income "is enough so that you can save money or buy some extras, just enough to pay the bills, or not enough" we find that there is negligible change over last year. However, there is a noticeable, if ever so slight increase in the proportion of respondents indicating that there is not enough money in the household to pay bills and obligations. Although it is unwarranted to ring alarms it is worth looking closely at trends over the coming year to see if these data are heralding a change in the region's economy. The findings (Table 9) suggest that for many Inland Empire residents (57.4%), household income is either just enough or not enough to pay bills, with no room for extras. Table 9: Responses Concerning Whether Household Income Is Sufficient Year of Survey Save and Buy Extras % To Pay Bills % Not Enough % 1997 Annual Survey 34.1 50.9 15.0 1998-1999 Annual Survey 41.7 46.1 10.2 1999-2000 Annual Survey 41.7 47.8 9.7 2000 Annual Survey 41.5 45.4 12.0 There is a continued pattern of modestly higher levels of optimism in Riverside County when it comes to buying a home as an investment. Considering all respondents, 67.3% of all Inland Empire respondents felt it was an excellent or good investment to buy a home in the Inland empire (68.5% last year). Among Riverside County respondents, 73.8% indicated that a home purchase was a good to excellent investment, while 60.9% of San Bernardino respondents felt that way (as compared to 64.1 % last year). This gap between counties has been nearly the same for a several years. How do the respondents feel about the future? When asked whether the respondents believed that their families would be better off, the data indicate a majority of the Inland Empire's respondents in nearly equal measure are optimistic about the future, with 53.7% of INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 9 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Riverside County respondents and 56.7% of the San Bernardino respondents feeling their families would be better off next year. These results are nearly identical to last year, suggesting that there is still a fundamental optimism at work among Inland Empire respondents. Last year it was said that many Inland Empire respondents continue to be optimistic about their financial future. We still see evidence, however, that there are significant pockets of insecurity and stress, despite the overall improvements and optimism. There are still a virtually - unchanged proportion of respondents with constrained incomes, who feel they are limited in purchasing "extras." The data suggest that it is worth exploring how the Inland Empire stands in comparison to other regions in Southern California with respect to economic optimism and insecurity. Finally, this year a new question was added to the survey: "What do you think is the main reason why many of our region's college graduates leave the area after graduation?" The majority of respondents in both counties (51.3% overall) indicated that there are not enough high -paying jobs in the area. When asked to specify the type of jobs needed in the Inland Empire, the most often mentioned jobs were in the areas of technology and education. COMMUTING AND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES OVERVIEW: Total, to -and -from commuting times for most Inland Empire commuters remain under one hour. Very substantial majorities of commuters do not commute out of their respective counties. Commuting times have remained pretty much the same as in the previous several years, although there seems to be a slight increase this year among the 2-3 hour commutes (Table 10). Table 10: Commuting Time, To And From Work Year of Survey Less Than 1 Hour % 1 to < 2 Hours % 2 to < 3 Hours % 3 to < 4 Hours % 4 Hours Or More % 1997 Annual Survey 56.8 23.3 11.6 4.4 3.6 1998-1999 Annual Survey 60.1 23.4 10.8 3.8 2.0 1999-2000 Annual Survey 61.7 22.7 8.5 4.6 2.5 2000 Annual survey 58.9 23.0 11.3 4.8 1.9 INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 10 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey More specifically, a significant majority (58.9%) of the Inland Empire respondents had commuting times of less than one hour, in contrast to last year's 61.7%. However, if we examine the data by county, we find that only 56.4% of Riverside County respondents indicate commutes of less than one hour, which is a 6% decline over last year's percentage. This may suggest the beginning of a trend of higher proportions of Riverside County commuters falling into the longer commute -time categories. The proportion of less -than -one -hour commuters in San Bernardino, as reported by the respondents, is approximately the same as last year (61.2% this year; 61.5% last year). If the data suggest the beginning of a trend, they indicate that increasing commute times are concentrated among Riverside County commuters. The overwhelming majority of those respondents who commute to work report that they travel to work within their own county (Table 11). This pattern was noted in the previous Annual Survey and it continues this year with nearly identical patterns. Last year, the proportion of Riverside County respondents indicating that they commuted to work within their home county was nearly 73%, while this year it is 72%. San Bernardino County patterns also remain relatively unchanged, with 70% of San Bernardino County commuters from this year's survey indicating that they drive to work within their home county, versus 73% from last year. Of course, the other way to look at the data is that nearly 3 out of every 10 people commute outside their own county to work, a figure which clearly underscores the importance of immediate action to handle the increasingly severe problem of freeway congestion. Riverside County commuters who travel outside their county to work appear to be distributed among San Bernardino (9.4%), Orange (7.2%), Los Angeles (5.1%), and San Diego (4.0%) counties. As in the previous annual surveys, the largest proportion of the San Bernardino County commuters who travel out of the county continue to go to Los Angeles County (15.3%), Table 11: Distribution of Commuting Destinations County to Which Respondent Commutes Riverside County Respondents 1999-2000 Riverside County Respondents 2000 San Bernardino County Respondents 1999-2000 San Bernardino County Respondents 2000 Riverside 72.5 72.3 5.7 7.1 San Bernardino 8.6 9.4 73.3 70.1 Orange 7.2 7.2 3.2 4.4 Los Angeles 5.0 5.1 14.8 15.3 San Diego 2.9 4.0 0.4 0.6 Other 3.9 2.0 2.5 2.5 INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 11 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey with the next highest proportion traveling to Riverside County (7.1 %), followed by Orange County (4.4%). A negligible proportion of San Bernardino County commuters (0.6%) head for San Diego County. These data do not differ significantly over the previous Annual Survey. In previous surveys, respondents were asked to indicate how serious a problem freeway traffic is for them on a typical day. The responses have been nearly identical each year. This year the question was asked of Riverside County respondents only and the proportion of respondents indicating that freeway traffic is typically a large problem is similar to the responses of last year (Table 12), although there does seem to be a slight increase in the concern over local traffic as a large problem in this year's Annual Survey. Table 12: Proportion Of Respondents Indicating That Traffic Is A Large Problem On Freeways And Local Roads Riverside % 1999-2000 Riverside % 2000 On Freeways 33.5 34.9 On Local Roads 15.2 19.6 This year we asked our respondents to address the following hypothetical question: "Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you do?" The following represents the alternative choices and responses by county (Table 13). Table 13. "Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you do?" — Respondents checked as many as applied* Riverside County (% checked) San Bernardino County (% checked) Switch jobs 45.2 44.4 Carpool 32.5 33.8 Take the Metrolink 12.7 18.0 Telecommute 11.9 12.5 Move 8.7 6.2 Take the bus 8.0 6.7 *Since respondents can mark more than one category, the columns will not sum to 100% INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 12 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey The data in Table 13 have fascinating implications if, in fact, we are to believe that respondents' behavior will indeed reflect their "abstract" answer. Consider the respondents' most frequently offered answer — that faced with a situation of unacceptably long commutes, they would switch jobs. That option assumes, however, that there are (and will be) jobs available in the Inland Empire with shorter commutes at some acceptable salary. Given the likelihood that traffic (and thus commute times) will increase in the short run, and that population will also increase, policy -makers are faced with pressures to step up their efforts at expanding economic development in the region. Obviously, however, developing jobs in the Inland Empire to stabilize the commuting population is not cost-free. Further, it must be acknowledged that job -development programs might not produce the requisite number of jobs required to make a dent in reducing long-distance commuters. Of course, the definition of an "unacceptably long" commute time is a subjective one. It is interesting that when respondents were asked for their personal definition, 81.1% indicated that total round-trip commutes longer than one hour are too long. This is a fascinating result considering that approximately 41% of the respondents do have a round-trip commute of more than one hour, with 18% of the commuting respondents indicating that they commute more than two hours (Table 10). Clearly, commuting is a burden for many Inland Empire workers, and suggests that given an opportunity to work in the area, they would gladly do so. Thus long- distance commuters should be seen as an important part of the Inland Empire's labor pool (especially considering that many of them are highly skilled workers, i.e., managers, administrators, health care workers and educators). There is clearly some potential relationship between Inland Empire job -development and managing commuting burdens for Inland Empire residents. However, more study is required to clarify the linkage between the job base and commuting patterns in the Inland Empire, as well as better understanding of the trade- offs people are likely to make between salaries/wages and commuting distances/times. Energy prices in particular, indeed energy issues generally, have become pressing issues in the past year. The Annual Survey asked respondents this year to respond to the following question, "Has the increase in gas prices during the past year caused you to drive less?" The results are reported in Table 14. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 13 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Table 14. "Has the increase in gas prices aused you to drive less? Response Riverside County % San Bernardino County % Yes 42.8 47.4 No 55.6 50.9 Although a majority of respondents in both counties claim they have not reauceu their driving due to an increase in gas prices, it is noteworthy that a fairly large percentage indicate that they have (with a somewhat higher percentage of San Bernardino County respondents than Riverside respondents reporting such a reduction). Those reporting driving less were asked to indicate what changes they had made in the way they travel, and the most frequent responses involved carpooling/vanpooling and various forms of reducing driving such as combining car trips ("planning better"), reducing driving, and staying home more often. Of the 902 respondents in both counties indicating that they reduced their driving, 192 said they carpooled or vanpooled, 112 said they drove less, 96 indicated they combined trips, 61 walked more, 47 took fewer trips or vacations, 36 changed jobs or moved, and 30 said they took the bus. The rest of the responses were distributed in fairly low numbers across a host of other categories. For example, 20 respondents claimed they bought a smaller car, 17 indicated they took the Metrolink or train, and only 1 respondent respectively said he or she telecommuted, worked at home, used the Fastrak, and bought less expensive gas. Obviously, the emphasis is on carpooling/ vanpooling and various methods of driving and traveling less. The Annual Survey also probed how respondents felt about alternative ways of improving traffic conditions in the respondents' area. They were read a list of 5 transportation strategies and asked to indicate which one strategy they felt was the most important and which was the least important in terms of improving traffic conditions (Table 15). Table 15. Which Transportation Improvement Strategies Considered MOST and LEAST Im ortant Among Inland Empire Survey Respondents P % Considering Strategy MOST Important 32.0 % Considering Strategy LEAST Important 18.2 Strategy Build/widen freeways Repair/maintain existing streets/freeways 17.4 9.1 Increase public bus frequency and routes 16.4 22.0 Build/widen local streets and roads 13.2 18.0 Increase commuter rail service and routes 12.7 21.1 Other 3.7 1.4 Don't Know/refused 4.7 10.1 INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 14 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey The results in the previous two tables emphasize strongly the overall preference for increasing the capacity of freeways by building and widening freeways. Clearly the respondents are less optimistic about the strategies involving public transportation, whether rail or bus, as a means of improving traffic problems. Respondents were also asked whether they favored the development of toll roads in Southern California as an effective way of funding transportation improvements. Among San Bernardino County respondents, 44.8% felt that toll roads were effective as a funding method. Since toll roads are a more salient and controversial issue in Riverside County, it is perhaps not surprising that only 38.4% of the Riverside County respondents felt that toll roads were an effective method of funding transportation projects. Respondents were asked how likely they are to support a number of methods to pay for transportation projects. The results of these items are summarized in Table 16. Table 16. How Likely Respondents Are to Support Methods to Pay for Transportation Projects (% "Very likely" or "Somewhat likely") Riverside County % San Bernardino County % Inland Empire % Continue existing sales tax 68.4 64.6 66.6 New development fees 53.8 51.7 52.8 More toll lanes 40.5 44.8 42.6 Charges to use freeways 27.2 25.2 26.2 Fees based on miles drive 26.3 24.8 25.5 Higher gas taxes 11.6 11.0 11.3 The results in Table 16 suggest that there is substantial support for continuing the existing sales tax as a method of financing new transportation projects (68.4% among Riverside County respondents, and 64.6% among San Bernardino County respondents). Respondents in both counties overwhelmingly reject higher gas taxes. New development fees seem to have moderate support, with 54% of Riverside County respondents indicating that they are either very or somewhat likely to support new development fees to finance transportation projects, and 40.8% opposed. The figures for San Bernardino County respondents are 51.7% in support, and 42,3% opposed. Clearly, policies that place the financing burden squarely on freeway users and drivers tend to elicit strong levels of opposition. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 15 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey It should be pointed out that carpool lanes continue to receive the fairly high support levels that have been expressed in previous surveys. Among Riverside County respondents, 53.3% found carpool lanes very helpful in managing traffic problems. When considering both the "very helpful" and the "somewhat helpful" categories, the level of confidence in carpool lanes rises to 86%, indicating very impressive levels of support for this method of managing traffic problems. The figures are virtually the same for San Bernardino County respondents. SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION ITEMS FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY A number of transportation -related items were asked of Riverside County respondents only, and the results are summarized as follows: • 35% of the Riverside County respondents indicated that freeway traffic is a "large problem," approximately the same proportion as in the previous year (33%) • 20% of the Riverside County respondents indicate that local traffic is a large problem, which is a 5% increase over the previous year, suggesting a small but significant increase in perceived severity of local traffic Additionally, Riverside County respondents were asked a series of items dealing with support for a variety of transportation and traffic management policies, including a variety of tax and fee approaches. Riverside County respondents were asked if they recalled how they voted in 1988 regarding Measure A (a measure which originally passed by 78.9% of the voters and is the largest source of transportation funding in the county). Of course, any reports of retrospective voting going back over 10 years should be interpreted with considerable caution. The data indicate: • 25.1% recall voting in favor of Measure A • 11.5% indicate they voted against the measure • Approximately 60% either couldn't didn't know how they voted, claimed they didn't vote, or didn't live in Riverside County at the time. The Annual Survey this year also probed the Riverside County residents for their views regarding the balance between new transportation projects and environmental protection. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 16 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Specifically, respondents were asked which of a series of statements best reflected their view of this balance between transportation projects and protection of the environment. Table 17 summarizes the results of these responses. Table 17. Distribution of Agreement Among Riverside Respondents with Series of Statements Regarding Environment and Transportation Tradeoff % Transportation improvements are always more important than protecting the environment 6.0 Transportation improvements are more important, but actions to protect the environment must be taken 41.8 Protecting the environment is more important than transportation improvements, but some limited improvements could be built 31.1 No transportation improvements should be constructed in sensitive areas. 10.8 Don't Know/Refused to answer 10.3 Neither of the extreme statements have much support, although a slightly larger proportion of the respondents assert unqualified priority for "sensitive areas" over transportation improvements. On the other hand a moderately higher proportion (42%) place a higher priority on transportation improvements, while simultaneously expressing some concern for protecting the environment; 31% of the respondents, on the other hand, concede the need for some transportation improvements, while placing a higher priority on the environment. The data indicate that some level of increased activity for transportation improvements is there, although it is also likely that planning transportation projects will require considerable attention to environmental issues. EVALUATIONS OF SELECTED PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SERVICES OVERVIEW: In general, Inland Empire respondents continue to show stability in their views regarding the private and public services included in previous Annual Surveys. Police/Sheriff INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 17 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey services, shopping, and parks/recreation services are rated quite highly. On the other hand, Street/road maintenance, entertainment, and transportation options continue to be problem areas. Evaluations of public schools continue to decline among San Bernardino County respondents. Each year the Annual Survey includes questions regarding respondents' evaluations of local services from both the private and public sectors. The data (Table 18) show relative stability over time in rankings, with only slightly fewer respondents rating services as "excellent" or "good" when compared with the previous survey. Table 18. Percent Rating Local Services as Excellent or Good 2000 Annual Survey 1999- 2000 Annual Survey 1998- 1999 Annual Survey Riverside County % San Bern. County % Inland Empire % Inland Empire % Inland Empire % Police/Sheriff 66.1 64.0 65.1 69.1 66.6 Parks/Recreation 62.5 58.2 60.3 60.5 57.5 Streets/Roads 43.8 33.0 38.4 42.5 39.4 Public Schools 46.3 40.8 43.5 46.2 48.7 Shopping 66.1 62.5 64.3 68.4 65.4 Transportation 38.4 35.7 37.1 NA NA Museum 30.1 24.2 27.2 NA NA Entertainment 41.4 43.2 42.3 49.3 46.9 Police/sheriff services continue to receive the highest rankings within each county, with shopping tied for first in Riverside County, and ranking a close second in San Bernardino County. Parks and recreation services also continue to receive high marks. Within Riverside County, the public school system received virtually the same evaluations as last year. In contrast, evaluations given by San Bernardino County respondents have declined (from 51.3% rating schools as "excellent" or "good" in 1998, to 46.2% in 1999, to 40.8% in this report). This does not mean, however, that a huge proportion rated schools as "poor." Rather, it is to be noted that respondents within both counties recorded the highest number of "don't know" responses to this question. This suggests that within both counties the public school systems may wish to consider concentrated public relations campaign. INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 18 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey Street and road maintenance services continue to be rated quite low among respondents of both counties. Continuing a trend from the last report, Riverside County respondents tend to be more positive about street and road maintenance than were San Bernardino County respondents, however it is to be noted that the rankings in both counties are relatively low. Entertainment and cultural opportunities (museums) are also given low marks, as are local transportation options. CONCLUSIONS In this report we have provided a general overview of highlights of the 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey. The reader is urged to review the full data display (attached) for the complete listing of survey results. Subsequent papers will address issues such as fair treatment by police and sheriffs, immigration, and other issues. Further, zone reports for each county will be published in the near future. For questions about the Inland Empire Annual Survey, please feel free to call the authors: Shel Bockman (909-880-5733), Max Neiman (909-787-2196), and Barbara Sirotnik (909-880- 5729). INLAND EMPIRE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 19 RCTC presentation, 2000 Annual Survey APPENDIX I Questionnaire INLAND EMPIRE ANNUAL SURVEY, 2000 Following is a copy of the 2000 survey. Please be aware of the following notations: • Baseline questions (questions we ask each year) are numbered starting with a B (e.g. B1) • Questions to be conducted with a sample of 1, 000 for the entire Inland Empire (rather than 1, 000 for each county) are numbered with the designation S (e.g. SB18, a baseline question, or S55, a sponsor question) SHELLO Hello, I am calling from the Institute of Applied Research at Cal State San Bernardino. SHEAD Are you the head of this household or his or her spouse? 1. Yes [SKIP TO INTRO] 2. No [CONTINUE] 3. DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE 4. REFUSED SHEAD2 Is the head of the household or his or her spouse at home? 1. Yes [SKIP TO INTRO] 2. No [CONTINUE] 3. DON'T KNOW/NO RESPONSE 4. REFUSED INTRO California State University San Bernardino and the University of California Riverside are conducting a scientific study of public opinion on a variety of issues. Answers to this survey will be used by Inland Empire officials to make policy decisions and your opinions are very important to represent your point of view in our study. This survey takes about 15 minutes to complete. Your identity and your responses will remain completely anonymous and confidential, and of course,. you are free to decline to answer any particular survey question. I should also mention that this call may be monitored by my supervisor for quality control purposes only. Is it alright to ask you these questions now? 1. YES [SKIP TO BEGIN] 2. NO APPT Is it possible to make an appointment to ask you the survey questions at a more convenient time? 1. Yes (SPECIFY) 2. No Institute of Applied Research 1 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey BEGIN I'd like to begin by asking you some general questions. B 1. First, what city do you live in? 1. Code directly 2. DON'T KNOW 3. REFUSED B2. What is your zip code? 1. Code directly 2. DON'T KNOW 3. REFUSED B3. Overall, how would you rate County as a place to live? Would you say it is Very Good, Fairly Good, Neither Good Nor Bad, Fairly Bad, or Very Bad? 1. Very good 2. Fairly good 3. Neither good nor bad 4. Fairly bad 5. Very bad 6. DON'T KNOW 7. REFUSED B4. What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Specify) DON'T KNOW REFUSED ROTATE THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS (B3 and B4) B5. In your opinion, what is the ONE best thing about living in (Specify) DON'T KNOW REFUSED * USE CODING FROM LAST YEAR County? B6. In your opinion, what would you say is the ONE most negative thing about living in County? (Specify) DON'T KNOW REFUSE * USE CODING FROM LAST YEAR Institute of Applied Research 2 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 7. Please tell me how strongly do you agree with the following statement: Strongly Strongly DON'T Agree Agree Disagree Disagree KNOW REF Continued POPULATION growth in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 Inland Empire will produce mainly positive results for residents. B8. In comparison to a year ago, would you say that you and your family are financially better off or worse off or the same? 1. Better off 2. Same 3. Worse off 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSE B9. Thinking about your hou"sehold income, would you say that it is enough so that you can save money and buy some extras, just enough to meet your bills and obligations, or is it not enough to meet your bills and obligations? 1. Enough to save and buy extras 2. Just enough to pay bills 3. Not enough 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSE B10. Now looking ahead, do you think that a year from now you and your family will be Better off, worse off, or just about the same as you are now? 1. Better off 2. Same 3. Worse off 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSE B11. Are you currently employed? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON T KNOW 4. REFUSED B12. ASK ONLY IF CURRENTLY EMPLOYED: Do you work full time or part time? 1. Full time 2. Part time 3. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 3 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey B13. ASK ONLY IF CURRENTLY EMPLOYED: What is your occupation? Specify * USE CODING FROM LAST YEAR B14. ASK ONLY IF CURRENTLY EMPLOYED: How concerned are you that you might lose your job? Would you say you are: 1. Very concerned 2. Somewhat concerned 3. Not at all concerned 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED B15. In general, how would you rate the economy in you say that it is Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor? 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED County today? Would IEEP 16. Many of our region's college graduates leave the area after graduation. What do you think is the main reason for their leaving: 1. There are not enough jobs 2. There are not enough high -paying jobs 3. They want to try a different living environment 4. OTHER 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED IEEP 17. The Inland Empire needs more jobs in which of the following areas: [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] 1 Manufacturing 2. Distribution 3. Industry 4. High technology 5. Medical field 6. Education 7. Retail 8. Construction 9. Government 10. Engineering 11. Aerospace 12. Any other [SPECIFY: ] 13. NO RESPONSE Institute of Applied Research 4 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey BUSINESS PRESS 18. What publication is your primary source of printed LOCAL business news? [INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ CHOICES] 1. The Business Press 2. The Press -Enterprise 3. The San Bernardino County Sun 4. The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin 5. The Los Angeles Times 6. OTHER [DON'T SPECIFY] 7. I DON'T READ BUSINESS NEWS 8. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED BUSINESS PRESS 19. As a reader, what kind of features do you read the most in a LOCAL business publication? [INTERVIEWER: DON'T READ CHOICES, TAKE FIRST RESPONSE] 1. News stories about local companies 2. News stories about business trends affecting the entire Inland Empire region 3. Profiles of local business people and companies 4. Special -interest columns 5. Opinion -editorials 6. Lists ranking the top local companies 7. National economic news/trends 8. Special advertising supplements 9. OTHER [SPECIFY...] 10. DON'T KNOW 11. REFUSED B20. Do you think, in general that buying a home in County today is an excellent, good, only fair, or a poor investment? 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED B21. Considering all of the problems that face YOUR community or city, community problem do you consider to be the most important? 1. (SPECIFY 2. DON'T KNOW 3. REFUSED *USE THE CODING CATEGORIES FROM LAST YEAR which ONE city or Institute of Applied Research 5 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey PRESLEY CITY OF RIVERSIDE ONLY 22. Project Bridge is an effort by the City of Riverside to provide street outreach services and counseling to gang involved youth of value to the community, along with increased enforcement of gang related crimes and laws. Have you heard of Project Bridge? 1. Yes 2. Not Sure [SKIP TO #24] 3. No [SKIP TO #24] 4. REFUSED [SKIP TO #24] CITY OF RIVERSIDE ONLY 23. Do you believe that Project Bridge has made a significant contribution, some contribution, not much of a contribution, or no contribution at all to local efforts to reduce gang related violence and crime in Riverside? 1. Significant contribution 2. Some contribution 3. Not much of a contribution 4. No contribution at all 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED CITY OF RIVERSIDE ONLY 24. Do you think that gang related crime and violence have decreased in the last few years in Riverside? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED *NOTE: THE NEXT THREE QUESTIONS (#19, #20, #21) REQUIRE A SAMPLE SIZE OF 1,000 FOR THE ENTIRE INLAND EMPIRE, RATHER THAN 1,000 FOR EACH COUNTY THE DESIGNATION SB INDICATES SHORT SAMPLE QUESTION SB25. In general, how fearful are you that YOU will be the victim of a serious crime, such as a violent or costly crime? Would you say that you are... 1. Very fearful 2. Somewhat fearful 3. Not too fearful, or .. . 4. Not at all fearful 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED SB26. Have you ever been the victim of a serious, violent, or costly crime? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 6 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey S27. Is there any area within one mile of your house in which you are afraid to walk at night? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED TRANS: I would now like to ask you some questions about voting. B28. Are you currently registered to vote? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON T KNOW 4. REFUSED TO ANSWER B29. Which of the following best describes your political party affiliation: Democrat, Republican, Independent, or some other party? 1. Democrat 2. Republican 3. Independent 4. Some other Party 5. None 5. DON T KNOW 6. REFUSED TO ANSWER B30. Would you say that you vote in all elections, only some, hardly ever or never? 1. In all elections 2. Only in some 3. Hardly ever 4. Never 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED B31. Politically, do you consider yourself to be INTERVIEWER: READ OPTIONS 1. Very liberal 2. Somewhat liberal 3. Middle of the road 4. Somewhat conservative 5. Very conservative 6. DON T KNOW 7. REFUSED Now I am going to ask you a few questions about immigration. 32. Regarding LEGAL immigration, should the level of legal immigration into the United States be reduced? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON T KNOW 4. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 7 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 33. How friendly would you say the relationship is today between the United States and Mexico? Would you say this relationship is: 1. Very friendly 2. Somewhat friendly 3. Not very friendly or 4. Hostile 5. DON T KNOW 6. REFUSED (TRANS) Now, I'd like to ask you how you rate some of the local public and private services you are supposed to receive. For each would you let me know if you believe the service is excellent, good, fair, or poor. (ROTATE B28 - B33) Excellent Good Fair Poor DON'T KNOW REFUSE B34. Police/Sheriff 1 2 3 4 5 6 B35. Parks and Recreation B36. The way streets and roads are kept up B37. Public schools B38. Shopping 39. Transportation 40. Museum B41. Entertainment 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 42. How strongly do you agree with the following statement: Generally, all Inland Empire residents can expect to be treated fairly by policemen or sheriffs. Do you: 1. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Can't say 4. Disagree 5. Strongly disagree 6. REFUSED B43. How much confidence do you have that the elected officials in your city will adopt policies that will benefit the general community? Would you say you have a "great deal", "some", "not much," or "no confidence?" 1. A great deal of confidence 2. Some confidence 3. Not much confidence 4. No confidence Institute of Applied Research 8 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS The next few questions concern local public schools: 44. Which of the following statements comes CLOSEST to your point of view? The best way to improve local public schools is to: 1. Set higher standards for student academic achievement 2. Set higher standards for student discipline 3. Increase school funding 4. Increase teacher training 45. California schools rank 40th nationwide in school funding. If schools were to be funded closer to the national average how should we spend the increased funds? [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] 1. Textbooks and classroom supplies 2. Computers and Internet access 3. Increasing teachers' salaries 4. Improvement to school facilities 5. More school safety officers 6. More school site counselors 7. OTHER: Specify 8. DON'T KNOW 9. REFUSED 46. Local schools have implemented a number of reforms in the past few years, including Class Size Reduction and a Statewide Assessment System. How much do you think the statewide assessment system has improved your local schools? Has it improved them a lot, some, or not at all? 1. A lot 2. Some 3. Not at all 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED 47. How about class size reduction? 1. A lot 2. Some 3. Not at all 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED TRANS: Now I am going to ask you a series of questions regarding transportation issues. [ONLY ASK NEXT QUESTION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING] Institute of Applied Research 9 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey B48. When thinking about your travel to and from work, on the average, how much total time, in minutes, do you spend commuting both ways each day? 1. Doesn't apply; don't work outside home or I am not employed 2. Average total time: MINUTES 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED 49. Some commuters complain that they spend too much time on the road each day. For you, what would be a round-trip commute time that you would consider to be too long? [INTERVIEWER: RECORD ROUND TRIP TIME IN MINUTES] 50. Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you do? [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] (ONLY IF NEED TO PROBE: Would you...) 1. Switch jobs 2. Move 3. Carpool 4. Take the Metrolink 5. Take the bus 6. Telecommute 7. OTHER: (Specify) B51 What county do you work in? 1. Riverside 2. San Bernardino 3. Orange 4. Los Angeles 5. San Diego 6. Other: SANBAG AND RCTC QUESTIONS: 52. - Has the increase in gas prices during the past year caused you to drive less? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP #53] 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED 53. If yes, what changes have you made in the way you travel? [ONE ANSWER] 1. Carpooling and/or vanpooling 2. Metrolink 3. Riding the bus 4. Taking the train 5. Walking 6. Bicycling 7. Changed jobs or moved 8. Other (please specify) 9. DON'T KNOW 10. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 10 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 54. Traffic congestion in the Inland Empire is going to continue to worsen. I am about to read a list of five transportation strategies that may help improve traffic conditions in your area. Once I've read the list, please tell me what you believe to be the MOST important strategy that should be pursued in your county. 1. Build and/or widen freeways 2. Build and/or widen local streets and roads 3. Repair and maintain the condition of existing freeways and streets 4. Increase commuter rail service frequency and routes 5. Increase public bus frequency and routes 6. Another strategy that is not listed 7. DON'T KNOW 8. REFUSED 55. I'm going to read that list one more time. This time please tell me what you think would be the LEAST important strategy. 1. Build and/or widen freeways 2. Build and/or widen local streets and roads 3. Repair and maintain the condition of existing freeways and streets 4. Increase commuter rail service frequency and routes 5. Increase public bus frequency and routes 6. Some other strategy that is not listed 7. DON'T KNOW 8. REFUSED SB COUNTY AND RIV COUNTY 56. In many states, toll roads have been built as an alternative to paying for transportation improvements. In recent years, toll roads have been built in Southern California. Do you favor the development of toll roads in Southern California as an effective way of funding transportation improvements? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED ASK VV RESPONDENTS ONLY [DETERMINE BY CITY ] 57. In the Victorville area, a "down the hill" premium commuter bus service will soon be offered to transport High Desert riders to San Bernardino and Rancho Cucamonga. Is this a service you would consider using? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 11 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey SB COUNTY ONLY 58. The Metrolink train provides service to Los Angeles, Orange County and other destinations. Are you aware of the Metrolink? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED SB COUNTY ONLY 59. Have you ever used the Metrolink? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO #61] 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED SB COUNTY ONLY 60. If yes, for what purpose? 1. Business/commuting to work 2. Trips for entertainment/pleasure 3. Both 4. Other (SPECIFY) 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED SB COUNTY ONLY 61. In 1989, San Bernardino County residents approved Measure I, a `/z cent sales tax to pay for transportation improvements. Are you aware of Measure I? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO #63] 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED SB COUNTY ONLY 62. Can you tell me how these funds are being used? RIV COUNTY ONLY 63. On a typical day, how much of a problem is FREEWAY traffic? Would you say it is .. 1. No problem at all 2. Somewhat of a problem 3. A large problem 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 12 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RIV COUNTY ONLY 64. On a typical day, how much of a problem is LOCAL traffic? Would you say it is.. . 1. No problem at all 2. Somewhat of a problem 3. A large problem 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED RIV COUNTY ONLY 65. In 1988, Riverside County residents voted on a ballot proposition called MEASURE A which increased the sales tax by 1/2 cent to pay for transportation improvements. Measure A passed by 78.9%. Can you recall if you supported or opposed this measure? 1. Supported 2. Opposed 3. Didn't vote or didn't live in Riverside County in 1988 4. DON'T KNOW/RECALL 5. REFUSED RIV COUNTY ONLY 66. The Measure A transportation sales tax is set to expire in 2009. Today it is the primary source of transportation funding in the county, surpassing what the county receives from state or federal sources. If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a ballot measure to extend the half -cent sales tax to fund transportation projects in Riverside County? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED RIV COUNTY ONLY 67. Do you favor allowing local sales taxes for transportation to pass with a simple majority instead of a two-thirds vote? 1. Favor a majority vote. 2. Oppose (favor requiring a two-thirds vote) 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED RIV COUNTY ONLY 68. In recent years, concern for the environment has become an important public interest. Of the following statements, which BEST describes your position regarding the importance of new transportation projects versus protection of the environment? 1. Transportation improvements are always more important than protecting the environment. 2. Transportation improvements are more important, but actions to protect the environment must be taken. 3. Protecting the environment is more important than transportation improvements Institute of Applied Research 13 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey but some limited improvements could be built. 4. No transportation improvements should be constructed in environmentally sensitive areas. 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED 69. How likely are you to support the following methods to pay for transportation projects? Are you very likely, somewhat likely, or not at all likely to support these methods? VL SL NL 1. Higher gas taxes 1 2 3 2. Continue existing transportation sales taxes 1 2 3 3. More toll lanes 1 2 3 4. Fees based on the number of miles you drive 1 2 3 5. Special charges to use the freeways during rush hour 1 2 3 6. New development fees 1 2 3 70. Carpool lanes are designed for use by vehicles with two or more passengers and reduce the number of cars using the other adjacent lanes on the freeway. Do you feel these lanes are: very helpful, somewhat helpful, or not helpful at all. 1. Very helpful 2. Somewhat helpful 3. Not helpful at all 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED OMNITRANS ASK IN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES: 71. Can you tell me the name of your local bus service? (DO NOT PROMPT) 1. Omnitrans [SKIP TO #73] 2. No / Don't know 3. Other: Specify ASK IN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES: 72. If did NOT answer Omnitrans: Have you heard of Omnitrans? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED ASK IN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES: 73. Have you used either Omnitrans Regular Bus Service or Omnitrans Access or Dial -A - Ride Service in the past 6 months? 1. Omnitrans Regular Bus Service Institute of Applied Research 14 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 2. Access or Dial -A -Ride Service 3. Both 4. Neither 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED ASK IN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES: 74. How would you rate your overall perception of Omnitrans, even if you have never used it personally? Would you say that Omnitrans is: 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED ASK IN DESIGNATED ZIP CODES: 75. Have you seen or heard any advertising for Omnitrans in the past 6 months? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO #77] 3. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO #77] 4. REFUSED [SKIP TO #77] 76. If yes: Where did you see or hear the advertising? 1. TV 2. Radio 3. Newspaper 4. Direct Mail 5. Bus Shelters 6. Side of Buses 7. Movie Theatre 8. OTHER: Specify... 9. DON'T KNOW 10. REFUSED IVDA 77. Have you used air travel for business or pleasure within the past year? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO #81] 3. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO #81] 4. REFUSED [SKIP TO #81] 78. If yes: From which airport did you travel? [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] 1. LAX 2. Ontario Institute of Applied Research 15 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 3. From another airport: Specify... 4. DON'T KNOW 5. REFUSED 79. Would you like to have San Bernardino as a local option for air travel? 1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO #81] 3. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO #81] 4. REFUSED [SKIP TO #81] 80. If yes: If you had other local airport options such as San Bernardino, where would you travel to? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] 1. Western part of the US 2. Midwest or the Eastern part of the US 3. Commute to LAX 4. OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED CHARTER DIGITAL CABLE (TRANS)The following questions will be concerning your home television viewing. 81. Do you currently subscribe to: [INTERVIEWER: READ LIST AND CHECK ALL THAT APPLY] 1. Cable [SKIP TO # 84] 2. Satellite 3. Wireless [SKIP TO #86] 4. Don't subscribe to any [SKIP TO #86] 5. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO #86] 6. REFUSED [SKIP TO #86] 82. If they subscribe to satellite: Who is your satellite provider? [INTERVIEWER: DON'T READ LIST] 1. The Dish 2. Echo Star 3. Direct TV 4. DBS 5. OTHER 6. DON'T KNOW 7. REFUSED 83. If they subscribe to satellite: Why did you decide to use a satellite vs. using the local cable provider? [INTERVIEWER: DON'T READ LIST] [ONE ANSWER] 1. Channel selection 2. Prices Institute of Applied Research 16 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 3. Technology 4. Sport packages 5. Angry at local cable company 6. OTHER 7. DON'T KNOW 8. REFUSED 84. If they subscribe to cable: Can you tell me who your cable company is? 1. Charter Communications 2. Other [SKIP TO #86] 3. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO #86] 4. REFUSED [SKIP TO #86] 85. If they subscribe to cable with Charter: Overall, how would you rate Charter Communications as your television provider? Would you say that it is: 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. DON'T KNOW 6. REFUSED 86. Do you know if Charter Communications offers any other services besides cable television? (IF YES, "COULD YOU PLEASE LIST THEM?") 87. Have you heard of Charter Digital Cable? 1. Yes. Please tell me what is different about Charter Digital Cable from other cable company providers that you have used. [INTERVIEWER: DON'T READ LIST] [ONE ANSWER] a. more channels b. better picture quality c. interactive preview channel d. better viewing options e. OTHER: Specify f. DON'T KNOW g. REFUSED 2. No 88. Have you ever heard about Charter Pipeline service? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED Institute of Applied Research 17 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 89. Do you currently subscribe to DSL? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON'T KNOW 4. REFUSED (TRANS) And finally we'd like to ask a few questions about you and your background... B90. ASK IF CURRENTLY UNEMPLOYED: Previously you indicated that you are currently unemployed. Are you... 1. Looking for work 2. A housewife/househusband and not looking for work outside the home; or 3. Not currently in workforce 4. REFUSED B91. Which of the following best describes your marital status? 1. Single, never married [SKIP TO #92] 2. Married 3. Divorced [SKIP TO #92] 4. Widowed [SKIP TO #92] 5. REFUSED [SKIP TO #92] B92. [ASK ONLY IF THE PERSON IS MARRIED] Which of the following describes your spouse's status? Employed full time, employed part time, homemaker, unemployed and looking for work, or unemployed and NOT currently looking for work? 1. Employed full-time 2. Employed part-time 3. Home -maker 4. Unemployed, looking for work 5. Unemployed, not currently looking for work 6. DON'T KNOW 7. REFUSED B93. Do you have any children that are under the age of 18? 1. Yes 2. No 3. DON T KNOW 4. REFUSED B94. How would you describe your race and ethnicity? 1. Asian (Specify) 2. Black or African American 3. Hispanic or Latino 4. Caucasian or White 5. Other ethnic group (specify) 6. DON T KNOW 7. REFUSED B95. What was the last grade of school that you completed? Institute of Applied Research 18 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey 1. Some high school or less 2. High school graduate 3. Some college 4. College graduate (Bachelor s degree) 5. Some graduate work 6. Post -graduate degree 7. DON T KNOW 8. REFUSED B96. How many cars do you have for your household? cars B97. What was your age at your last birthday? Years B98. How long have you lived in County? Years (ROUND UP) B99. Which of the following categories best describes your total household or family income before taxes, from all sources, for 1999? 1. Less than $25,000 2. $25,000 to $35,999 3. $36,000 to $49,999 4. $50,000 to $65,999 5. $66,000 to $79,999 6. $80,000 to $110,000 7. Over $110,000 8. DON T KNOW 9. REFUSED Well, that's it. Thank you very much for your time - we appreciate it. INTERVIEWER QUESTIONS IQ 1. The respondant was... 1. Male 2. Female 3. Couldn't tell IQ2. How cooperative was the respondent? 1. Cooperative 2. Uncooperative 3. Very Uncooperative IQ3. How well did the respondent understand the questions? 1. Very easily 2. Easily 3. Some difficulty 4. Great deal of difficulty IQ4. In what language was the interview conducted? 1. English 2. Spanish Institute of Applied Research 19 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey APPENDIX II Data Display 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary QUESTION B3: Overall, how would you rate the County as a place to live? Would you say it is Very Good, Farily Good, Neither Good Nor Bad, Fairly Bad, or Very Bad? Very good Fairly good Neither good nor bad Fairly bad Very bad DONT KNOW Total # of respondents Riverside Count Col % San Bernardino Count Col % 281 523 143 33 14 7 1000 28.1% 52.3% 14.3% 3.3% 1.3% .7% 100.0% 149 524 232 61 26 7 1000 14.9% 52.5% 23.2% 6.1% 2.6% .7% 100.0% Total # of respondents Count 431 1047 375 94 39 14 2000 Col % 21.5% 52.4% 18.7% 4.7% 2.0% .7% 100.0% QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as VERY GOOD or FAIRLY GOOD) Nice living area Low crime Not crowded Close to everything Good Climate Affordable housing, good variety Good schools Quiet area Good people Low cost of living Clean Job variety, availability Good air quality High crime Good community service Close to mountains, beach, desert, river, etc. Better than a big city (LA) Bad air quality Good economy Good quality of life Good police Cases Riverside Col Response San Bernardino Cases Col Response 119 117 89 78 84 44 47 54 37 32 33 26 23 10 16 11 9 15 7 10 6 16.5% 16.3% 12.4% 10.8% 11.6% 6.1% 6.5% 7.4% 5.1% 4.4% 4.5% 3.6% 3.2% 1.4% 2.2% 1.6% 97 83 60 49 34 54 50 40 30 22 15 17 19 29 18 17 15.7% 13.5% 9.7% 7.9% 5.4% 8.8% 8.1% 6.5% 4.9% 3.6% 2.5% 2.8% 3.1% 4.7% 3.0% 2.7% Total # of cases Cases Col Response 216 201 149 127 117 98 97 94 67 54 48 44 42 39 34 28 9.5% 8.7% 7.3% 7.2% 7.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.6% 3.3% 3.1% 2.9% 2.5% 2.1% 17 2.8% 26 1.9% 7 1.1% 22 1.6% 12 1.9% 19 1.4% 9 1.5% 19 1.4% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 1 QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as VERY GOOD or FAIRLY GOOD) Riverside Cases No traffic Too much traffic Good place to raise family Entertainment, lots to do Too crowded Low taxes Good growth No gangs Transportion, good (public) Good place for kids Clean and not run down Good city council Good shopping centers Close to family and friends High activity, gangs Good streets Bad police Need more jobs Good public transportation Bad appearance Bad Streets Easy access to freeways Good county Variety of people Lack of community services Far from everything Growth, too much Good medical Bad climate Bad city council Need more industry Poor economy Bad housing Good laws Good property value Bad county Too much racism No graffiti Graffiti High activity, drugs NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% San Bernardino Total # of cases Col Response Cases Col Response Cases Col Response 11 14 7 6 12 6 9 5 3 9 4 7 7 6 2 6 4 5 5 1 1 4 5 4 6 3 2 4 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1.6% 1.9% 1.0% .9% 1.6% .5% .9% 1.0% .9% .2% .8% .6% .8% .8% .2% .2% .5% .7% .6% .8% .5% .2% .5% .3% .1% .3% .3% .3% .3% .1% 5 1 8 8 2 8 5 8 10 4 8 5 4 4 8 4 5 3 3 7 6 4 2 2 1 3 5 3 4 5 3 4 4 2 2 1 1 3 1 2 .8% .2% 1.2% 1.3% .4% 1.3% .8% 1.2% 1.6% .6% 1.3% .8% .7% .6% 1.2% .6% .8% .5% .3% .4% .1% .5% .8% .4% .6% .8% .5% .6% .6% .3% .4% .2% .2% .5% .2% .3% 16 15 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 12 11 11 10 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium .9% .9% .9% .8% .7% .7% .7% .7% .7% .6% .6% .6% .6% .5% .5% .5% .5% .5% .5% .5% .4% .4% .3% .3% .3% .3% .3% .2% .2% .2% .2% Page 2 QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as VERY GOOD or FAIRLY GOOD) Riverside San Bernardino High povery High cost of living Bad finance Good finance Lack of activities for youth No street lights Environmental issues Bad public transportation Bad image No growth Lack of accessibility for disabled Desert is ignored, out of the loop Nothing to do Poor medical Too many insects (ants) Politicians, bad Too much industry Bad people Historical landmarks Welfare, homeless low Lack of technology No activity, drugs Poor water quality Good place for kids Unsafe drivers Good for seniors Bad laws Bad freeway Lack of consideration for seniors Total # of cases Cases CoI Response 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 722 .1%° .1% .3% .2% .3% .1% .1% 147.4% Cases CoI Response 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 618 .2% .2% .1% .2% .2% .2% .2% .0% .1% .0% Total # of cases Cases 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 CoI Response % .2% .2% .2% .2% .2% .2% .2% .2% .1% .1% .1% .0% 144.8% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 141.7% 1339 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Pa e 3 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium g QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD) Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % High crime N to L() CO 10 LC) N LC) C) N CO N CO Cr) N CO d *- M C") N N C) C•) C) r .- r r- N � r 11.0% 45 25.2% 57 19.9% Nice living area 9.9% 15 8.6% 26 9.1% Bad air quality 6.2% 11 6.4% ' 18 6.3% Low crime 4.8% 12 6.9% 18 6.1% Transportion, good (public) 4.5% 10 5.7% 15 5.3% High activity, gangs 5.2% 9 5.2% 15 5.2% Quiet area 4.8% 8 4.7% 14 4.8% Too crowded 5.1% 8 4.4% 13 4.7% Clean and not run down 2.0% 9 5.2% 11 4.0% Need more jobs 4.6% 6 3.5% 11 3.9% Close to everything 3.2% 7 3.8% 10 3.6% Bad appearance 1.9% 8 4.6% 10 3.6% Bad climate 3.1% 7 3.6% 10 3.4% Job variety, availability 2.1% 7 4.0% 9 3.3% Affordable housing, good variety .6% 8 4.6% 9 3.1% Too much traffic 5.8% 2 1.0% 8 2.8% High activity, drugs 2.4% 6 3.1% 8 2.8% Good schools 3.8% 3 1.9% 8 2.6% Good Climate 1.5% 6 3.3% 7 2.6% Far from everything 2.9% 3 1.9% 7 2.3% Variety of people 3.9% 2 1.2% 6 2.2% Nothing to do 3.6% 2 1.2% 6 2.1% Bad people .9% 5 2.6% 6 2.0% Bad public transportation 2.9% 2 1.3% 5 1.9% Lack of community services . 4.20/0 1 .50 5 1.9% Bad police 2.6% 2 1.1% 5 1.7% Good economy 2.1% 2 1.3% 5 1.6% Bad Streets 5 2.6% 5 1.6% Growth, too much 1.8% 2 1.3% 4 1.5% Not crowded 2.8% 1 .6% 4 1.4% Bad finance 2.5% 1 .6% 4 1.3% Low cost of living 4 2.1% 4 1.3% High cost of living 3.2% 3 1.2% Close to mountains, beach, desert, river, etc. 1.10 2 1.30 3 1.2% No gangs 3 1.7% 3 1.1% Poor economy .6% 2 1.3% 3 1.1% Clean .6% 2 1.3% 3 1.0% Good people .9% 2 1.0% 3 1.0% Bad laws 1.6% 1 .7% 3 1.0% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 4 QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as NEITHER GOOD NOR BAD) Riverside San Bernardino Bad county Bad city council No traffic Lack of youth guidance Welfare, homeless high Good air quality Graffiti Good community service Entertainment, lots to do Bad shopping centers OTHER Minorities, too many Too much racism High child support High poverty Unsafe drivers Bad image Bad housing Noise Low taxes Good quality of life Need more industry Better than a big city (LA) Good police Close to family and friends Bad freeway Good county • Good public transportation DONT KNOW Dumps, landfills Lack of culture Poor water quality Need more restaurants Good growth Don't like the desert Good property value Total # of respondents Cases Col Response 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 107 .8% .9% 2.0% 1.4% .9% .9% .9% .9% .8% .8% .6% .6% .6% 139.1% Cases Col Response 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 179 .6% .9% .7% 1.3% .8% .6% 1.0% .7% .7% .7% .7% .7% .7% .6% .6% .6% .6% .6% .6% .4% .4% Total # of cases Cases Col Response 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0% .9% .9% .8% .8% .8% .7% .7% .7% .5% .4% .4% .4% .4% .4% .4% .4% .4% .4% .4% .4% .4% .3% .3% .3% .3% .3% .3% .2% .2% .2% .2% .2% .1% .1% .1% 143.7% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 286 Page 5 QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as FAIRLY BAD or VERY BAD) Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % High crime O CD et r r I. r N r <T r N NI— r N Cr) N N r r r NN r N r r I— 22.1% 37 45.1% 47 37.0% Bad air quality 13.0% 10 11.6% 15 12.1% Clean and not run down 8.4% 7 8.3% 11 8.4% Bad people 1.9% 9 10.7% 10 7.6% High activity, gangs 2.6% 7 9.0% 9 6.7% Too crowded 15.9% 1 1.7% 9 6.7% Transportion, good (public) 3.3% 5 5.9% 6 5.0% High activity, drugs 4.1% 4 4.9% 6 4.6% Bad appearance 2.2% 5 5.5% 6 4.4% Too much traffic 8.2% 1 1.4% 5 3.8% Need more jobs 8.5% 0 .3% 4 3.2% Bad police 2.2% 3 3.6% 4 3.1% Bad county 4.8% 2 2.2% 4 3.1% Poor economy 4 4.5% 4 2.9% Nothing to do 4.8% 1 1.7% 4 2.8% Bad laws 1.9% 2 2.8% 3 2.5% High povery 1.9% 2 2.8% 3 2.5% Bad climate 3.7% 1 1.7% 3 2.4% Bad image 6.6% 3 2.3% Bad Streets 4.4% 1 1.1% 3 2.3% High cost of living 5.2% 0 .3% 3 2.0% Bad city council 3 3.1% 3 2.0% Low crime 2 2.9% . 2 1.9% Too much racism 2.6% 1 1.4% 2 1.8% .Lack of youth guidance 2.2% 1 1.4% 2 1.7% Illegal immigrants 2.6% 1 .8% 2 1.4% Unsafe drivers 4.1% 2 1.4% Lack of community services 4.0% 2 1.4% Bad finance 2 2.0% 2 1.3% Growth, too much 2.2% 1 .8% 2 1.3% Graffiti 3.6% 2 1.3% Welfare, homeless high 1.9% 1 .6% 1 1.1% Nice living area 1 1.4% 1 .9% Good schools 1 1.4% 1 .9% No gangs 1 1.4% 1 .9% Affordable housing, good variety 1 1.4% 1 9% Variety of people 1 1.4% 1 .9% Bad housing 1 1.4% 1 .9% Noise 1 1.4% 1 .9% Lack of culture 2.6% 1 .9% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 6 QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents rating the County as FAIRLY BAD or VERY BAD) Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Col CoI Col Cases Response % Cases Response % Cases Response No growth Church 1 1.9% - 1 .7% Increasing 1 1.9% 1 7% taxes Desert is ignored, out of 1 1.9% 1 7% the loop 1 .8% 1 5% Job variety, availability Far from everything 1 1 .8% 1 .5% Not crowded 1 1.5% 1.4% 1 .5°% Good place for kids 1 .5/° Good public 0 .3% 0 .2% transportation 0 .3% 0 2% Poor water quality Total # of 0 .3% 0 2% cases 45 159.8% 83 150.7% 128 153.9% NOTE: people were allowed to ind' t ica a more than one 100% response, so the percentages may not sum to QUESTION B4: What one or two factors were the most important to you when you gave me your rating of the county? (Respondents who DIDN'T KNOW how to rate the county) Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Cases CoI Response % Cases Col Response Cases Col Res °onse p /° Nice living area Low crime OTHER Close to everything Bad air quality Too crowded Lack of community services Total # of respondents 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 48.2% 24.1% 20.9% 17.5% 17.5% 13.4% 141.6% 1 1 100.0% 100.0% 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 38.9% 19.4% 19.4% 16.8% 144.1 % 14.1% 10.8% 133.5% VOTE: people were allowed to ind' t 100% ica a more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 7 QUESTION B5: In your opinion, what is the ONE best thing about living in the County? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Climate/temperature 153 17.3% 98 11.1% 252 14.2% Good central location 121 13.7% 122 13.8% 243 13.7% Affordable housing 55 6.2% 68 7.7% 124 7.0% Good living areas 56 6.3% 62 7.0% 118 6.7% Affordable cost of living, low taxes 44 4.9% 66 7.5% 110 6.2% Not crowded 40 4.6% 65 7.3% 105 5.9% Quiet and peaceful 55 6.3% 44 5.0% 100 5.6% Close to mountains, beach, desert, river 22 2.5% 58 6.6% 80 4.5% Friendly people 39 4.4% 39 4.4% 78 4.4% Rural environment 34 3.9% 36 4.1% 70 4.0% Less crime -- feel safe 34 3.9% 35 4.0% 69 3.9% Schools 31 3.5% 32 3.6% 63 3.5% Family 27 3.0% 28 3.2% 55 3.1% Scenery, beautiful, good views 26 3.0% 26 3.0% 52 3.0% Air quality -- little smog 25 2.8% 24 2.7% 49 2.8% Job availability 23 2.6% 26 2.9% 49 2.8% Lots of space 19 2.1% 27 3.1% 46 2.6% Access to shopping, entertainment, culture 14 1.5% 20 2.3% 34 1.9% Recreation (golf, hobbies, parks,etc) 22 2.5% 10 1.2% 32 1.8% Less traffic 24 2.7% 8 .9% 32 1.8% NOTHING 13 1.4% 9 1.0% 22 1.2% Availability of public services 11 1.3% 9 1.0% 20 1.1% Diversity of people 6 .6% 8 1.0% 14 .8% Good politicians 10 1.1% 4 .4% 14 .8% Medical community 8 .9% 5 .6% 14 .8% Growth, progressive area 6 .7% 4 .5% 10 .6% Good quality of life 5 .6% 5 .5% 10 .6% Economy, good 4 .5% 2 .3% 7 .4% Good freeways 4 .4% 2 .3% 6 .3% Other 1 .1% 4 .4% 5 .3% EVERYTHING 1 .1% 3 .3% 4 .2% Church 3 .3% 1 .1% 4 .2% Good transportation 2 .2% 2 .2% 4 .2% Friendly business atmosphere 1 .1% 1 .1% 2 .1% Area allows animals 2 .2% 0 .0% 2 .1% Variety of living options 0 .0% 2 .2% 2 .1% Kids, more aware 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% Total # of cases 886 106.3% 884 108.3% 1770 107.3% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100 /° 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 8 QUESTION B6: In your opinion, what is the ONE most negative thing about living in the County? Crime Smog Traffic congestion NOTHING Atmosphere Overpopulated Gangs Not enough jobs Cleanliness, run down Long commute Drugs Roads need improvement Inefficient political system Poor school systems Police department Lack of entertainment Poor public transportation Other Too far from things Graffiti Low wages Wind Poverty Unfriendly people Taxes Large number of welfare recipients/homeless/poor Too expensive Economy is bad Racial problems Poor shopping Lack of cultural activities Too large Don't like the area Bad image Lack of services Gas prices Ignore desert, don't do anything to upgrade it Illegal immigrants No programs for children Conservative views Lack of medical care Too much construction Riverside Cases CoI Response San Bernardino Cases CoI Response 80 98 122 65 67 68 38 27 21 31 21 21 22 23 21 27 21 16 14 7 11 6 3 12 11 4 5 1 9 7 3 0 0 0 3 5 2 5 2 4 4 0 9.2% 11.2% 14.0% 7.4% 7.7% 7.8% 4.3% 3.1% 2.4% 3.5% 2.4% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7% 2.4% 3.0% 2.4% 1.8% 1.6% .8% 1.2% .7% .4% 1.3% 1.2% .5% .2% 195 113 58 42 38 36 56 40 36 19 24 22 20 15 17 12 17 13 13 17 11 15 17 7 7 9 6 9 1 3 6 9 8 8 5 2 5 22.0% 12.8% 6.6% 4.7% 4.3% 4.1% 6.4% 4.5% 4.1% 2.1% 2.8% 2.5% 2.3% 1.7% 2.0% 1.3% 1.9% 1.5% 1.5% 1.9% 1.2% 1.6% 2.0% .8% .7% 1.0% .7% 1.0% .9% .9% .5% .2% .5% Total # of cases Cases Col Response 275 211 181 106 105 104 94 67 57 49 45 43 43 38 38 38 37 29 27 24 22 21 21 19 17 13 11 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 2 .2% 6 4 .5% 6 1 .2% 5 1 .1% 5 5 .5% 5 .3% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 15.6% 12.0% 10.3% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9% 5.3% 3.8% 3.2% 2.8% 2.6% 2.5% 2.4% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% .7% .6% .6% .6% .6% .6% .5% .5% .5% .4% .4% .4% .5% .2% .4% .5% .0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium .4% .3% .3% .3% Page 9 QUESTION B6: In your opinion, what is the ONE most negative thing about living in the County? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Col Col Col Response Response Response Cases % Cases % Cases % 2 .2% 3 .3% 5 .3% Too far from LA and other major cities Parol inmates in the area 1 .1% 4 .4% 4 ° ° Growth, too slow 2 .2% 2 .2% . 4 .2°/0 Too far from the water 3 .3% 1 .1% 4 .2% Lack of a sense of community 2 .2% 2 .2% 4 .2% High cost of living 4 .4% 0 .0% 4 .2% High cost, water, insurance, gas, food 1 .2% 2 .2% 4 .2% English- lack of english speaking people 2 .2% 1 .1% 3 .1% Cow smell 0 .0% 2 .3% 2 .1% Overpopulated schools 0 .0% 2 .3% 2 .1 Parental involvement is lacking 1 .1% 1 .10/0 2 .1% Distance to shopping 1 .1% 2 .2% 2 .1° ° Everything geared toward main cities (Riv and SB) 1 .2% 1 .1% 2 1% Not enough access to other counties 1 .2% 0 .0% 1 .1% Discrimination 1 .2% 0 .0% 1 •1% City of San Bernardino 0 .0% 1 .2% 1 .1% Too much diversity 0 .0% 1 .2% 1 .1% Pollution 0 .0% 1 .2% 1 .1% Environment disregarded The city of Fontana 0 0 .0% .0% 1 1 .2% .1% 1 1 .1% .1 cro Post office, not good 0 .0% 1 .10/0 1 .1% Poor quality of life 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .1% Transportation, bus 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .1 Utilities too high' 1 .1% - 0 .0% 1 .0% Noise (trains, airplanes) 1 .1%' 0 .0% 1 .0% Salespeople, solicitors 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .0% Liberal views 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% Total # of cases 874 106.4% 884 110.5% 1758 108.4% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 10 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 7: Continued POPULATION growth in the Inland Empire will produce mainly positive results for residents. Do you: Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents Riverside Count 34 199 146 89 15 8 491 Col % 6.9% 40.6% 29.7% 18.1% 3.1% 1.6% 100.0% San Bernardino Count 43 200 172 75 19 0 509 Col % 8.5% 39.3% 33.7% 14.7% 3.8% .1% 100.0% Total # of respondents Count 77 400 317 164 35 8 1000 CoI % 7.7% 39.9% 31.7% 16.4% 3.5% .8% 100.0% QUESTION B8: In comparison to a year ago, would you say that you and your family are financially better off or worse off or the same? Better off Same Worse off DONT KNOW REFUSE Total # of respondents Riverside Count CoI % San Bernardino Count Col % 403 483 104 5 4 1000 40.3% 48.3% 10.4% .5%. .4% 100.0% 413 470 107 8 1 1000 41.4% 47.0% 10.7% .8% .1% 100.0% Total # of respondents Count 817 953 212 13 6 2000 CoI % 40.8% 47.7% 10.6% .6% .3% 100.0% QUESTION B9: Thinking about your household income, would you say that it is enough so that you can save money or buy some extras, just enough to meet your bills and obligations, or is it not enough to meet your bills and obligations? Enough to -save and buy extras Just.enough to pay bills Not enough DONT KNOW REFUSE Total # of respondents Riverside Count Col % San Bernardino Count Col % 428 441 118 8 6 1000 42.8% 402 467 122 4 5 1000 40.2% 46.7% 12.2% .4% .5% 100.0% Total # of respondents Count 830 908 240 11 11 2000 Col % 41.5% 45.4% 12.0% .6% .6% 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 11 QUESTION B10: Now looking ahead, do you think that a year from now you and your family will be better off, worse off, or just about the same as you are now? Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count CoI % Better off 537 53.7% 567 56.7% 1105 55.2% Same 363 36.3% 358 35.8% 722 36.1% Worse off 41 4.1% 36 " 3.6% 77 3.9% DONT KNOW 54 5.4% 34 3.4% 89 4.4% REFUSE 4 .4% 4 .4% 8 .4% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B11: Are you currently employed? Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Yes 612 61.2% 670 67.0% 1282 64.1% No 381 38.1% 327 32.7% 709 35.4% DONT KNOW 4 .4% 1 .1% 5 .3% REFUSED 3 .3% 1 .1% 4 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B12: Do you work full time or part time? Riverside San Bernardino Total respondents Count # of CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Full time Part time REFUSED Total # of respondents 513 98 1 612 83.9% 16.0% .1% 100.0% 563 107 0 670 84.1% 15.9% .0% 100.0% 1077 205 1 1282 84.0% 16.0% .1% 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 12 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B13: What is your occupation? Service workers except private household (e.g. bartenders) Education (teacher, tutor) Manager and administrators Sales workers (e.g. salespeople, insurance agents, real est) Clerical and "kindred" workers (e.g. secretaries, insurance) Health care (e.g. nurse, X-ray) Crafts & "kindred" workers (e.g. construction, electricians) Laborer, except farm (e.g. gardeners) Self employed - business owner Professional -Technical (e.g. physician, lawyer, engineer) Transport Equipment Operative (e.g. truck driver, delivery) Operatives, except transport (e.g. welders, dressmakers) Supervisor Police, firefighter Technician Counselor (social worker) Accountant, Financial Planner Government Computer programmer Private household workers Military Consultant Church worker Specialist Research Artist Investigator Writer Farmers and farm managers Student REFUSED Retired Housewife -househusband Total # of respondents San Bernardino Riverside Count CoI % Count CoI Total # of respondents Count CoI % 98 80 60 35 48 46 47 29 25 18 20 20 19 19 13 10 9 8 8 9 6 4 5 5 4 2 4 4 0 0 1 1 1 658 14.9% 12.2% 9.1% 5.4% 7.4% 7.0% 7.1% 4.4% 3.8% 2.7% 3.1% 3.0% 2.8% 2.9% 1.9% 1.5% 1.4% 1.2% L2% 1.4% .9% .6% .7% .7% .5% .4% .6% .6% .0% .0% .2% .2% .2% 100.0% 88 64 65 50 36 36 34 37 22 26 17 16 14 8 14 13 10 8 8 5 6 7 4 2 2 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 602 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium 14.6% 10.6% 10.8% 8.2% 6.0% 5.9% 5.6% 6.2% 3.6% 4.3% 2.8% 2.7% 2.4% 1.3% 2.3% 2.1% 1.6% 1.4% 1.4% .8% .9% 1.1% .7% .3% .4% .4% .2% .1% .5% .4% .2% .1% .0% 100.0% 186 144 125 85 85 81 80 66 47 43 37 36 33 27 27 23 19 16 16 14 12 11 9 6 6 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 1260 14.7% 11.5% 9.9% 6.7% 6.7% 6.5% 6.4% 5.2% 3.7% 3.4% 3.0% 2.8% 2.6% 2.1% 2.1% 1.8% 1.5% 1.3% 1.3% 1.1% .9% .9% .7% .5% .5% .4% .4% .3% .3% .2% .2% .1% .1% 100.0% Page 13 QUESTION B14: How concerned are you that you might lose your job? Would you say you are: Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Very concerned 27 4.4% 42 6.3% 70 5.4% Somewhat concerned 81 13.2% 128 19.1% 209 16.3% Not at all concerned 499 81.5% 497 74.2% 996 77.7% DONT KNOW 3 .5% 3 .4% 5 _ .4% REFUSED 2 .4% 0 .0% 2 .2% Total # of respondents 612 100.0% 670 100.0% 1282 100.0% QUESTION B15: In general, how would you rate the economy in your county today? Would you say that it is Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor? Riverside San Bernardino Total respondents Count # of Col % Count Col % Count Col % Excellent 94 9.4% 30 3.1% 124 6.2% Good 492 49.2% 407 40.7% 899 45.0% Fair 330 33.0% 429 42.9% 759 37.9% Poor 54 5.4% 102 10.2% 156 7.8% DONT KNOW 31 3.1% 31 3.1% 62 3.1% REFUSED 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .0% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 16: Many of our regions college graduates leave the area after graduation. What do you think is the main reason for their leaving? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % There are not enough jobs 119 11.9% 127 12.7% 246 12.3% There are not enough high -paying jobs 521 52.)% 512 51.2% 1033 51.7% They want to try a different living environment 277 27.7% 299 29.9% 577 28.8% Other 32 3.2% 28 2.8% 60 3.0% DONT KNOW 42 4.2% 33 3.3% 76 3.8% REFUSED 9 .9% 0 .0% 9 .4% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 14 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 16: Many of our regions college graduates leave the area after graduation. What do you think is the main reason for their leaving (OTHER)? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count All No high tech industry Move home after graduation San Bernardino county reputation Better opportunities elsewhere Taxes Heat Crime rate Overcrowded Smog Total # of respondents 2 2 2 1 7 2 1 1 2 1 20 5 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 0 0 19 7 4 3 2 11 3 3 2 2 1 39 QUESTION 17: The Inland Empire needs more jobs in which of the following areas: p p were a11 Riverside San Bernardino Total # of Respondents CoI CoI CoI Response Response Response Cases % Cases % Cases % Manufacturing Distribution 458 45.8% 428 42.8% 886 44.3% Industry 350 35.0% 314 31.5% 664 33.2% Technology 440 44.0% 460 46.0% 900 45.0% Medical Field 665 66.5% 668 66.8% 1333 66.7% Education 493 49.3% 490 49.0% 983 49.1% Retail 587 58.7% 591 59.1% 1178 58.9% Construction 249 24.8% 253 25.3% 501 25.1% Government 286 28.6% 332 33.3% 619 30.9% Engineering 246 24.6% • 247 24.7% 494 24.7% Aerospace 431 43.0% ' 422 42.2% 853 42.6% Any Other 378 37.8% 387 38.7% 765 38.3% No Response 35 3.5% 54 5.4% 89 4.5% Total # Respondents 84 8.4% 47 4.7% 131 6.6% of 1000 470.1% 1000 469.7% 2000 469.9% NnrF eo le owed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 15 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 17: The Inland Empire needs more jobs in which of the following areas (OTHER): Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count Civil service O 1— (O •ct I r v— CO 0 00 N 1 1 Financial industry 2 4 Farming, agriculture 2 8 All 5 8 Recreation 4 4 Entertainment, arts 8 9 Environment 1 2 Law enforcement, firemen 4 7 Secretarial 2 2 Catering 1 1 Unskilled labor 1 1 Service industry 1 2 Transportation 0 1 Management, business 1 2 Tourism 0 1 Technical 2 3 Sciences 0 1 Military 0 1 Small industry 0 1 Total # of respondents 36 60 QUESTION B20: Do you think, in general that buying a home in the County today is an excellent, good, only fair, or a poor investment? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Excellent 239 23.9% 149 14.9% 388 19.4% Good 499 49.9% 459 _ 46.0% 959 47.9% Fair 176 17.6% 273 27.3% 449 22.5% Poor 57 • 5.7% 82 8.2% 139 6.9% DON'T KNOW 29 2.9% 35 3.5% 64 3.2% REFUSED 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 16 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B21: Considering all the problems that face you community, which ONE city or community problem do you consider to be the most important? Crime Schools Gangs Lack of jobs Too much traffic Drugs Bad streets Lack of growth planning and management Lack of guidance for youth Police Political corruption and government Crowded Security Few activities for young people Pollution Public transportation Aesthetics -- make things look better, cleaner Graffiti Welfare, homeless problems NOTHING Economy Taxes Getting a house City finances Racism Need more retail (shopping) Bad people Poverty Health care City, less involvement and attention to community Lack of funding for family oriented activities Bad services (lighting, street maintenance, etc.) Society -- bad relations/attitudes/morals Housing density Law, prosecution Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Col Response Cases Cases CoI Response Cases CoI Response 145 123 74 43 75 50 39 37 26 33 20 29 15 19 12 11 8 7 10 13 5 10 11 5 13 7 7 6 9 6 9 7 5 4 1 17.1% 14.5% 8.8% 5.0% 8.9% 5.9% 4.6% 4.3% 3.0% 3.8% 2.3% 3.4% 1.8% 2.3% 1.4% 1.3% 1.0% .8% 1.2% .9% .8% .7% 1.0% .7% 1.0% .8% .6% .5% .1% 208 118 80 68 23 44 36 30 30 20 28 18 29 9 15 15 17 18 15 12 16 10 9 14 6 10 9 10 5 7 3 5 5 6 9 23.1% 13.1% 8.9% 7.6% 2.5% 4.9% 4.0% 3.3% 3.3% 2.2% 3.1% 2.0% 3.3% 1.0% 1.7% 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% 1.6% .8% .3% .5% .6% .6% 1.0% 352 240 155 111 98 94 76 66 55 52 48 46 45 28 27 26 26 25 25 25 21 20 20 19 19 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 20.2% 13.8% 8.9% 6.3% 5.6% 5.4% 4.3% 3.8% 3.2% 3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.0% .9% .9% .8% .7% .7% .7% .6% .6% .6% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 10 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 17 QUESTION B21: Considering all the problems that face you community, which ONE city or community problem do you consider to be the most important? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response 0/0 Poor quality water is (n d' N N r N N CO N N C dt r C7 r r r r r O r N N N r O N N N N O O r r r .8% N N N (") LC) d N N (") N O Cr) r CO N N N N N r O O O r N O 0 O O r r 0 0 0 .2% CJ) N- (O (D LL) lf) lf) L() LC) L() �t Cn CO CO CO N N NNNNNN N NN .5% Language barrier .6% .3% .4% High cost utilities .5% .2% .3% Need better quality of life .3% .4% .3% No community involvement .2% .4% .3% Location, far from things .1% .5% .3% Decreased property values Cost of living .2% .2% .4% .4% .3% .3% Need more entertainment/things to do 3% .2% .3% Unsafe drivers .3% .2% .3% Climate, weather .2% .3% .3% High water cost .3% .2% .3% Water shortage .5% .0% .3% City needs to be incorporated .1% .4% .2% Family breakdown .3% .1% .2% Other .1% .3% .2% Zoning .1% .3% .2% High rent and/or lease for businesses 1% 3% 2% Need more/better social services .1% .3% .2% Illegals, immigrants .1% .2% .2% Adult schools .0% .3% .1% Pregnancy rates .1°A. .1% .1% Fire department .3% .0% .1% Gambling .3% .0% .1 Child Abuse .2% .0% .1% Strengthning public image .1% .1% .1% Uneducated people .0% .2% .1% Flood control .2% .0% .1% Need to enforce leash law for dogs 2% 0% 1 Smog ,2% .0% .1% Dumps, landfills .2% .0% .1% Insects, bugs .0% .1% .1% Noise .0% .1% .1% Disaster preparation .1% .0% .1% Need more restaurants .1')/0 .0% .1% Minorities, too many .1% .0% .0% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 18 QUESTION B21: Considering all the problems that face you community, which ONE city or community problem do you consider to be the most important? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of cases Col Response Col Response Col Response Cases % Cases % Cases % People are not religious enough 1 .10/0 0 .00/0 1 o .0 /o No freedom of speech 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .0% Need to attract industry 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .0% Total # of cases 847 112.9% 901 112.9% 1748 112.9% : people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% QUESTION SB25: In general, how fearful are you that YOU will be the victim of a serious crime, such as a violent or costly crime? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Very fearful 44 8.6% 38 7.7% 81 8.1% Somewhat fearful 153 30.0% 164 33.4% 317 31.7% Not too fearful 186 36.6% 165 33.7% 351 35.2% Not at all fearful 126 24.7% 119 24.3% 245 24.5% DONT KNOW 1 .1% 5 1.0% 6 .6% Total # of respondents 509 100.0% 491 100.0% 1000 100.0% QUESTION SB26: Have you ever been the victim of a serious, violent, or costly crime? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Yes 131 25.8% 123 25.0% 254 25.4% No 374 73.4% 368 75.0% 742 74.2% DONT KNOW 4 .7% 0 .0% 4 .4% REFUSED 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .1% Total # of respondents 509 100.0% 491 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 19 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION SB27: Is there any area within one mile of your house in which you are afraid to walk at night? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Yes 198 38.9% 181 36.8% 379 37.9% No 300 59.0% 295 60.1% 595 59.5% DONT KNOW 11 2.1% 14 3.0% 25 2.5% REFUSED 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 _1% Total # of respondents 509 100.0% 491 100.0% 1000 100.0% , QUESTION B28: Are you currently registered to vote? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col Yes 747 74.7% 796 79.6% 1542 77.1% No 246 24.6% 202 20.2% 448 22.4% DONT KNOW 5 .5% 2 .2% 7 .3% REFUSED ' 3 .3% 0 .0% 3 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B29: Which of the following best describes your political party affiliation? Democrat, Republican, Independent, or some other party? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Democrat 269 36.0% 318 39.9% 587 38.0% Republican 315 42.2% 292 36.7% 607 39.4% Independent 89 11.9% 97 12.2% 186 12.0% Some other Party 24 3.3% 24 3.0% 48 3.1% None 18 2.4% 34 4.2% 51 3.3% DONT KNOW 8 1.1% - 15 1.9% 23 1.5% REFUSED 23 3.1% ' 16 2.1% 40 2.6% Total # of respondents 747 100.0% 796 100.0% 1542 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 20 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B30: Would you say that you vote in all elections, only some, hardly ever or never? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count CoI % In all elections 570 76.3% 547 68.7% 1117 72.4% Only in some 138 18.4% 198 24.9% 335 21.8% Hardly ever 25 3.3% 30 3.8% 55 3.6% Never 13 1.8% 17 2.2% 30 2,0% DONT KNOW 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .1% REFUSED 1 .2% 2 .3% 3 .2% Total # of respondents 747 100.0% 796 100.0% 1542 100.0% QUESTION B31: Politically, do you consider yourself to be Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Very liberal 64 6.4% 82 8.2% 146 7.3% Somewhat liberal 188 18.8% 189 18.9% 376 18.8% Middle of the road 300 30.0% 335 33.5% 635 31.8% Somewhat conservative 271 27.1% 245 24.5% 516 25.8% Very conservative 117 11.7% 110 11.0% 227 11.3% Social liberal but economic conservative 45 4.5% 27 2.7% 72 3.6% DON'T KNOW 16 1.6% 11 1.1% 27 1.4% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 32: Regarding LEGAL immigration, should the level of legal immigration into the United States be reduced? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count CoI % Yes 399 39.9% ' 391 39.1% 790 39.5% No 530 52.9% 535 53.5% 1064 53.2% DONT KNOW 68 6.8% 73 7.3% 141 7.0% REFUSED 4 .4% 2 .2% 5 .3% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 21 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 33: How friendly would you say the relationship is today between the United States and Mexico? Would you say this relationship is: Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count CoI % Very friendly 121 12.1% 139 13.9% 260 13.0% Somewhat friendly 567 56.7% 588 58.8% 1154 57.7% Not very friendly 200 20.0% 168 16.8% 368 18.4% Hostile 46 4.6% 44 4.4% 89 4.5% DON'T KNOW 66 6.6% 58 5.8% 125 6.2% REFUSED 1 .1% 3 .3% 4 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B34: How would you rate local POLICE/SHERIFF services? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Excellent 163 16.3% 141 14.1% 304 15.2% Good 498 49.8% 499 49.9% 997 49.9% Fair 240 24.0% 265 26.5% 505 25.2% Poor 82 8.2% 71 7.1% 153 7.7% DONT KNOW 17 1.7% 24 2.4% 40 2.0% REFUSE 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .0% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B35: How would you rate local PARKS AND RECREATION services? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count CoI % Excellent 140 14.0% 113 11.3% 253 12.6% Good 485 48.5% 469 46.9% 954 47.7% Fair 230 23.0% 269 - 26.9% 499 25.0% Poor 102 10.2% . 112 11.2% 214 10.7% DONT KNOW 43 4.3% 36 3.6% 79 4.0% REFUSE 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .0% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 22 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B36: How would you rate the way local STREETS AND ROADS are kept up? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Excellent 84 8.4% 56 5.6% 140 7.0% Good 354 35.4% 274 27.4% 628 31.4% Fair 305 30.5% 335 33.5% 639 32.0% Poor 255 25.5% 331 33.1% 586 29.3% DONT KNOW 3 .3% 2 .2% 5 .3% REFUSE 0 .0% 2 .2% 2 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B37: How would you rate local PUBLIC SCHOOLS? Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count Col % Excellent 96 9.6% 74 7.5% 171 8.5% Good 368 36.7% 333 33.3% 701 35.0% Fair 283 28.3% 356 35.6% 638 31.9% Poor 169 16.9% 165 16.5% 334 16.7% DONT KNOW 85 8.5% 67 6.7% 152 7.6% REFUSE 1 .1% 4 .4% 4 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B38: How would you rate local SHOPPING? Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count Col % Excellent 184 18.4% 132 13.2% 316 15.8% Good 477 47.7% 493 49.3% 970 48.5% Fair 246 24.6% 268 26.8% 514 25.7% Poor 83 8.3% 100 10.0% 183. 9.2% DONT KNOW 9 .9% 8 .8% 17 .9% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 23 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 39: How would you rate local TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS? Riverside San Bernardino Total respondents Count # of Col Count Col % Count Col % Excellent 55 5.5% 46 4.6% 101 5.1% Good 329 32.9% 311 31.1% 640 32.0% Fair 246 24.5% 315 31.5% 561 28.0% Poor 275 27.5% 239 23.9% 513 25.7% DON'T KNOW 94 9.4% 88 8.8% 183 9.1% REFUSE 1 .1% 1 .1% 2 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 40: How would you rate local MUSEUMS? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Excellent 50 5.0% 36 3.6% 86 4.3% Good 251 25.1% 206 20.6% 458 22.9% Fair 247 24.6% 315 31.5% 561 28.1% Poor 309 30.9% 323 32.3% 632 31.6% DONT KNOW 143 14.3% 118 11.8% 261 13.0% REFUSE 0 .0%` 3 .3% 3 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B41: How would you rate local ENTERTAINMENT? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Excellent 75 7.5% 69 - 6.9% 143 7.2% Good 339 33.9% 363 36.3% 702 35.1% Fair 322 32.2% 314 31.4% 636 31.8% Poor 224 22.4% 218 21.8% 442 22.1% DONT KNOW 40 4.0% 33 3.3% 73 3.7% REFUSE 1 .1% 3 .3% 4 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 24 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 42: Generally, all Inland Empire residents can expect to be treated fairly by policemen or sheriffs. Do you: Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count CoI % Strongly Agree 121 12.1% 115 11.5% 236 11.8% Agree 351 35.0% 392 39.2% 742 37.1% Can't say 263 26.3% 242 - 24.2% 504 25.2% Disagree 172 17.2% 177 17.7% 349 17.5% Strongly Disagree 73 7.3% 60 6.0% 133 6.7% REFUSED 21 2.1% 14 1.4% 35 1.8% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B43: How much confidence do you have that the elected officials in your city will adopt policies that will benefit the general community? Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % A great deal of confidence 117 11.7% 91 9.1% 208 10.4% Some confidence 510 51.0% 549 54.9% 1059 53.0% Not much confidence 229 22.9% 202 20.2% 431 21.5% No confidence 102 10.2% 111 11.1% 213 10.6% DONT KNOW 42 4.2% 43 4.3% 85 4.3% REFUSED 0 .0% 4 .4% 4 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 44: Which of the following statements comes CLOSEST to your point of view? The best way to improve local public schools is to: Total # of Riverside San Bernardino respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Set higher standards for student academic achievement 268 26.8% 249 24.9% 517 25.8% Set higher standards for student discipline 213 21.3% 199 19.9% 412 20.6% Increase school funding Increase 200 20.0% 217 21.7% 417 20.8% teacher training DONT 254 25.4% 284 28.4% 538 26.9% KNOW REFUSED 55 5.5% 44 4.4% 98 4.9% Total 11 1.1% 7 7% 18 9% # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 25 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 45: California schools rank 40th nationwide in school funding. If schools were to be funded closer to the national average how should we spend the increased funds? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of Cases Cases Col Response % Cases - Col Response % Cases Col Response % Textbooks and classroom supplies 566 56.6% 601 60.1% 1166 58.3% Computers and 459 45.9%. 489 48.9% 948 - 47.4% Internet access Increasing teachers' salaries 522 52.1% 545 54.5% 1067 53.3% Improvement to school facilities 500 50.0% 533 53.3% 1033 51.7% More school safety officers 327 32.7% 332 33.2% 658 32.9% More school site counselors 329 32.9% 335 33.5% 664 33.2% OTHER 100 10.0% 122 12.2% 222 11.1% DONT KNOW 52 5.2% 24 2.4% 76 3.8% REFUSED 34 3.4% 15 1.5% 49 2.5% Total # of Cases 1000 288.8% 1000 299.5% 2000 294.2% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 1 uu ro 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 26 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 45: California schools rank 40th nationwide in school funding. If schools were to be funded closer to the national average how should we spend the increased funds (OTHER)? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count Reduce class size 11 23 33 More parent participation, training 6 9 15 More tutors 1 0 1 More teachers 4 8 12 More discipline 2 5 7 More learning for Special Ed. 0 1 1 More activities 6 7 13 More teacher training 14 8 23 More teacher aids 3 1 4 School vouchers 2 2 4 More schools 8 10 18 Better school transportation 2 0 2 After school programs 5 3 8 More spent on substitutes 0 1 1 Drug and alcohol prevention 0 1 1 Test teachers every year 1 2 • 3 Video cameras 1 1 2 More nurses 0 1 1 School uniforms 0 1 1 Put lockers back in schools 1 0 1 Reading programs 1 0 1 Spend more on curriculum 2 1 4 Total # of respondents 68 89 157 QUESTION 46: How much do you think the STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM has improved your local schools? Has it improved them a lot, some, or not at all? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col A lot 91 9.1% 86 8.6% 177 8.9% Some 452 45.2% 506 50.6% 958 47.9% Not at all 197 19.7% 190 19.0% 387 19.4% DON'T KNOW 221 22.1% 206 20.7% 427 21.4% REFUSED 39 3.9% 11 1.1% 50 2.5% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 27 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 47: How much do you think CLASS SIZE REDUCTION has improved your local schools? Has it improved them a lot, some, or not at all? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col Much Improvement 234 23.4% 230 23.0% 464 23.2% Some Improvement 353 35.3% 414 41.4% 767 38.3% No Improvement 188 18.8% 195 19.5% 383 19.1% DONT KNOW 191 19.1% 154 15.4% 345 17.3% REFUSED 34 3.4% 7 .7% 41 2.0% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 48: Average total time to get to and from work each day Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Less than 1 hour 318 56.4% 388 61.2% 706 58.9% 1- <2 hours 134 23.7% 142 22.5% 276 23.0% 2- <3 hours 71 12.6% 64 10.1% 135 11.3% 3- <4 hours 30 5.3% 28 4.4% 58 4.8% 4 or more hours 11 1.9% 12 1.9% 23 1.9% Total # of respondents 563 100.0% 634 100.0% 1197 100.0% Descriptive Statistics Average total time (in minutes) to get to and from work each day Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Std Deviation Riverside 563 1 300 60.83 40 55.37 San Bernardino 634 1 480 58.15 40 55.14 Total Inland Empire 1197 1 480 59.41 40 55.24 QUESTION 49: Some commuters complain that they spend too much time on the road each day. For you, what would be a ROUND-TRIP commute time that you would consider to be TOO LONG? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Less than 1 hour 112 21.3% 107 17.0% 219 18.9% 1- <2 hours 248 47.0% 313 49.7% 561 48.5% 2- <3 hours 117 22.2% 160 25.4% 277 23.9% 3- <4 hours 33 6.3% 34 5.4% 68 5.8% 4 or more hours 17 3.2% 16 2.5% 33 2.8% Total # of respondents 527 100.0% 630 100.0% 1157 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 28 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Descriptive Statistics What would be a ROUND-TRIP commute time that you would consider to be TOO LONG? Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Std Deviation _ Riverside 527 2 480 86.30 60 53.91 San Bernardino 630 1 540 88.27 61 51.07 Total Inland Empire 1157 1 540 87.37 60 52.37 QUESTION 50: Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you do? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of Cases Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response % Cases Col Response Switch Jobs 258 45.2% 285 44.4% 543 44.8% Carpool 185 32.5% 217 33.8% 402 .33.2% Take the Metrolink 72 12.7% 116 18.0% 188 15.5% Take the Bus 46 8.0% 43 6.7% 89 7.3% Telecommute 68 11.9% 80 12.5% 148 12.2% Other 127 22.3% 117 18.2% 244 20.1% Total # of Cases 570 132.7% 643 133.5% 1213 133.1% NOTE: people were allowed to indicate more than one response, so the percentages may not sum to 100% QUESTION 50: Suppose your commute time would become unacceptably long. What would you do (OTHER)? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count Move 50 40 N '1' CO N- r CO) CO N r N r N r CO r O) CO (O Deal with it, drive anyway 11 21 Quit 3 1 Take an alternative route 5 4 Retire 2 5 Work at home 1 0 Transfer 0 3 Leave earlier 2 1 Shorter week, longer hours 0 2 Ask for a raise 0 1 Stay in a Motel or Apartment 0 2 Toll lanes 1 0 Ride bike 1 1 Walk 0 1 Look for other transportation 3 0 Buyacar 1 0 Total # of respondents 80 84 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 29 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B51: What county do you work in? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Riverside 442 72.3% 47 7.1% 490 38.2% San Bernardino 58 9.4% 470 70.1% 528 41.2% Orange 44 7.2% 29 4.4% 73 5.7% Los Angeles 31 5.1% 103 -15.3% 134 10.5% San Diego 25 4.0% 4 .6% 29 2.2% Other 12 2.0% 17 2.5% 29 2.2% Total # of respondents 612 100.0% 670 100.0% 1282 100.0% QUESTION B51: What county do you work in (OTHER)? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count Several counties 7 11 18 Ventura 0 0 0 Total # of respondents 7 11 18 QUESTION 52: Has the increase in gas prices during the past year caused you to drive less? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Yes 428 42.8% 474 47.4% 902 45.1% No 556 55.6% 509 50.9% 1064 53.2% DONT KNOW 14 1.4% 16 1.6% 30 1.5% REFUSED 2 .2% 1 .1% 3 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000. 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 53: What changes have you made in the way you travel? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Carpooling and/or vanpooling 74 17.3% 118 25.0% 192 21.3% Metrolink 4 .8% 5 1.0% 8 9% Riding the bus 13 3.1% 17 3.6% 30 3.4% Taking the train 6 1.4% 4 .7% 9 1.0% Walking 29 6.9% 31 6.6% 61 6.7% Bicycling 12 2.8% 9 1.8% 21 2.3% Changed job or Moved 13 3.0% 23 4.9% 36 4.0% Other 234 54.6% 201 42.4% 435 48.2% DONT KNOW 37 8.6% 54 11.3% 91 10.0% REFUSED 6 1.4% 12 2.5% 18 2.0% Total # of respondents 428 100.0% 474 100.0% 902 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Page 30 QUESTION 53: What changes have you made in the way you travel (OTHER)? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Make one trip, plan better 57 31.5% 38 22.9% 96 27.4% Stay home, don't go out 27 14.8% 34 20.3% 61 17.5% Buy smaller cars, use car with better gas mileage 12 6.6% 7 4.5% 20 5.6% Fewer trips, vacations 27 15.0% 20 11.8% 47 13.5% Drive less 51 28.0% 61 36.5% 112 32.1% Telecommute 1 .4% 0 .0% 1 .2% Fast Track 1 .5% 0 .0% 1 .3% Go home for lunch less 0 .0% 1 .7% 1 .3% Less recreation 2 1.0% 3 1.7% 5 1.4% Work at home 1 .5% 0 .0% 1 .3% Buy cheaper gas 1 .5% 0 .0% 1 .3% Leave earlier 0 .0% 1 .7% 1 .3% Don't use AC 0 .0% 1 .4% 1 .2% Work longer but less days 0 .0% 1 .4% 1 .2% Use freeway more than backstreets, shortest way 2 1.0% 0 .0% 2 .5% Total # of respondents 183 100.0% 167 100.0% 349 100.0% QUESTION 54: Please tell me what you believe to be the MOST important strategy that may help improve traffic conditions in your area. Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col Build and/or widen freeways 313 31.3% 327 32.7% 640 32.0% Build and/or widen local streets and roads 153 15.3% 110 11.0% 263 13.2% - Repair & maintain the condition of existing freeways & stree 162 16.2% 187 18.7% 349 17.4% Increase commuter rail service frequency and routes 116 11.6% 137 13.7% 254 12.7% Increase public bus frequency and routes 165 16.5% 163 16.3% 328 16.4% Or some other strategy that is not listed 29 2.9% 45 4.5% 74 3.7% DONT KNOW 31 3.0% 27 2.7% 57 2.9% REFUSED 33 3.3% 4 .4% 36 1.8% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 31 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 55: Please tell me what you believe to be the LEAST important strategy that may help improve traffic conditions in your area. Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Build and/or widen freeways Build and/or widen local streets and roads Repair & maintain the condition of existing freeways & streets Increase commuter rail service frequency and routes Increase public bus frequency and routes Or some other strategy that is not listed DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents 164 173 93 213 228 11 78 40 1000 16.4% + 17.3% 9.3% 21.3% 22.8% 1 1 % 7.8% 4.0% 100.0% .174 162 76 180 182 15 65 4 858 20.3% 18.8% 8.9% 21.0% 21.2% 1 7% 7.6% .5% 100.0% 338 335 169 393 409 26 143 45 1858 18.2% 18.0% 9.1% 21.1% 22.0% 1.4% 7.7% 2.4% 100.0% QUESTION 56: Do you favor the development of toll roads as an effective way of funding transportation improvements? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Yes 384 38.4% 448 44.8% 832 41.6% No 533 53.3% 499 50.0% 1032 51.6% DONT KNOW 63 6.3% 50 5.0% 114 5.7% REFUSED 20 2.0% 3 .3% 23 1.1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 63: On a typical day, how much of a problem is FREEWAY traffic? Would you say it is... Riverside Count Col % Not a problem at all Somewhat of a problem A large problem DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents 300 308 349 42 1 1000 30.0% 30.8% 34.9% 4.2% .1% 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 32 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 64: On a typical day, how much of a problem is LOCAL traffic? Would you say it is... Riverside Count Col % Not a problem at all 349 34.9% Somewhat of a problem 439 43.9% A large problem 196 19.6% DONT KNOW • 13 1.3% REFUSED 3 .3% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% QUESTION 65: Can you recall if you supported or opposed Measure A? Riverside Count Col % Supported 251 25.1% Opposed 115 11.5% Didn't vote or didn't live in Riverside County in 1988 364 36.4% DONT KNOW 238 23.8% REFUSED 32 3.2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% QUESTION 66: If an election were held today, would you vote yes or no on a ballot measure to extend the half -cent sales tax to fund transportation projects in Riverside County? Riverside Count Col % Yes 521 52.0% No 309 30.9% DONT KNOW 133 13.3% REFUSED • 38 3.8% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 33 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 67: Do you favor allowing local sales taxes for transportation to pass with a simple majority instead of a two-thirds vote? Riverside Count CoI % Favor a majority vote Oppose (favor requiring a two-thirds vote) DONT KNOW REFUSED Total # of respondents 415 454 115 15 1000 41.5% 45.4% 11.5% 1.5% 100.0% QUESTION 68: Of the following statements, which BEST describes your position regarding the importance of new transportation projects versus protection of the environment? Riverside Count Col Transportation improvements are ALWAYS more important than protecting the environment Transportation improvements are more important BUT actions to protect the environment must be taken Protecting the environment is more important than transportation improvements, BUT some limited improvements could be built NO transportation improvements should be constructed in environmentally sensitive areas 60 418 312 109 6.0% 41.8% 31.1% 10.8% DON'T KNOW 55 5.5% REFUSED 48 4.8% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% QUESTION 69a: How likely are you to support HIGHER GAS TAXES to pay for transportation projects? Riverside ' San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count Col % Very likely 30 3.0% 36 3.6% 66 3.3% Somewhat likely 86 8.6% 74 7.4% 160 8.0% Not at all likely 856 85.6% 877 87.7% 1733 86.7% DONT KNOW 15 1.5% 12 1.2% 27 1.3% REFUSED 13 1.3% 1 .1% 14 .7% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 34 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 69b: How likely are you to support CONTINUE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SALES TAXES to pay for transportation projects? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Very likely 316 31.6% 253 25.3% 570 28.5% Somewhat likely 368 36.8% 393 39.3% 762 38.1% Not at all likely 264 26.4% 289 28.9% 553 27.6% DONT KNOW 38 3.8% 61 6.1% 99 5.0% REFUSED 13 1.3% 3 .3% 17 .8% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 69c: How likely are you to support MORE TOLL LANES to pay for transportation projects? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count Col Very likely 177 17.7% 172 17.2% 348 17.4% Somewhat likely 228 22.8% 276 27.6% 504 25.2% Not at all likely 554 55.4% 519 51.9% 1072 53.6% DONT KNOW 29 2.9% 31 3.1% 60 3.0% REFUSED 13 1.3% 2 .2% 15 .8% Total # of respondents _ 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 69d: How likely are you to support FEES BASED ON THE NUMBER OF MILES YOU DRIVE to pay for transportation projects? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Very likely 91 9.1% 74 7.4% 165 8.2% Somewhat likely 172 17.2% 174 17.4% 347 17.3% Not at all likely 678 67.8% 708 70.8% 1386 69.3% DONT KNOW 46 4.6% ' 42 4.2% 88 4.4% REFUSED 14 1.4% 1 .1% 15 .7% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 35 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION 69e: How likely are you to support SPECIAL CHARGES TO USE THE FREEWAYS DURING RUSH HOUR to pay for transportation projects? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Very likely 96 9.6% 110 11.0% 206 10.3% Somewhat likely 176 17.6% 142 14.2% 318 15.9% Not at all likely 690 69.0% 717 - 71.7% 1407 70.3% DONT KNOW 28 2.8% 28 2.8% 56 2.8% REFUSED 10 1.0% 3 .3% 14 .7% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 69f: How likely are you to support NEW DEVELOPMENT FEES to pay for transportation projects? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count CoI % Very likely 188 18.8% 159 15.9% 347 17.4% Somewhat likely 350 35.0% 358 35.8% 708 35.4% Not at all likely 406 40.6% 407 40.7% 813 40.6% DON'T KNOW 39 3.9% 73 7.3% 111 . 5.6% REFUSED 18 1.8% 3 .3% 21 1.0% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION 70: Carpool lanes are designed for use by vehicles with two or more passengers and reduce the number of cars using the other adjacent lanes on the freeway. Do you feel these lanes are: Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Very helpful 533 53.3% 532. 53.2% 1066 53.3% Somewhat helpful 327 32.7% 364 36.4% 691 34.5% Not helpful at all 120 12.0% 86 8.6% 207 10.3% DONT KNOW 16 1.6% 17 1.7% 32 1.6% REFUSED 4 .4% 1 .1% 5 .2% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 36 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B90: Previously, you indicated that you are currently unemployed. Are you... Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count CoI % Count Col % Looking for work 43 11.4% 52 16.0% 96 13.5% A housewife/househusband and not looking for work 90 23.6% 82 25.2% 173 24.4% Not currently in the workforce 243 63.7% 172 52.6% 415 58.6% REFUSED 5 1.3% 20 6.2% 25 3.6% Total # of respondents 381 100.0% 327 100.0% 709 100.0% QUESTION B91: Which of the following best describes your marital status: Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col Single, never married 161 16.0% 178 17.8% 339 16.9% Married 648 64.8% 599 60.0% 1247 62.4% Divorced 104 10.4% 156 15.6% 260 13.0% Widowed 79 7.9% 60 6.0% 139 6.9% REFUSED 9 .9% 6 .6% 15 .7% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B92: Which of the following describes your spouse's status? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Employed full-time 390 60.1% 394 65.8% 784 62.8% Employed part-time 65 10.0% 46 7.7% 111 8.9% Home -maker 91 14.0% 76 12.6% 166 13.3% Unemployed, looking for work 12 1.9% 14 2.4% 27 2.1% Unemployed, not currently looking for work 81 12 6% 62 10.4 /0 144 11.5% DONT KNOW 4 .6% 1 .2% 5 .4% REFUSED 5 .8% 5 .9% 10 .8% Total # of respondents 648 100.0% 599 100.0% 1247 100.0% QUESTION B93: Do you have any children that are under the age of 18? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Yes 477 47.7% 503 50.5% 980 49.1% No 521 52.1% 494 49.5% 1015 50.8% DON'T KNOW 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .0% REFUSED 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 996 100.0% 1997 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 37 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B94: How would you describe your race and ethnicity (other)? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Count Count European 00 N r N 1- Cr) C7 Nt r C") l[) 00 N- O C N Lt) 13 Indo-Chinese 3 Other Asian 2 Asian Chinese 7 Pacific Islander 6 Mixed race 11 Filipino 10 Indian -Pak 7 Native American 34 Total # of respondents 95 QUESTION B95: What was the last grade of school that you completed? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Some high school or less 98 9.8% 125 12.5% 223 11.1% High school graduate 243 24.3% 224 22.4% 467 23.3% Some college 343 34.3% 364 36.4% 707 35.3% College graduate (Bachelor's degree) 167 16.7% 181 18.1% 348 17.4% Some graduate work 56 5.6% 33 3.3% 88 4.4% Post -graduate degree 86 8.6% 66 6.6% 152 7.6% DONT KNOW 5 .5% 4 .4% 8 .4% REFUSED 3 .3% 5 .5% 7 .4% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% QUESTION B96: How many cars do you have for your household? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count CoI % 0 40 4.0% 33 3.3% 73 3.7% 1 279 28.0% 263 26.4% 542 27.2% 2 438 43.9% 459 46.0% 897 45.0% 3 163 16.3% 157 15.7% 320 16.0% 4 48 4.8% 63 6.4% 111 5.6% 5 18 1.8% 8 .8% 26 1.3% 6 5 .5% 10 1.0% 16 .8% 7 4 .4% 1 .1% 5 .3% 8 1 .1% 1 .1% 2 .1% 11 1 .1% 0 .0% 1 .0% 12 0 .0% 1 .1% 1 .1% Total # of respondents 997 100.0% 998 100.0% 1995 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 38 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B97: What was your age at your last birthday? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % 17 years 2 .2% 1 .1% 2 .1% 18 --> 25 81 8.4% 93- 9.6% 174 9.0% 26 --> 35 207 21.4% 224 23.0% 431 22.2% 36 --> 45 258 26.8% 262 26.9% 520 26.8% 46 --> 55 164 17.0% 190 19.5% 354 18.3% 56 --> 65 96 10.0% 107 10.9% 203 10.5% 66+ years 156 16.2% 97 10.0% 253 13.1% Total # of respondents 963 100.0% 974 100.0% 1937 100.0% Descriptive Statistics What was your age at your last birthday? Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Std Deviation Riverside 963 15 90 45.95 43 16.30 San Bernardino 974 17 93 43.52 41 14.65 Total Inland Empire 1937. 15 93 44.73 42 15.53 QUESTION B98: How long have you lived in the County? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % 5 or less years 275 27.6% 225 22.6% 500 25.1% 6 --> 15 374 37.6% 350 35.0% 724 36.3% 16 --> 25 167 16.7% 162 16.2% 329 16.5% 26 --> 50 163 16.3% 221 22.1% 384 19.2% 51+ years 18 1.8% 40 4.0% 58 2.9% Total # of respondents 997 100.0% 999 100.0% 1996 100.0% Descriptive Statistics How long have you lived in the County? Valid N Minimum Maximum Mean Median Std Deviation Riverside 997 1 74 14.70 11 12.66 San Bernardino 999 1 89 17.94 13 15.35 Total Inland Empire 1996 1 89 16.32 12 14.16 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 39 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium QUESTION B99: Which of the following categories best describes your total household or family income before taxes, from all sources, for 1998? Riverside San Bemardino Total # of respondents Count CoI % Count Col % Count Col % Less than $25,000 185 18.5% 221 22.1% 406 20.3% $25,000 to $35,999 141 14.1% 156 15.6% 297 14.9% $36,000 to $49,999 135 13.5% 129 12.9% 264 13.2% $50,000 to $65,999 156 15.6% 170 17.0% 326 16.3% $66,000 to $79,999 94 9.4% 88 8.8% 182 9.1% $80,000 to $110,000 114 11.4% 94 9.4% 209 10.4% Over $110,000 52 5.2% 48 4.8% 100 5.0% DONT KNOW 24 2.4% 20 2.0% 44 2.2% REFUSED 98 9.8% 74 7.4% 173 8.6% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 ,100.0% Gender of respondent Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % Male 413 41.3% 396 39.6% 809 40.4% Female 585 58.4% 604 60.4% 1189 59.4% Couldn't tell 3 .3% 0 .0% 3 .1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% How cooperative was the respondent Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col Cooperative 956 95.6% 981 98.1% 1937 96.9% Uncooperative 35 3.5% 16 1.6% 52 2.6% Very uncooperative 9 .9% 3 .3% 11 .6% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% How well did the respondent understand the questions? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count CoI % Count CoI % Very easily 735 73.5% 632 63.2% 1367 68.4% Easily 186 18.6% 268 26.8% 454 22.7% Some difficulty 71 7.1% 96 9.6% 167 8.4% Great deal of difficulty 8 .8% 3 .3% 12 .6% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000 100.0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 40 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium In what language was the interview conducted? Riverside San Bernardino Total # of respondents Count Col % Count Col % Count Col % English 901 90.0% 898 89.8% 1799 89.9% Spanish 100 10.0% 102 10.2% 201 10.1% Total # of respondents 1000 100.0% 1000. 100;0% 2000 100.0% 2000 Inland Empire Annual Survey RCTC Data Display -- Non -Proprietary Page 41 Conducted by the Inland Empire Research Consortium Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S)a AND SUBJECT(S): O. .$Z772o / 7 T & NAME: 3'er Atli �GOei 0 DATE: Z7 `ib?c e z z 3 awvats f /try ADDRESS: fivertsi Prt %25'x7.0Z3o TEL. NO: --dert( REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 ,ls-a-Y1-7 t? TEL. NO: Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC ' t , SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: /4 PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA ITEM NO(S) 0/0 AND SUBJECT(S): J NAME:7/21 'a// ADDRESS: 1 r - REPRESENTING: - P// % Y`„r �< },/� � fl�,tiL/ G +4.6-14,1 DATE: 2O6 TEL. NO ` s 8 BUSINESS ADDRESS: 0 7_,� TEL. NO: RCTC 7/99 Iii ' ' 4+ 1►~ Seh ' 3. Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board PUBLIC SUBJECT OF COMMENTS: ✓ PUBLIC COMMENTS: AGENDA ITEM NO(S) AND SUBJECT(S): NAME: J7(17 fl, 1/?7, L DATE: "2—P7---0/ ADDRESS: :/9Y9 eid,antul; G TEL. NO: 2/6— 2 2 %- 36 VS- REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 PUBLIC COMMENTS: TEL. NO: 171 Detach and submit to Clerk of the Board SUBJECT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS:4 P.4 - Ci% ct—e AGENDA ITEM NO(S) /n � * /� AND SUBJECT(S): (� I��.• NAME: L -j4.- 6 ADDRESS: TEL. NO: DATE: REPRESENTING: BUSINESS ADDRESS: RCTC 7/99 TEL. NO: