Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09 September 27, 1999 Plans and Programs• • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA Records /e PLANS AND PROGRAMS CC AGENDA TIME: 12:00 P.M. DATE: Monday, September 27, 1999 LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office 3560 University Avenue, Conference Room A Riverside, CA 92501 q676-0 Plans and Programs Committee Members Roy Wilson / County of Riverside, Chairman Robin ReeserLowe / City of Hemet, Vice Chair Jan Leja / City of Beaumont Robert Crain / City of Blythe John Chlebnik / City of Calimesa Eugene Bourbonnais / City of Canyon Lake Doug Sherman / City of Desert Hot Springs Percy Byrd / City of Indian Wells Chris Silva / City of Indio Frank Hall / City of Norco Dick Kelly / City of Palm Desert Will Kleindienst / City of Palm Springs Al Landers / City of Perris Bob Buster / County of Riverside Eric Haley, Executive Director Hideo Sugita, Director - Planning and Programming Plans and Programs Committee State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program New Corridors Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare) Air Quality and Clean Fuels Regional Agencies/Regional Planning Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs Congestion Management Program Comments are welcomed by the Committee. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board. 1 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING LOCATION 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100, RIVERSIDE 92501 CONFERENCE ROOM A PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE ACROSS FROM THE POST OFF/CE ON ORANGE STREET MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 12:00 P.M. • AGENDA* * Action may be taken on any items listed on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (August 23, 1999) Pg. 1 4. CETAP VISION PROCESS Pg. 5 Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission receive and file. 2 • 5. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) - WORKING PAPER #1 OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE CORRIDORS #2 DRAFT CORRIDOR EVALUATION CRITERIA Pg. 17 Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission receive and file. 6. POSSIBLE EXCHANGE OF FUNDS WITH SCAG FOR THE MAGLEV HIGHSPEED RAIL STUDY Pg. 57 Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend Commission approval of an administrative action to exchange up to $700,000 of SB45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds, on a dollar for dollar basis, with SCAG for FHWA Planning funds with the following conditions: • That the Commission require SCAG and Caltrans to provide the Commission approval of the agreement which facilitates the access to FHWA Planning funds to support CETAP either prior to or simultaneous with the transfer or availability of Commission 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds, retroactive to July 1, 1999. • That the Commission authorize staff to amend the Activity Program for the SB45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to facilitate this action. • That this action is administrative and does not change the Commission's neutral position on high speed rail technology. • • 3 • • • 7 ANNUAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PLANNING ALLOCATIONS TO CVAG AND WRCOG Pg. 61 Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend Commission approval of Local Transportation Fund allocations of $168,609 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and $350,000 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work programs. 8 FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR THE PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY Pg. 67 Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the commission approve the fiscal year 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency as submitted. 9. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATIONS FOR PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY AND THE CITY OF CORONA Pg. 86 Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF Allocations for Transit in Riverside County as shown on the attached table. 10. FY 1999-2000 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS AND RESOLUTION NO. 99-012, "A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS" Pg. 91 Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee recommend that the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 State Transit Assistance Fund allocations in Riverside County as presented on the attached table. 4 11. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Pg. 96 At the Commission's direction, recent rail reports and other pertinent information are reproduced in a side packet for Committee or Commission meetings. Staff will be prepared to review these materials as directed. 12. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting will be at noon, Monday, October 25, 1999, RCTC offices. • • • • • AGENDA ITEM 3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE August 23, 1999 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Vice Chairperson Robin Reeser Lowe at 12:00 p.m., at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University, Suite 100, Riverside, California, 92501. Members Present: Eugene Bourbonnais Bob Buster* Percy Byrd John Chlebnik* Robert Crain Frank Hall Richard Kelly William Kleindienst Al Landers Jan Leja Robin ReeserLowe Doug Sherman Chris Silva Roy Wilson* * Arrived after start of meeting 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (June 28, 1999) M/S/C (Kelly/Landers) approve the minutes dated June 28, 1999 as submitted. 4. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN - LISTENING AND VISIONING PHASE The following points were made during deliberation of this item: Patrick O'Reilly of Stoorza, Ziegaus and Metzger, subcontractor for Sverdrup, stated that workshops, focus groups and a public opinion survey were used as tools in the outreach effort. Crime was the top concern of 76% of the residents surveyed followed by traffic, air quality and overcrowded schools. Overall, 68% of the residents feel that Riverside County is on the right track and this positive trend continued when asked about specific services. However, when asked about the future, residents were less positive whether things would continue as they are. Concern centered around the future regarding overcrowding, additional traffic congestion and unbridled growth. Public and private facilities and the amenities offered were rated as good, though U0000.1 01 Plans and Programs August 23, 1999 Page 2 concerns were raised regarding schools and cultural opportunities. Air quality continues to be an issue countywide. Residents do not want Riverside to turn into another Los Angeles or Orange County. Residents were very supportive of the fact that this issue was being addressed and even when informed about the cost of this endeavor, more than 50% continued to express their support. One issue that needs to be considered is that Riverside County residents wants to preserve the uniqueness of the communities within Riverside County and that a one size fits all plan will not work, there should be recognition of the diversity of this county, not only geographic but cultural differences. Voters are closely divided on spending tax dollars to acquire open space and endangered species. There is a clear hierarchy of opinion on what animals should be saved. It is important from a communications point of view to continue to explain the multi -species habitat plan. One of the challenges in moving forward will be the need to explain to the public that there is not sufficient land purely dedicated to open space. The public seems to be more supportive of the multi -species habitat plan when it was explained in terms of improving the quality of their life. Transportation continues to rank as a serious and complex issue and it seemed to be more important to the residents that transportation issues are dealt with rather than reducing taxes. Although a majority of the residents are in favor of continuing the 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation, it was very important to them that there be a specific plan for using the funds. A clear majority of the public feels that this is a worthy investment of tax dollars, however, they need to be reassured that this is not a duplicated process and this plan will not end up on a shelf somewhere. A continuing focus of the public outreach will be to explain the interconnectiveness of this integrated planning process. ♦ Eric Haley, Executive Director, reviewed the polling in detail and said that a majority of voters would support a statewide sales tax referendum. The percentages may vary depending on what part of the state you are in. SCA 3 is out of the Assembly Transportation Committee and Ways and Means Committee and then the floor. At this time, seven affirmative votes from the 32 member Republic caucus are needed. AB 1155, a trailer bill to SCA 3, will require the local county transportation commission to develop a spending plan that is project specific by May 1, 2000. He will schedule RCTC adoption in July. The draft of CETAP will coincide with that requirement and next month, staff will be forwarding strategic plan adjustments to the Commission showing the status of Measure "A" commitments. M/S/C (Reeser Lowe/Silva) to present the information to the Commission. 5. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION RESULTS The following points were made during deliberation of this item: ♦ Mark McCourt, Strategic Consulting and Research, explained the methodology used for the data collection process in evaluating the Commuter Assistance Program. The extensive survey included 1,600 survey participants and received feedback from 50 employer coordinators with the responses evenly split between Riverside and San • • �'9002 • • Plans and Programs August 23, 1999 Page 3 Bernardino. All of the materials used in the program were reviewed along with the results of a previous evaluation. ♦ Peter Volk, Transportation Management Services, stated that since the program began in 1991, 21,000 commuters in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have participated. He then reviewed the general breakdown of the commuters and employers who participated in the rideshare programs and how those programs influenced their decision to use another mode of transportation rather than driving alone. During the evaluation process, it was found that most commuters began ridesharing to save money and continued to do so for the convenience of it. He then reviewed the results of the evaluation and recommendations based on the survey data. M/S/C (Reeser Lowe/Landers) that the Commission: 1) receive and file the evaluation study; and, 2) direct staff to use the results from the study to develop the RFP for managing the Commuter Assistance Program in future years. 6. PROGRAM OF PROJECTS REVISION M/S/C (Hall/Landers) that the Commission recommend revision to the RCTC Federal Program of Projects to include construction of commuter rail stations near Van Buren in Riverside and near Main Street in Corona, and that the Committee authorize staff to schedule the required public hearing for the Commission's September 8, 1999 meeting. 7. AMENDMENT 1 TO LAND USE AGREEMENT WITH THE RIVERSIDE COLLEGE (RCC) FOR TEMPORARY PARKING LOT AT LA SIERRA METROLINK STATION AND AWARD OF A DESIGN CONTRACT TO KCT CONSULTANTS FOR THE PARKING LOT DESIGN The following point was made during deliberation of this item: • Commissioner Byrd expressed concern including a contingency amount in the contract. Paul Blackwelder stated that the contingency would only used for unforeseen occurrences not anticipated and must have the approval of RCTC Executive Director/Deputy Executive Director. M/S/C (Buster/Landers) that the Commission: 1) approve the attached agreement with the Riverside Community College to obtain temporary parking for the La Sierra Metrolink Station subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review and approval; 2) award a design contract to KCT Consultants for the design of a 200 vehicles temporary parking facility called for in the Tier II Station Study in a manner compatible with station parking needs, using a standard RCTC consultant agreement, for an amount of $16,804 with an extra work amount of $4,000 for a total not to exceed the amount of $20,804. Nays: Commissioners Byrd, Lowe, Leja, Silva, Kelly u00003 Plans and Programs August 23, 1999 Page 4 8. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO DEVELOP A BID PACKAGE (PS&E) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEASURE A SR 60 HOV LANE PROJECT IN MORENO VALLEY M/S/C (Landers/Buster) that the Commission direct staff to prepare, advertise and select a consultant who will prepare the plans, specifications and cost estimate for the construction of the Measure A State Route 60 HOV lanes in Moreno Valley between the East Junction with 1-215 and Redlands Boulevard. The project will include ramp improvements at the Perris Boulevard interchange. 9. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - 2001 RTIP, AND 1998 RTIP AMENDMENT SCHEDULE M/S/C (Chlebnik/Silva) that the Commission receive and file the Regional Transportation Improvement program - 2001 RTIP and 1998 RTIP amendment schedule. 10. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE The committee received and filed the information provided on the rail program update. 11. ADVANCE OF LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS TO SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY M/S/C (Kelly/Silva) that the Commission approve SunLine Transit Agency's request for an advance of $585,000 in Local Transportation Funds to be repaid by reducing their next two payments of FY 2000 LTF funds. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -27-775e- Traci R. McGinley Deputy Clerk of the Board ►004 • • • • • • AGENDA ITEM 4 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: . Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: CETAP Vision Process STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Riverside County Integrated Planning (RCIP) process is the concurrent, integrated development of a western county Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the identification of new transportation corridors, primarily in western county and the development of a new County General Plan. As was reported last month, the consultant team has completed the initial "listening phase" including an opinion poll, focus groups and 12 public workshops. On August 17, 1999, a meeting of the Strategic Partners, which is comprised of the 5 Board of Supervisors and 5 RCTC members, met with key stakeholders to review the public input to date and had an interactive workshop to begin the development of a "vision" for the integrated planning effort. The proceedings of the visioning workshop along with the public input from the outreach efforts provided the basis for the development of the draft vision statement (attached) to set broad goals and outcomes for what this County, its communities and stake holders desire it to be in 20 or more years into the future. Very draft is an appropriate label for the draft vision statement because the next round of public outreach will be to obtain input on the draft vision. This will involve a second round of community workshops and polling. The draft vision statement received wide distribution through the press and we will be seeking public and key stakeholder input on the draft vision through the planning effort's advisory committees, public agencies, stakeholders, etc.. 00005 The plan development schedule anticipates formal action on a vision statement by RCTC and the Board of Supervisors in November. From there the plans will then be developed, through the stakeholder driven, integrated process to create the framework of how we will achieve the visioning goals. It is always important to acknowledge that this plan development process is advantaged by the opportunity to assess the implications of various decisions on the subjects of growth, land use, habitat, transportation, economy, etc., and their projected effect on what the county will be in the future. On Sunday, September 19, 1999 the draft vision statement was published in the Press Enterprise. A copy of the publication is attached. A representative of the consulting team will be present to provide an overview of the draft vision to the Committee. 000006 r RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement pttitiq Riverside County Integrated Plan Draft Vision Statement September 20, 1999 vision as a guide for the RCIP Our values drive our vision. What we, the people of Riverside County want for our future, our communities and ourselves will shape the Riverside County Integrated Plan. Implementing the plan will unify our resources to achieve our common purpose. What we choose to do or not to do will, in turn, validate or refine our vision so that it is not only imaginative in seeking a better future, but practical in creating expectations that are real. In short, this will lead to a comprehensive plan that says what it means and means what it says. Why is this so important? It is because the only way for our vision to be translated into reality is to work at it and persist. In other words, completing the RCIP is not the end of the process; it is the beginning. That is when the hard —but truly rewarding —work begins. integration: the Heilman of the Rluerslde County Plan The key to the entire RCIP lies in the word "integration". There are a number of movements throughout the nation that seek to improve quality of life. They all include useful ideas, usually organized around a major theme or emphasis. Examples include Healthy Cities, Sustainable Development, Livable Cities, Safe Communities, Smart Growth, Clean Cities and a number of others. The RCIP is not beholden solely to any one of these excellent ways of defining "quality of life." Rather, it seeks to integrate the combinations of ideas from these programs and locally initiated concepts that will allow the citizens of Riverside County and their leaders to tailor the most applicable ideas to Riverside County's needs and potentials. If any single quality is evident regarding Riverside County, it is diversity. So, the vision for its future must respect the fact that "one size does not fit all." The foundation for this approach is integration of a host of ideas rich in potential, based not on a single theme, but on what makes the most sense for Riverside County. It is essential to appreciate the fact that this vision for Riverside County allows for varied interpretations, depending on one's priorities. This cannot and should not be avoided. Yet, it should become clear, as implementation of the vision occurs, if some aspect of the vision is completely ignored. That is not acceptable and will require serious attention. So this vision should be thought of as a consolidation of many legitimate agendas within which balanced response is expected. That this balance will vary at different times and in different locales does not diminish the value of the vision. After all, the vision is intended to motivate excellence, not impose a singular straightjacket on the future. Rather, it reflects the heritage of diversity that has always enriched the character of this place. This thought leads to one final idea reflected in our community vision statement. We constantly refer to the term "quality of life" in describing what we seek in our living environment. We all agree that this is a desirable purpose, yet we may define quality to mean widely differing things. For purposes of this vision statement, quality of life is defined to include all of the ingredients contained in our vision. It is not September 21,199911 TPC_CMIPROJECTI DATAI PROJDATAI SVE-011VISIONINew Vision 19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 1 F'1)U007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement exactly the same thing in every portion of the County. It is a balancing of competing priorities that do not enjoy universal definition throughout the County. Yet the vision statement includes an essential common ground that must be found to some degree in any quality of life interpretation used here. Pt With this in mind, the RCIP... - Adapts the best part of many themes to the needs of Riverside County. Derives its power from the values that are held by the people here. Balances stability in the landscape with the dynamism and flexibility to adapt to changing future circumstances. Uses the best available data and analysis to guide decisionmaking without constraining the overall vision. Is flexible so that it can be adjusted to accommodate future circumstances, yet provides a solid foundation of stability so that basic ingredients in the plan are not sacrificed. Protects high -value environmental resources and private property rights - and develops the complex tools needed to do so. > Integrates and works closely with cities and their planning efforts. > Provides a long-term means for economic stability to be achieved through investment by a variety of interests: residential, agricultural, property owner, environmental, institutional, business community, labor and others. > Seeks a balanced transportation system where people do not need to be totally dependent on the single -occupancy vehicle. Stimulates an unprecedented level of intergovernmental cooperation and collaboration. The RCIP will... > Provide on -going monitoring, measurement and status on progress toward achieving the vision. > Preserve crucial open space and transportation corridors, resulting in less sprawl than would otherwise happen. > Provide a range of community design options to respond to varied lifestyle choices. > Put a focus on high quality, efficient growth. Provide a process for adjustment through General Plan reviews at regular intervals or when triggered by key events. 3144481,1 99911TPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011VISIONINew Vision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN • • • Draft Vision Statement Draft Vision Concepts The most powerful way to state our vision is to place ourselves in the future and see what we have achieved; what our communities are like; what the quality of life means at that point in time. So, if you will "fast forward" to about the year 2020 and look around, you will be able to describe our vision. Because the Riverside County Integrated Plan was adopted and implementation has been underway for almost 20 years... ❑ Future corridors and areas are preserved for distinctive uses: multi -purpose open space, economic development, residences, public facilities, and transportation systems. • Growth involving new development or expansion of existing development is consistently accompanied by the public improvements required to serve it. o The rich diversity of the County's environmental resources —even those modified by human activities —is preserved and enhanced for the enjoyment of present and future generations. o The supply and quality of critical water resource essential to support development, agriculture and open space are now managed through a network of intergovernmental compacts, coordinated by a forward thinking water board. ❑ Multipurpose regional open space and community/neighborhood public spaces are permanent elements of the Riverside County landscape. ❑ Public access to recreation opportunities is part of the overall open space system, with multi- purpose parks, play fields and community facilities at varied sizes in accessible locations. o Our communities maintain their individual distinctive qualities and character, surrounded in most cases by open space or non -intensive uses to give them physical separation. o Development standards are consistently high, offset in cost by the absence of unpredictable time delays and conflict in the development review process. This is possible because the places where development should occur are clearly defined and the standards for development in cities and the County highly consistent. ❑ A significant part of new growth has been accommodated through infill and redevelopment within our existing communities. ❑ Our communities —both improvements to existing ones and newly emerging ones —are models for new ways to provide and manage infrastructure, deliver education, access jobs, and apply new technology. ❑ A comprehensive transportation system operates at regional, countywide, community and neighborhood scales. As part of that system, transportation corridors are unifying connectors between communities, providing high capacity linkages between jobs, residences and recreational opportunities and offering multiple modes of travel. ❑ Broadening of choices provided by the transportation system has resulted in reduced vehicle miles traveled and reduced vehicle hours, contributing to an improved quality of life, including air quality. September 21,199911 TPC_CMIPROJECTI DATAI PROJDATAI SVE-011VISIONINew Vision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 3 tirju009 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement • Clusters of similar businesses and industries are created within areas designated for job generating uses and our expanded educational institutions provide preparation and training for the new jobs created in these clusters. • Though overall acreage in agricultural production has diminished, proactive measures have retained economically viable agricultural lands, which are well protected as valuable economic resources and, in some areas, have expanded. • Many dimensions of the Riverside County Vision are being achieved through expanded levels of intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships that represent commitments to common ground not achievable in the past. September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECTIDATAIPROUDATAISVE-011VIS!0NINewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN • • • Draft Vision Statement Aw- Translating Issues Into ulsion A number of issues were raised by the people of Riverside County during the outreach process aimed at finding out their opinions and concerns about the future. The people had much to say. The issues they talked about and the ideas they had for improvement fell into twelve subject areas. Those subject headings follow, with vision statements applicable to each one. Population Growth • New growth patterns no longer reflect a pattern of random sprawl. Rather, they follow a framework or transportation and open space corridors, with concentrations of development that fit into that framework. In other words, important open space and transportation corridors define growth areas. • Growth focus in this County is on quality, not on frustrating efforts to halt growth. • Population growth continues and is focused where it can best be accommodated. • Growth is well coordinated between cities and the County and they jointly influence periodic state and regional growth forecasts affecting Riverside County and its cities. Our Communities and Their Neighborhoods Each community in the County is identified uniquely as a special place. This includes incorporated cities, unincorporated communities, and new communities. The combination of multipurpose open space systems, transportation networks, and land suitable for development distinguishes those areas that logically fit into future expansion of cities, creation of new communities, and indefinitely preserved rural enclaves. Cooperative policies and programs are now in place that closely coordinate cities, the County of Riverside, and the Local Agency Formation Commission in concentrating development where it is most appropriate and still allowing considerable choice in location for developers and future residents. This collaboration is widely regarded as a means of assuring the integrity of communities within the County. Earlier problems associated with leapfrog development (development that "skips over" developable land and establishes inappropriate development patterns) have virtually disappeared because areas slated for development and those not acceptable for development are clearly identified and mapped. Where development is proposed at some distance from existing communities, it is treated as a new community and must demonstrate its self-sufficiency in terms of public facilities and services. This may eventually facilitate infili development where that is clearly consistent with planning policy and mapped designations. New communities are demonstrating methods for achieving efficient development and building a sense of community from the very beginning. The pattern of development is now moving in a rational direction and the incentives for intensification of development are working very effectively. As a result, the initial components of a transit system are in place, and the capability for expansion is preserved through rights -of -ways that can be brought on line as service needs dictate and financial resources permit. Not only are multipurpose open space areas permanently protected, but also numerous rural areas are likewise assured of a continuation of that lifestyle. Limitations on the erosion of this lifestyle are well respected because of the clarity and strength of commitment by the County and other agencies, and because extensive opportunities for more urban and suburban development exist which are not vulnerable to successful legal challenge regarding their appropriateness. • A high degree of consistency now exists between County and city land use and transportation planning within city spheres of influence, resulting in a reduction in development policy conflicts and September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECT1DATAIPROJDATAISVE-011VIS/ONINew Vision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement confusion. In some cases this has been driven by city initiatives, in others by County policy direction, and in still others through a negotiated blend of city/county preferences. • Innovative designs allow for increased density in key locations, such as near transit stations, with associated benefits. In these and other neighborhoods as well, walking, bicycling, or use of transit are attractive alternatives to driving for many residents. • Incentives commonly stimulate the development community to exceed the norms of development standards. • The regulatory system consistently rewards implementation of concepts that contribute to achievement of the Riverside County vision. • Incentives to achieve development efficiency often results in reduced fee costs. • The financial implications of implementing the RCIP are well documented and understood. • The planning process continues to refine acceptable densities as a means of accommodating additional growth so that the extensive permanent open space that now exists can be sustained. • The extensive heritage of rural living continues to be accommodated in areas committed to that lifestyle and its permanence is reinforced by the strong open space and urban development commitments provide for elsewhere in the RCIP. • Some development is accommodated in open space preserves where the type of development and sensitivity of the natural resource are mutually compatible. • Considerable protection from natural hazards such as earthquakes, flooding, slope failure, and other hazardous conditions is now built into the pattern of development authorized by the General Plan. Housing • The people of Riverside County represent a richly varied range of income categories. Housing for every increment of this range, from highly affordable to exclusive executive housing and from rental to various forms of ownership housing, is being provided through a combination of new housing, rehabilitated housing, group housing, resale, mixed use development, and various housing assistance programs where they are needed. • Regional forecasts of housing needs are well coordinated within Riverside County and are accepted by regional and state agencies. • Census data is well integrated into housing needs forecasts. • There is now a balance between the residential development capacities of county and city General Plans within the County and regional allocations of housing needs. • Mixed -use development occurs at numerous urban concentrations in city spheres and unincorporated communities, many of which include residential use. • Because of the clarity of direction now provided by the General Plan and the cooperative arrangements with most of the cities, constraints on providing affordable housing attributable to excessive local regulations have largely been eliminated. • Housing plans are well integrated throughout the County at four levels: - Subregionally at the Area Plan level; — Within cities and unincorporated communities; - Within large-scale development plans; and - At the project site planning level where housing is involved. Transportation • Major new transportation corridors capable of automobile and other transit modes are now partially developed, with funding for additional segments underway. • Riverside County and its communities are preeminent in their commitment to accessibility to all people, including those whose mobility is limited and requires special access design treatment. 1 {temober 21,19991ITPC CMIPROJEC7jDATAIPROJDATAISVE-011VIS/ONINewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2_doc Page 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement Pt • • • • New fuels technologies continue to be carefully analyzed so that commitments to specific technologies are not premature and wasteful of limited funding. • Selected alternative fuels are in use to provide some of the multiple transportation choices people now enjoy. • Toll -way options are being explored as a means of achieving improved capacity in critical corridors. • Investment in and expansion of the existing freeway and arterial street networks continue to be a critical part of our comprehensive transportation system development. • Strategically planned truck routes provide for the movement of goods as a critical component of our transportation system. • The land use/transportation connection is a key part of the development process and has served to reduce the number of vehicle trips compared to earlier patterns of development. • Direct and immediate access to multi -purpose open space areas is provided in most areas of the County. Conservation and Open Space Resource System • Open space is viewed as a critical part of the County's infrastructure system (public facilities and services required to accommodate development). That system and the methods for its acquisition, maintenance, and operation are calibrated to its many functions: visual relief, natural resource protection, habitat preservation, passive and active recreation, protection from natural hazards, and various combinations of these purposes. This is what is meant by a multi -purpose open space system. • A major thrust of the multipurpose open space system is the preservation of components of the landscape that embody the historic character of the County, even though some areas have been impacted by man-made changes. • Native habitat for plants and animals that make up such important parts of our natural heritage now have interconnected spaces in a number of locations that allow these natural communities to prosper and be sustained. • A market system for habitat protection is in operation that includes options to use transfers of development rights (TDRs), conservation credits, and management programs to achieve equitable sharing of costs and benefits. • The cost to the public of maintaining open space and habitat areas over time continues to be balanced between the habitat value, recreational contributions and economic benefits the areas provide. • Lands identified for habitat preservation are based on the best available scientific information regarding species and habitat requirements and that information is updated as better methods emerge. • A coordinated education program spanning elementary through college and university levels exposes students of all ages to appropriate levels of information regarding the rich natural environment being preserved and enhanced here. This has lead to some highly regarded stewardship programs engaging the energies of students and their instructors in actions to sustain and protect these irreplaceable resources. • Strategies and incentives for voluntary conservation on private land are a basic part of the County's policy/regulatory system and are referred to nationwide as model approaches. Air Quality • Air quality measurements are used as a major factor in evaluating the Plan's performance. • Riverside County is an active participant in programs to base air quality improvement techniques on "best available science" methods. September 21,199911 TPC_CMIPROJECTI DATAI PROJDATAI SVE-011 VISIONI New Visionl9.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 7 X00013 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement • Implementing strategies have been accomplished to transition public and private fleets from petroleum -based fuels to alternative fuels and Riverside County is known as a center for applied new technology. • The County actively participates with other regional jurisdictions in developing strategies to reduce air pollution spillover into Riverside County from adjacent counties as well as limiting pollutants generated within the County. • Land use strategies being implemented in the County reflect an improved balance of jobs and housing, resulting in significant reduction in the average commute times and related motor vehicle pollutants. Jobs and the Economy • Implementation of the RCIP provides a clear picture of the fiscal implications of land use policies and documents the financial, as well as physical and social viability of communities in the County. • Jobs/housing balance is significantly improved, not only at the Countywide level, but within subregions of the County as well. • Voluntary tax sharing strategies are in place to diffuse the threat to our communities from the "fiscalization of land use". This is in addition to legislation largely stimulated by the County's planning process that achieves limited tax sharing procedures. • Economic development coalitions at several levels are active partners in implementing the County Plan through their involvement in stimulating new business development. • Jobs training programs to put people into new industry clusters are operational throughout the county and serve as an attraction to firms seeking a capable and stable labor force. • School programs are coordinated with economic clusters in terms of curriculum emphasis and cooperative internship and training arrangements with businesses. • Emerging employment sectors, such as the hospitality industry, are receiving renewed emphasis in job training and investment focus. Agricultural Lands • Riverside County continues to be one of the major agricultural forces among California counties and competes successfully in the global agricultural economy. • Many agricultural properties remain as economically productive businesses, whereas others are phasing into development through a carefully managed transition program designed to stage the transition from farming to clearly designated suburban uses. • Productive agricultural lands are broadly understood to be a valuable economic resource and have expanded in some areas. In selected areas they also serve as a valuable buffer between suburban and open space uses. Where agricultural lands are slated for transition to suburban uses, they are valued for their temporary contribution to the County's economy. • Financial incentives, such as transfer of development rights, development easements, and other mechanisms preserve the economic value of agricultural lands because they acknowledge the potential development value of these proper -ties and enable property owners to capture some of that value without giving up agricultural production. • Agricultural operations of varying sizes and types are accommodated under the Plan in response to prevailing market strengths. • Where agricultural activities with significant environmental impacts such as dairies, egg production and animal husbandry are accommodated, they are accompanied by special provisions for mitigating impacts and assuring their continued operation. • Agricultural land that remains economically viable, either as a permanent or temporary economic resource, is well protected by policies, ordinances and design regulations. September 21,199911TPC_CMIPROJECT1DATAIPROJDATAISVE-011V/SIONINewVision19.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 8 ��014 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement • Pressure for converting agricultural lands to development caused by expanded open space acquisitions is offset by agricultural protection measures and increased capacity of lands designated for development. Educational Facilities • The priority need for quality educational facilities and programs in the County (in order to attract industry, business and quality development) is satisfied through universally established partnerships between school districts and local government and is reflected in cooperative planning for growth. • A considerable contribution to the educational excellence within Riverside County has been made by expanded and new facilities at the community college and university levels. • There are now numerous examples of arrangements for joint use and financing of school facilities, as well as cooperative community based programs made possible by reduced costs of facilities. • Several industrial/office park sectors of the County include community college branch facilities in which job training and employee professional development programs are conducted under a business/college partnership arrangement. • The special housing needs of educators and students are recognized through innovative partnerships between developers, communities, and educational institutions to provide a range of residential choices for this segment of the population. Plan Integration • A key opportunity for plan integration is exemplified by the existence of critical corridors linking our communities - all part of the infrastructure system: open space corridors for vistas and recreation, habitat corridors for wildlife and plants, transportation corridors for mobility, riding and hiking trails for recreational travel, and bikeways as an alternate mode of travel as well as recreation pursuit. • Many of the corridors are recognized, not only as community links or buffers, but also as unifying elements that reinforce community identity. • The need for safe and efficient access to jobs, housing, commerce, and public services for residents of all ages, income groups, and physical abilities is reflected in the comprehensive transportation network serving the County. • Flexible planning tools such as mixed use zoning, incentives for creative use of land, overlay zoning, and multiple, flexible use of open space are in common use as our communities mature and new communities take shape. Financial Realities • A wide variety of public and private funding arrangements are in operation, including creative use of state and federal grant and loan funds to confront the continuing financial reality of not having enough money to do everything that is desired. • The County has a reputation for being unusually creative in gaining leverage out of limited funds by using them as seed money to attract larger investments in community facilities and programs and to obtain private grants and investment participation by the private sector. • Despite the emphasis on achieving community desires, the County is highly respected for its sensitivity to private property rights. Intergovernmental Cooperation • Recognition that many aspects of the vision are boundary -less is exemplified by the extensive array of intergovernmental arrangements involving the County, cities, special districts, and unincorporated communities. September 21,199911 TPC_CMI PROJECT1 DATAI PROJDATAI SVE-011 V!SIONI New Vision (9.20.99Vision Statement2.doc Page 90 0 0 01 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN Draft Vision Statement • A coordinated and streamlined permitting process is now in operation that is feasible because areas clearly slated for development are identified and appropriate open space areas are acquired or protected. • Intergovernmental partnerships have eliminated the once common contentiousness surrounding annexations, incorporations, and preservation of unincorporated community integrity. • Several inter -county and intra-county compacts now exist regarding cooperative programs for open space management, transportation corridor planning and implementation, air quality and water quality improvements, water management, and other critical topics of mutual concern. • Because of the public support for the new levels of intergovernmental cooperation that have been achieved, a tradition is now well in place that limits the erosion of this way of conducting public business as elected officials transition in and out of office: the bar is raised regarding these expectations. • A Countywide information and education program is in place to sustain an understanding of the unique planning program that has emerged from the RCIP. This program includes a section in school curricula, a summary brochure that is updated from time to time, an orientation program for newly elected officials, a strong internet presence, and an ongoing speakers bureau to reinforce this strong tradition. September 21,199911TPC CMIPROJECT1DATAIPROJDATAISVE-011V!SIONINewVision19.20.99Vision Statementadoc Page 10 (1(0016 • • • AGENDA ITEM 5 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) - Working Paper #1 Overview of Candidate Corridors #2 Draft Corridor Evaluation Criteria STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and File BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The CETAP Advisory Committee received the attached working papers at their meeting on September 7, 1999. At that meeting, the Advisory Committee broke into groups and had their initial discussion on the prospective candidate corridors. Additionally, the Advisory Committee received a presentation and had their initial discussion on the prospective Corridor Evaluation Criteria. The Advisory Committee requested additional time to review and formulate comments on the working papers. It is important to note that the working papers are "works in progress" and the structure of the CETAP development process will have the CETAP Advisory Committee develop and forward recommendation(s) to the CETAP Management Committee which will then forward, with or without comments, the recommendations to the RCTC and County Board of Supervisors. Working paper #1 identifies 15 prospective corridors. These corridors were identified through the public workshops conducted from June though early August. While this corridor evaluation process is on going, it is important to note that RCTC has approved an agreement with Sanbag and the City of Fontana to perform a north/south corridor study. This work, under a separate contract, will be shared and coordinated with the CETAP effort. Working paper #2 identifies proposed criteria to evaluate the prospective corridors in Phase 1 of the CETAP effort. At this time, the CETAP Advisory Committee has not taken any action on the proposed criteria for Phase 1 but continues to discuss the criteria as corridor specific analysis comes before them. 00001'7 On September 21, 1999 the CETAP Advisory Committee met for the third time and began work on identifying potential corridor alternatives. e.g. if the prospective corridor was from Moreno Valley to Riverside what alternatives could assist in meeting the travel demand? Intercity bus service?, commuter rail? Conventional highway improvements?, new corridor? etc.. Steve Smith of the Riverside County Integrated Planning (RCIP) Team will be present at the Plans and Programs Committee to provide an overview of the CETAP Advisory Committee's work to date. • • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) WORKING PAPER NO. 1 OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE CORRIDORS (DRAFT) Prepared for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency and the Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by TransCore with Jacobs/Sverdrup, Dudek Associates, and LSA Associates August 27, 1999 000019 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this working paper is to provide an overview of candidate transportation corridors beino examined for the Community, Environmental, and Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) i Western Riverside County. CETAP is one part of a three-part planning and implementation program being undertaken by the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The other two parts are the development of a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and a new county General Plan. A central purpose of CETAP is to examine the need and opportunities for the development of new or expanded transportation corridors in western Riverside County. The prospect of continued high population and employment growth rates is creating a sense of urgency for determining potential locations for new or expanded highway and/or transit corridors in western county. However, it is important to carry out these activities in concert with the identification of habitat requirements, land use plans, and other public infrastructure needs. Phase I of CETAP (to be completed by December 1999) will result in decisions to forward selected corridors for more detailed study in Phase II. In addition, recommendations will be formulated on corridors not selected for further analysis in Phase II. Phase II will conduct planning, engineering, and environmental studies on two to four selected corridors, depending on the complexity. The original concept of CETAP was to develop one east -west corridor and one north -south corridor. Draft environmental documents will be prepared at the end of Phase II, to be completed in mid - 2001. Phase III will consist of hearings and decisions on corridor recommendations, which could include preservation of right-of-way or other actions associated with the implementation of future transportation corridors. CETAP is considering all modes of travel. The CETAP effort is proceeding under the overall direction of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and the RCTC Commissioners. An advisory committee has been established to guide the CETAP effort. At the advisory committee meeting of August 3, 1999, a set of candidate corridors was identified and discussed. This working paper provides a general overview of the corridors being examined. This paper does not constitute the evaluation of corridors. Rather, it provides general information to acquaint the advisory committee and the interested public with the corridors. The corridors will undergo an evaluation process to identify those corridors that should be forwarded to Phase II of CETAP. LISTING OF CORRIDORS The following represents a listing of candidate corridors for examination in the CETAP program. These areas are for purposes of analysis only and do not imply any specific type of improvement. There is no priority implied by the listing. The analysis areas provide a way of organizing information as it is obtained, so that the need for transportation improvement in the various corridors can be assessed and compared. There is overlap in the corridors, and it is possible that the corridors may be subdivided later in CETAP. The primary means for defining the corridors involved linking major origins and destinations and considering general topographic features of the County. Although a number of the corridors are generally aligned with certain major facilities, the primary defining points of each corridor are the communities connected by the facilities or services. The candidate corridors include: • Riverside to Los Angeles County • Riverside County to Orange County • Riverside to Chino Hills • Riverside to Fontana • Moreno Valley/Riverside to Corona • Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County • Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore • Hemet to Riverside • Temecula to Corona/Ontario • Temecula to Riverside • Temecula to San Diego • Banning/Beaumont to Redlands/San Bernardino • Banning/Beaumont to Riverside • Banning/Beaumont to Temecula • Coachella Valley to Banning/Beaumont )40020 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Draft, August 27 1999 Page 1 • CORRIDOR DESCRIPTIONS The remainder of this working paper provides a general overview of the corridors. along with selected facts and statistics that give context to the discussion. Each corridor is represented by a map on the left and accompanying text on the right. The discussion of each corridor includes a corridor definition, existing highway facilities, existing transit services, previous studies (where applicable), significant transportation issues, and significant environmental issues. 10(3022 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 3 Draft, August 27 1999 • Riverside to Los Angeles County ISILL • r. (-- c ",---, \ f Chi Ontario Glen Albeehill 1 14117 1 Ian Hills Good Hope Is: Homeland Romoland Winchester' ee 11 Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process i 0(10023 Corridor Definition This corridor represents the general movement of people and goods from areas between Riverside and Corona toward Los Angeles County. RIVERSIDE/CORONA TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY CORRIDOR • Existing Highway Facilities Although Los Angeles County does not physically border on Riverside County, there is still substantial interaction between the two. A portion of San Bernardino County separates the counties of Riverside and Los Angeles. Ontario is a major destination in the middle of the corridor. SR71 is the principal highway facility connecting the Corona area with Pomona and the freeways heading westward toward Los Angeles. In San Bernardino County, SR71 has been upgraded to freeway status with a 6 -lane to 8 -lane cross section, including HOV lanes. There is a major constraint along SR -71 at its existing at -grade intersections between I-10 and SR -60. Los Angeles County has maintained that it is the responsibility of others (primarily San Bernardino County) to resolve this problem. A recent study jointly sponsored by RCTC and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) resulted in a decision to upgrade the Riverside County portion of SR 71, currently two lanes, to a 4 -lane divided expressway. From the Riverside area, access to Los Angeles is via the SR60 Freeway and I-10, both highly congested facilities. SR60 in San Bernardino County has been upgraded to an 8/10 —lane cross-section including HOV lanes. On I-10 in San Bernardino County west of 1-15, an HOV lane is being added, bringing the total cross section to 10 lanes. In Riverside County, the 6 -lane cross section of SR60 narrows to 4 lanes east of Valley Way, and this is being upgraded through the addition of an HOV lane in each direction. SR 60 carries approximately 100,000 vehicles per day east of Valley Way, increasing to over 200,000 per day west of I-15. Congestion on SR60 and SR71 in San Bernardino County has been somewhat relieved because of the recent improvements, but heavy congestion remains on virtually all freeways in LA County. The "Four -Corners Study" has been ongoing for approximately two years to deal with mobility issues in eastern Los Angeles and western San Bernardino County. Recommendations will be forthcoming from that effort. In addition, SCAG is studying the feasibility of truck lanes on SR60, a concept that was included as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. This study is still in its early stages. Transit Service Metrolink provides transit service from Riverside into downtown Los Angeles with seven inbound trains (5 in the morning) and 8 outbound trains (6 in the afternoon). Los Angeles can also be reached via the Fullerton line, with one train in the morning and two returning in the afternoon. Approximately 4000 passengers per day use the Riverside line. It could be approximated that the Riverside line of Metrolink carries in the range of 8-10% of person trips from this area of northwestern Riverside County into Los Angeles County in the a.m. peak period (estimated based on ratio of Metrolink riders to freeway trips). It is expected that Metrolink carries a high percentage of all commuters from the Riverside area that are bound to downtown Los Angeles. RTA provides transit service from Riverside to Jurupa. The Inland Empire Connection, route 110 provides service from San Bernardino to Ontario Airport and Montclair. This can be reached through the Inland Empire Connection route 100, which provides service on an hourly basis between downtown Riverside and downtown San Bernardino. Transportation Issues Most of the transportation issues in this corridor revolve around maintaining mobility for longer distance travelers between Corona/Riverside and the eastern and central portions of Los Angeles County. Maintaining mobility for trucks, particularly SR60, will continue to be a major concern. For the most part, other efforts such as the Four Corners Study and Truck Lane Feasibility Study are addressing issues in this area. Approximately 15 percent of SR 60 traffic is trucking traffic on a daily basis. Land Use and Environmental Issues The Mira Loma and I -10/I-15 interchange areas are developing rapidly as industrial and distribution centers. Industrial development is expanding easterly along the I-10 corridor, while major residential development is planned south of SR 60 in agricultural preserve areas of Ontario and Chino. Thus, both 1-10 and SR 60 between San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties will become heavily congested in the future, even with the opening of the Route 30 freeway. Biological resources of concern in this area include Hidden Valley wildlife area along the Santa Ana River and the Jurupa Mountains. Habitat for the Delhi sands flower loving fly may also be present north of SR -60 toward Ontario. 10024 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 5 Draft, August 27 1999 • Riverside to Orange County Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process • / // Aguanga 000025 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TO ORANGE COUNTY CORRIDOR Corridor Definition • This corridor represents the movement of people and goods across the entire border between Riverside County and Orange County. Existing Highway Facilities The major highway facility linking Riverside County and Orange County is the State Route 91 Freeway. West of I-15, SR 91 is generally an eight -lane to ten -lane facility. It currently carries an average of 232.000 vehicles per day. West of the county line, the FASTRAK toll lanes provide two additional lanes in each direction. The toll lanes were built as a private toll facility and are operated by the California Private Transportation Company (CPTC). Tolls vary by time of day, with the highest tolls in the peak period and peak direction of travel (typically $3.50). East of the county line, one of the lanes in each direction has been designated as an HOV lane. SR 91 is one of the most congested highway facilities in Southern California. with normal eastbound delays beginning approximately 5 a.m. and continuing through 9 a.m. The eastbound p.m. congestion typically begins at 3 p.m. and continues at least until 7 p.m. Traffic on the toll road is highly peaked, with almost 90 percent of the toll traffic in the a.m. peak period destined toward Orange County. In the p.m. peak period, approximately 80 percent of the toll traffic is proceeding eastbound. The only other intercounty facility is SR 74, Ortega Highway, which crosses the Cleveland National Forest west of Lake Elsinore. Ortega Highway is a winding, two-lane facility and carries approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. A number of studies have been conducted in the SR 91 corridor. The most recent was the SR 71/91 Improvement Study, in which several alternatives for lane additions were explored. ranging from new toll lanes, HOV lanes, and general purpose lanes. A 1989 privately sponsored study "The Road to the Coast" examined the possibility of a new facility in the general vicinity of Ortega Highway. A 1995 study examined the possibility of an extension of Cajalco Road westward as an intercounty facility. A 1997 study explored the possibility of a roadway or toll road connecting Cajalco Road with SR 71. Except for the possibility of lane additions on SR 91, the concepts have been generally rejected due to the high cost and/or community impact. Existing Transit Service Transit service is provided in the SR 91 corridor through the Inland Empire/Orange County line of Metrolink, with five trains per day in each direction. Ridership has been approximately 1800 passengers per day. The RTA provides bus service between Riverside and Orange, with 7 trips per day. Stops are made in south Riverside and Corona. Transportation Issues Based on SCAG demographic forecasts, traffic demand on SR 91 is shown to increase by approximately 80 percent between now and year 2020. This would mean traffic volumes in excess of 400.000 vehicles per day. The highest volume freeway in the U.S. currently is approximately 330,000 vehicles per day. One of the major questions that needs to be addressed in CETAP is the extent to which adding highway capacity to Orange County will be worth the high price that will likely need to be paid or whether the County should invest in its internal roadway system. The CPTC has a 30 -year franchise agreement with Caltrans for the operation of the FASTRAK lanes. Among the provisions of the agreement is the prohibition against building parallel capacity to the FASTRAK lanes within two miles on either side without the consent of the CPTC. Land Use and Environmental Issues Creation of a new corridor between Riverside and Orange Counties will require access through the Cleveland National Forest. A wide variety of biological resources are present in the National Forest. Wetland resources are also present in the vicinity of Lake Elsinore. Any such corridor will need to be handled with extreme sensitivity due to the potential for substantial Iandform modification and biotic resource impacts. Other issues include the potential effect on traffic patterns on Orange County highways, as well as the Iandform modification and biotic resource impacts involved in creating a connection to the Orange County transportation system. II 000026 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 7 Draft, August 27 1999 • Riverside to Chino Hills I • Ontario N Glen Ivy Albe 'M►sh�s e Calimesa Homeland Rdmoland Winchester' Menifee Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process i 0.00027 RIVERSIDE TO CHINO HILLS CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor represents the area from Riverside to the vicinity of Chino Hills/SR142. • Existing Highways Facilities This corridor is included because of the amount of development activity expected in the future in this part of Riverside and San Bernardino County. With recent annexations of the agricultural preserve by the cities of Chino and Ontario, and development of the Eastvale Community Plan by Riverside County, the potential for future growth is extensive. A master plan has recently been prepared for the agricultural preserve. In addition, the I-15 corridor continues to receive substantial attention in terms of development. These factors combined make both the need and opportunity for corridor development substantial. There is currently limited access in an east -west direction in this area. There are relatively few arterial streets, namely Limonite and Arlington Avenues. Transit Service A RTA transit route proceeds westward from Riverside onto Limonite Ave., terminating at Jurupa Valley High School on Etiwanda. Transit service also exists on Arlington Ave. connecting Riverside and Norco. Transportation Issues The major transportation issue in this area is the expected growth in this corridor, providing a significant opportunity for the definition of a connection that would link Riverside and the developing areas in San Bernardino County. One of the major constraints in this area is the Santa Ana River, which limits both east -west and north -south mobility. The I-15 freeway and Van Buren Avenue are the only significant crossings of the river west of downtown Riverside. Land Use and Environmental Issues Major development is planned in the existing agricultural preserve south of the City of Ontario, which will add several thousand dwelling units and hundreds of acres of commercial/industrial development to the southwest San Bernardino County developed land inventory. As a result, excess capacity on San Bernardino County roadways to accommodate increased traffic from Riverside County is not likely. The Riverside to Chino Hills corridor is and will remain primarily residential in nature, and requires connections to major employment areas along the I-10 freeway and Orange County. San Bernardino County and the City of Chino Hills have dropped widening of SR -142 (Carbon Canyon Road) as an alternative connection to Orange County employment centers, and are reviewing other connections. Any new connection will entail substantial landform modification and biotic resource impacts, and will impact traffic patterns on existing roadways within Orange County. 0:.(20 028 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 9 Draft, August 27 1999 • Riverside to Fontana Ontario N ,,,Fonta Gen Nbe fJ 41,7 � 1 Gavilan Hills Good Hope Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process Valley `\ -lMurneta Hot Springs ,J /� �f Cabazon ntain enter 000029 RIVERSIDE TO FONTANA CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor is defined as a north -south corridor roughly between Citrus Ave. and Riverside Ave. • Existing Highway Facilities Communities in this area have expressed the desire for additional north/south mobility. Currently, Sierra Ave. in Fontana crosses the county line, but topography makes the provision of additional mobility difficult. The existing route along Sierra Avenue to Valley Way is heavily traveled, and is hampered by substantial congestion at the I-10/Sierra Avenue and SR-60Nalley Way interchanges.There is currently a study being conducted in this north/south corridor as a cooperative effort between agencies in the two counties. An earlier study, the "Sierra -Cedar Corridor Study" took an initial look at mobility options in this corridor area. Transit Service RTA route 21 provides transit service between Riverside and Country Village. Transfers can then be made to Omnitrans' routes 21 and 71. Transportation issues The primary transportation issue in this corridor is finding ways to improve north/south mobility across the county line. RCTC and SANBAG have embarked on a program to identify potential roadway connections between Riverside and Fontana; however, steep hillsides with rock at shallow depths serve as a major barrier to movement between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties (I-10 and SR -60 corridors) in this area. Land Use and Environmental Issues The location of existing and former mining operations, as well as the Stringfellow Acid Pits remediation area present additional constraints. Noise and displacement impacts within existing communities are possibility in the portion of this corridor north of the hills separating Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Biotic resource impacts map also occur along foothill areas. 00030 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page I1 Draft, August 27 1999 MORENO VALLEY/RIVERSIDE TO CORONA CORRIDOR Corridor Definition • This corridor represents the movement of people and goods from the general vicinity of Moreno Valley to the Corona area. Existing Highway Facilities This corridor represents one of the major commuting corridors in Riverside County. The defined area includes not only the SR60/I-215 and SR91 facilities, but the area from Van Buren northward as well. It includes the March Air Re -use Base (ARB) as a major activity center. Serious traffic congestion exists on 1-215/SR60 primarily in the a.m. peak period westbound and p.m. peak period eastbound. The 91/215/60 interchange is a major hindrance to mobility in this corridor, particularly for the westbound to southbound and northbound to eastbound movements, both of which back up from the merge areas onto the respective freeways. In addition, congestion occurs along SR 91 from I- 215 to Magnolia Ave. (generally a six -lane section), and on SR 91 west of I-15. SR 91 west of I-15 is the most heavily traveled roadway in the county, with approximately 230,000 vehicles per day. (See discussion on the Riverside to Orange County corridor). SR 60 in Moreno Valley carries approximately 110,000 vehicles per day. SR 60/1-215 carries approximately 190,000 vehicles per day. An eastbound truck lane plus HOV lanes in both directions are programmed for I-215/60 between Riverside and Box Springs. However, the improvements may not be complete for approximately 6 years. Van Buren is a four -lane major arterial highway, with occasional signalized intersections. The frontage along Van Buren is developing, with the prospect of additional development in the future. It is one of the major roadways that will serve March ARB. Transit Service RTA provides fixed route service from Moreno Valley to Riverside and from Riverside southward along Magnolia Avenue. • Transportation Issues The section of SR 60/1-215 between Riverside and Box Springs acts somewhat as a "traffic funnel," serving both east -west and north -south traffic. Topography limits north -south mobility to the east, and no east -west freeways are available to the south. Travelers from Moreno Valley to Corona not only encounter significant congestion, but the freeway routing is indirect. Van Buren serves as somewhat of a "shortcut" between I-215 and SR 91, but speeds are reduced in built-up areas. Metrolink provides an alternative in the SR 91 corridor. An extension of Metrolink has been discussed from Riverside to San Jacinto, which could provide some degree of relief to the I-215 corridor. Land Use and Environmental Issues The I-215 corridor south from Moreno Valley south is expected to be one of the higher growth corridors in Riverside County in the future, both for residential and commerciaUindustrial development. This will place increasing pressure on the congested SR-60/SR-91/I-215 interchange, as well as on east -west arterials south of the City of Riverside. Creation of a new corridor or widening of existing facilities will entail biotic resource and possibly landform modification impacts. In addition, depending upon location, noise and displacement impacts on existing residential neighborhoods could also occur. Overall, this corridor is heavily residential in character. In the Moreno Valley area, important biological resources include Sycamore Canyon, Box Springs Mountains, and Reche Canyon. 00,00032 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 13 Draft, August 27 1999 • Moreno Valley to San Bernardino Ontario I� • N i Glen Ivy i Calimesa Cte rry valley r HOtSpri$p Hb ngsM n // Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process i 1 M X00033 MORENO VALLEY TO SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CORRIDOR • Corridor Definition This corridor is defined as representing the north -south travel demand from Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County. This could include destinations of the City of San Bernardino, Loma Linda. Redlands, Highland, or Yucaipa. Existing Highway Facilities Commuters from Moreno Valley to San Bernardino have five route choices. 1) SR 60 to the City of Riverside, then I-215 to San Bernardino. This facility is a very congested route during peak periods. 2) a less congested route is SR 60 east to Beaumont then West on I-10 to destinations between San Bernardino and Yucaipa. This is a much longer commute but incurs less delay. The next three routes are more direct but are two lane roads through hilly terrain and have much lower design speeds. 3) Pigeon Pass. 4) Reche Canyon Road. 5) Redlands Boulevard to San Timoteo Canyon Road. The North -South Corridor Study, for which SANBAG was lead agency, examined highway alternatives between Moreno Valley and San Bernardino County, but no acceptable alternatives were found at that time. Transit Service Bus service exists for this route. A one hour 15 minute bus trip from Moreno Valley to San Bernardino requires a transfer in the City of Riverside. Transportation Issues: Moreno Valley experienced significant growth in the late 80's and early 90's. The city now has a population in excess of 100,000 people with anticipated growth south and east. The traffic volumes on this segment of SR 60 are projected to increase by 70% and I-215 by 110% by year 2020. Additional routes or improvements to the three existing routes presents challenges through the hilly terrain. Any new routes must be designed for safety first, which could require new alignment and significant right-of-way takes. Land Use and Environmental Issues: Each of these several possible routes for transportation improvement would entail substantial landform modification and biotic resource impacts. In addition, this corridor will affect traffic patterns on San Bernardino County highways and roadways. Biological resources are present along the Reche Canyon Road and Davis Road corridors as well as within San Timoteo Canyon and the San Jacinto wildlife area. 0 034 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 15 Draft, August 27 1999 • Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process • Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore 10 1 Murrieta Hot Springs 000035 HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CORRIDOR • Corridor Definition: This corridor represents the movement of people and goods between the cities of Hemet/San Jacinto and the area along I-15 between Corona/Lake Elsinore. Existing Highway Facilities: This corridor has been defined as a broad swath of land area that links the Hemet/San JacintoNalle Vista area with areas along I-15 between Corona and Lake Elsinore. It has been defined broadly, because it is potentially linked with decisions that may come out of the analysis of the Riverside to Orange County Corridor. For example, additional transportation capacity could be conceived through expansion of the SR 91 or through a new route to the south of SR 91. Continuing connectivity to the east toward Hemet could be a logical and important supporting strategy. Currently, the connection between Corona and Hemet is via multiple routes: SR 74, I-215, 1-15, and SR 91 or via the Ramona Expressway and Cajalco Road connecting to the I-15 and SR 91. SR 74, I-215 and I-15 connect Hemet to Lake Elsinore. SR 74 is generally a two-lane roadway, as is Cajalco Road. The Ramona Expressway is a four -lane divided facility eastward from I-215 but reduces to two lanes as it approaches Lake Perris. Right-of-way exists for eventual widening to the four -lane divided cross section. 1-215 is a four -lane to six -lane freeway. I-15 is generally a six -lane facility south of SR 91. Congestion in this corridor is currently limited, but substantial growth is expected in this corridor. Improvement of SR 74 is part of the Measure A half -cent sales tax program. Currently, realignment of curves is planned for SR 74 between 1-215 and I-15, but no lane additions are included in the program. Transit Service The Riverside Transit Agency provides bus service between Hemet and Lake Elsinore, with a transfer in Perris. This trip takes approximately one and one half-hours. Bus service between Hemet and Corona requires a transfer in Riverside. This trip takes approximately two and one quarter hours. Buses depart from each end approximately every hour and fifteen minutes. Transportation Issues The traffic volumes on this segment of .I-15 are projected to increase some 140% by year 2020 and by some 200% on parts of I-215. Some of what is decided in this corridor will be dependent on decisions concerning the Riverside County to Orange County Corridor. Improvements to the SR 91 may suggest reinforcing the connection between Hemet and Corona. A new facility to Orange County south of SR 91 may suggest reinforcing the connection between Hemet and points to the south of Corona. Regardless of what occurs to Orange County, improved route continuity between Hemet and I-15 should be explored. Land Use and Environmental Issues: The sharp increase in anticipated traffic volumes within this corridor reflects projected high residential, commercial, and industrial growth. Even with projected commercial/industrial growth, this corridor will be primarily residential in character, and a connection to major employment centers in the Riverside, Ontario/Fontana, and Orange County areas may be needed in conjunction with this route. Substantial landform modification impacts can be expected if this corridor entails the development of new routes as opposed to widening of existing roadways. SR 74, Ramona Expressway, and Cajalco Road all pass through areas of sensitive habitat and community concerns. including biological resources associated with the San Jacinto River, Mystic Lake and Potrero Creek. (0)036 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 17 Draft, August 27 1999 • Hemet to Riverside • N • Glen Ivy ?Ube 1 Gavila Good Hope Calimesa 1 � Chevy Valley ' ? oaten RIJ I� Romoland Winchester Ir ( Kit Spa Kit Springs Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process i Ca 000037 HEMET TO RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor represents the movement of people and goods between the cities of Hemet and Riverside. Existing Highway Facilities SR 74, Ramona Expressway and I- 215 are facilities that can be used to connect Hemet to Riverside's central business district. The volumes and congestion problems along I-215 have been mentioned in the discussion of the Moreno Valley to Riverside corridor. I- 215 is a four -lane to six -lane facility and carries approximately 106,000vehicles per day south of SR 60. The Ramona expressway is a four -lane divided facility eastward from I-215 but reduces to two lanes as it approaches Lake Perris. Right-of-way exists for eventual widening to the four -lane divided cross section. Van Buren Boulevard can also be used for access to Riverside. It is a four -lane and six -lane urban arterial.. Signalization along Van Buren Boulevard is currently limited, but adjacent development is increasing, which will result in a degradation of speeds. The traffic volumes on this segment of I-215 are projected to increase by 110% to 200% by year 2020. Transit Service The RTA provides bus service between Hemet and Riverside.. This trip takes approximately one and one half-hours. Bus headways average slightly over one hour. The San Jacinto branch line of the former Santa FeRailway is in the north end of the corridor and proceeds east to Hemet. RCTC purchased the right-of- way for this line to preserve the option of eventually extending Metrolink beyond Riverside. Significant investment in track repairs is needed for service to be provided at reasonable speeds. Transportation Issues This is a high growth corridor. There are also significant opportunities in this corridor to plan land use in coordination with transportation. March ARB is expected to become a major employment hub, and well - planned transportation service to residential areas to the south and east could prove effective. Improvement to the I-215/SR 60 segment through Box Springs can be considered critical to the connection between Riverside and Hemet. Strategies for preserving mobility along Van Buren Boulevard should be examined as well, given the importance of its linkage to SR 91 and the City of Riverside. Land Use and Environmental Issues This corridor represents a northerly alternative to a Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor, and shares similar environmental and land use issues. Even with projected commercial/industrial growth, this corridor will be primarily residential in character, and a connection to major employment centers in the Ontario/Fontana and Orange County areas may be useful in conjunction with this route. Sensitive biological resources existin the area, associated with the San Jacinto River, Mystic Lake and Potrero Creek. In addition, substantial landform modification impacts can be expected from major transportation improvements. In some locations, existing developed areas might not be avoided, leading to noise and displacement impacts. • 000038 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 19 Draft, August 27 1999 • Temecula to Corona/Ontario i N 1 r • San Bernardino 117 / ss Mirgtry ,Cis rob ry Valley \ r A uanga AMMO Cabazon Win nter Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process €00039 TEMECULA TO CORONA/ONTARIO CORRIDOR Corridor Definition This corridor includes the area from the Cleveland National Forest to the areas east of I-15. • Existing Highway Facilities This corridor is dominated by I-15, which carries traffic from Temecula up to Corona and into Orange County, or beyond Corona to Ontario and Los Angeles County via either I-15 or SR 71. The movement of people and goods to Orange County will be addressed in the Riverside County to Orange County corridor. I-15 is generally six lanes through this corridor, but widens south of its junction with I-215. It carries approximately 133,000 vehicles per day north of SR 91, 136,000 vehicles per day south of SR 91 and 134,000 vehicles per day south of I-15. The section of I-15 in Temecula is heavily congested, particularly in the p.m. peak period, with vehicles queued from off -ramps back onto the southbound freeway. The portion just south of SR 91 is regularly affected by traffic backed up from the westbound 91. Transit Service The primary transit services in this corridor are local services. There is no transit service providing linkages between cities along the corridor, except from Temecula to Lake Elsinore, and this requires a transfer. Greyhound provides service through this area to Riverside. Transportation Issues Rapid growth along the I-15 corridor is expected to continue. Travel demand can be expected to more than double over the next 20 years. Trucks comprise approximately 16 percent of the daily traffic, and the corridor is an important connection between San Diego and the Mexican border with the industrial/distribution facilities in the Ontario area. It is a major gateway to the Los Angeles region ande therefore important economically. Land Use and Environmental Issues The I-15 corridor serves several areas of environmental, cultural, and recreational interest. Because it lies at the center of a narrow, elongated canyon/valley area, the potential for parallel routes is limited to steep hillside areas. A number of active mining operations are located within the hilly areas along the I-15 corridor limiting the potential for alternative parallel routes. Large areas of the hillsides along the east side of the corridor exhibit rock at shallow depths, and would not be easy to grade for a transportation corridor. The Cleveland National Forest to the west is an important biological resource area. Links to habitat areas to the east are important to maintaining the viability of biological resources in western Riverside County, particularly along the tributary drainages discharging from the forest. Of interest are Cajalco Creek, Marble Canyon and Indian Canyon in the vicinity of Lake Mathews, connections to the Santa Rosa Plateau, Murrieta Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek and the Santa Margarita River/Temecula Creek. Biological resources are also present in the Sedco Hills, Wildomar, and Clinton Keith Road areas. 0 0.040 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 21 Draft, August 27 1999 1 Temecula to Riverside 1 1 Gen Ivy Calimesa _91erry Valley Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process Aguanga Cabamn Anza 000041 TEMECULA TO RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR • Corridor Definition This corridor incorporates the area from Temecula to the City of Riverside, and is generally oriented in a north -south direction. Existing Highway Facilities The dominant transportation facility in this corridor is I-215. It was fully upgraded to freeway status in the early 1990s and is four to six lanes in width. It carries 106,000 vehicles per day just south of SR 60 and 52,000 vehicles per day just north of I-15. Other than I-215, there are no other significant north -south highway facilities. Most arterial roadways run east -west in this area. Transit Service RTA service exists from Temecula to Sun City, from Sun City to Perris, and from Perris to Downtown Riverside, generally along I-215. Service also exists from Perris to Moreno Valley. Headways for all these routes tend to be in the range of 45 minutes to one hour. The San Jacinto branch line of the former Santa Fe Railway is in the north end of the corridor and proceeds east to Hemet. RCTC purchased the right-of-way for this line to preserve the option of eventually extending Metrolink beyond Riverside. Significant investment in track repairs is needed for service to be provided at reasonable speeds. Transportation Issues Traffic in this corridor is expected to more than double over the next 20 years. If expected employment at March ARB and elsewhere in the corridor materializes, this corridor could represent a well-defined commuting corridor, with opportunities for linking residential areas to the south. The section of I-215/SR 60 in Box Springs will continue to be a major bottleneck until it is improved. Land Use and Environmental Issues The broad flat valley areas which the I-215 traverses provides opportunities to limit or avoid major landform modification and biotic resource issues which could be involved in the Temecula -Corona corridor. However, a number of specific plans have been approved along in the valleys adjacent to the I- 215 freeway. Thus, potential noise and displacement impacts would need to be considered in areas along these new developments, as well as within existing residential neighborhoods in the Murrieta, Temecula, and Perris areas. In addition, biotic and cultural resource impacts could become an issue in the northern half of the corridor. Further land development in this corridor will also increase pressure on SR -60/I-215 in Box Springs. Biological resources in the vicinity of this corridor are present in the area of the hogbacks around Murrieta Hot Springs, the Motte Rimrock SKR reserve, and the Sycamore Canyon SKR reserve. =)f10042 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 23 Draft, August 27 1999 • • Temecula to San Diego Ontario r se ® Gen Ary 1J Wood ,qF \ ®1 Mead Val IMMO Calenesa i Cb/yValley\ Aguanga Cabazon fi Anza Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process i 01)0043 TEMECULA TO SAN DIEGO CORRIDOR • Corridor Definition This corridor represents the connection between the Temecula/Murrieta area and the San Diego Metropolitan area. Existing Highway Facilities Temecula is located only about an hour north of San Diego and 30 minutes north of Escondido. I-15 is the major transportation facility in this corridor, and carries approximately 90,000 vehicles per day south of Temecula. Traffic movements at the interchanges in Temecula indicate a significant movement of people to and from the south, although approximately two-thirds of the movements from the Rancho California area are to and from the north. Because of the topography, no other significant highway options exist for travel to and from San Diego. Transit Services The only transit service to the south is Greyhound, with four trips per day. However, a trip to downtown San Diego takes nearly two hours. Transportation Issues As Temecula continues to grow and the San Diego region expands northward, the linkages between the areas will likely increase. The I-15 corridor will continue to be commercially important. carrying goods to and from Mexico and the greater San Diego region. Nearly 15 percent of the I-15 traffic is trucks, with two-thirds of these 3 or more axles. Land Use and Environmental Issues As is the case to the north. the I-15 freeway south of Temecula traverses a narrow canyon area. Widening of the freeway or establishment of a parallel corridor would entail substantial landform modification and biotic resource impacts. In addition, impacts on productive agricultural lands (avocado orchards) could occur. A major river crossing over the San Luis Rey River would also be needed. An important consideration in this area is maintaining connections between the Agua Tibial Wilderness and San Mateo Canyon Wilderness portions of Cleveland National Forest. The Santa Margarita River (Temecula River/Temecula Creek) drainage system may be an important component of that connectivity. • 0000044 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 25 Draft, August 27 1999 Banning/Beaumont to Redlands/San Bernardino i Vi N • Ho Gardens Gen Ivy Albe Nir it Gavilan Hills Good Hope y INyltwild untain ter i r\i„_.---1 1Ot a Sage Hot Springs t\ Me'' %i l/ . Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process 000045 BANNING/BEAUMONT TO REDLANDS/SAN BERNARDINO CORRIDOR • Corridor Definition This corridor represents the route between the cities of Banning and Beaumont and the cities of Redlands and San Bernardino. Existing Highway Facilities The main route from Banning to San Bernardino is currently Interstate 10. Between these cities. I-10 is generally an eight -lane freeway. Currently, there are no High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes along this route. Present traffic volumes on I-10 in Banning are 80,000 vehicles per day and are expected to approximately double by 2020. The only other direct facility connecting these locations is San Timoteo Canyon Road, which parallels the UPRR tracks through San Timoteo Canyon. Transit Service RTA's route 36 provides service between Banning and Yucaipa. Transfers to Omnitrans are possible to reach westward, however trip times will exceed two hours. Greyhound service is provided between Banning and San Bernardino (five trips per day). The Cities of Banning and Beaumont provide local fixed -route service in their communities.. Transportation Issues Interstate 10 currently carries a high volume of truck traffic (in excess of 15 percent in the Banning area). A transportation strategy for this corridor would need to be coordinated with San Bernardino County. SANBAG has programmed an improvement to add a truck lane on I-10 eastbound west of Yucaipa plus an HOV lane in each direction.Improving San Timoteo Canyon Road would require extensive coordination and cooperation from the Union Pacific Railroad, since they own much of the right-of-way along this route. The existing tracks could possibly be used to provide Metrolink service along this corridor. Land Use and Environmental Issues Both San Bernardino County and the Banning/Beaumont area are experiencing rapid growth and expansion. The Calimesa/Banning/Beaumont area is anticipating a large increase in housing units, an amusement park, and a major employment center south of I-10. Roadway improvements through San Timoteo Canyon would create environmental concerns. Needed grading would result in substantial landform modification impacts. Because San Timoteo Canyon is a highly sensitive biotic habitat area, substantial disturbance to plant and animal habitat areas, as well as important habitat linkages could occur. The Badlands, Potrero Creek and San Mateo Creek areas include important biological resources in the vicinity of this corridor. !U0046 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 27 Draft, August 27 1999 BANNING/BEAUMONT TO RIVERSIDE CORRIDOR • Corridor Definition This corridor is defined as the area between the city of Riverside and the cities of Banning and Beaumont. Existing Highway Facilities Interstate 10 and SR 60 connect the Riverside area with Banning and Beaumont. From Beaumont to east of Banning, Interstate 10 is generally an eight -lane facility with no HOV lanes. West of Beaumont. SR 60 continues westward through the "badlands" to Moreno Valley and Riverside. This section of SR 60 is mainly a four -lane freeway with severe horizontal and vertical curvature. SR 60 through the badlands carries approximately 37,000 vehicles per day. This increases to 110,000 just east of the junction with 1- 215 and to 200,000 west of the junction with 1-215. The safety problem has been partially mitigated through the addition of a median barrier approximately 10 years ago. The freeways are generally congestion -free on I-10 east of Yucaipa and on SR 60 east of Moreno Valley. Traffic projections for SR 60 through Moreno Valley estimate volumes increasing approximately 70 percent from current levels by year 2020. In the Banning/Beaumont area, traffic is expected to nearly double by year 2020. Transit Service The RTA provides bus service between Banning and Riverside, with a transfer in Moreno Valley. This trip can take up to two and one half hours. Buses depart from each end approximately every hour and fifteen minutes. Greyhound service is provided from Banning/Beaumont to Riverside through San Bernardino. Transportation Issues Roadway access to and from Banning/Beaumont is quite good, and I-10 and SR 60 have room to accommodate further growth. The area is connected via transit to other parts of western county and to San Bernardino, but trips are lengthy. SunLine Transit Agency has plans to operate a bus line between the Coachella Valley and Riverside which would provide access to/from the Pass Area. Extending Metrolink to Banning/Beaumont (possibly via the San Bernardino line) could also be examined. Land Use and Environmental Issues: Both San Bernardino County and the Banning/Beaumont area are experiencing rapid growth and expansion. The CalimesaBanningBeaumont area is anticipating a large increase in housing units, an amusement park, and a major employment center south of I-10. Roadway improvements through San Timoteo Canyon would create environmental concerns. SR -60 borders the Norton Younglove Reserve on its south end. Although this land is mainly used as an off -road vehicle park, it might preclude roadway development in this area. The Badlands, Potrero Creek and San Mateo Creek areas include important biological resources in the vicinity of this corridor. • • 00048 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 29 Draft, August 27 1999 • Banning/Beaumont to Temecula Ontario _ J • San Bemardinc � a Aguanga Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process i 1 000049 BANNINGBEAUMONT TO TEMECULA CORRIDOR • Corridor Definition: This corridor represents the area connecting Banning/Beaumont, Hemet, and Murrieta/Temecula. Existing Highway Facilities: The main linkage between these areas is provided by State Route 79. This is generally a north -south route that passes through the city of Hemet. On the north end, SR 79 passes through Lamb Canyon and into the City of Beaumont. This section was widened to four lanes approximately six years ago. This route also represents one of primary options for travel from I-10 in the pass area to San Diego. Through the City of Hemet, SR 79 runs east -west along the same streets as SR 74. Studies have been conducted concerning the realignment of SR 79 to bypass the City of Hemet. Several alignment alternatives have been identified, and these are being examined further through a project being initiated by RCTC and Caltrans. SR 79 passes just west of the Eastside Reservoir and is expected to be the major access route to the recreational activities at the reservoir. In Murrieta, SR 79 (Winchester Road) is a six -lane facility and is one of the City's major thoroughfares. Existing Transit Service: RTA transit service exists between Banning/Beaumont and Hemet at headways of one hour. Additional service is provided to Hemet and to Murrieta and Temecula from other directions. Transportation Issues: This is expected to be a major growth corridor in the future. The Eastside Reservoir is expected to be a major recreational attraction, and development is expected throughout the corridor over the next 20 years. Given the growing congestion issues along several I-15 interchanges in Murrietta and Temecula, there is concern over the impacts the additional growth along the corridor could have on mobility in the south end of the corridor. The portion of SR 79 through Hemet passes through dense business and residential areas. This is one of the reasons for consideration of a realignment of SR 79 to the west of Hemet. Land Use and Environmental Issues: The prospects for substantial growth have been referenced above. In addition, several areas along the corridor contain sensitive habitats, including lands to the south and west of Hemet. In addition, this corridor would traverse habitat linkage areas, and would need to be designed to maintain habitat connectivity. Biological resources in the vicinity of the Eastside Reservoir, Lake Skinner, and Vail Lake are of concern in this area as are crossings of the San Jacinto River and Potrero Creek. Substantial development has been approved in San Jacinto, lands west of Hemet, and the Murrieta/Temecula areas. 000050 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 31 Draft, August 27 1999 • Coachella Valley to Banning/Beaumont Riverside County Integrated Plan Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process • Anza L00051 COACHELLA VALLEY TO BANNINGBEAUMONT CORRIDOR • Corridor Definition This corridor covers the pass area between the cities of the Coachella Valley and approximately the junction of I-10 and SR 60 in Beaumont. Connections between the Coachella Valley and Riverside also are discussed. Existing Highway Facilities This corridor is a well-defined area between the mountains of San Jacinto and San Gorgonio. The corridor is approximately five miles wide in the pass and is dominated by Interstate 10 as the major transportation facility. Interstate 10 is an 8 -lane freeway from Monterey Ave in Palm Desert to the I- 10/SR60 split. At that point, SR 60 diverges as a 4 -lane freeway connecting to Moreno Valley. I-10 continues as a 6 -lane freeway. The traffic volume in the pass area on Interstate 10 is 80,000 vehicles per day. In the Coachella Valley, the I-10 volume is in the range of 50,000 vehicles per day. One of the most notable features of I-10 is the presence of trucks. Trucks comprise over 15% of the traffic in this corridor. This section of I-10 is relatively congestion free, except when major accidents and incidents occur. Weekend traffic on I-10 can be substantial, both in the peak season for the Coachella valley and in the summer travel season. Major I-10 interchange improvements at Monterey Avenue, Washington Street, and Cook Street (new interchange) in the last two years have greatly reduced congestion at those locations. Transit Services Greyhound connects the Coachella Valley with San Bernardino and Riverside, with stops in Banning/Beaumont on selected trips. Both Banning/Beaumont and the Coachella Valley have their own local bus services. The Coachella Valley is serviced by SunBus. RTA provides service to the Banning/Beaumont area. The Sunline Transit Agency has been provided with funds to initiate a transit commuter service from the Coachella Valley to the Riverside Metrolink station. Service is anticipated to begin in late1999/early 2000. Transportation Issues Major transportation issues include preservation of mobility for this economically important corridor. Although vehicle mobility is good at the moment, traffic volumes on I-10 are expected to approximately double over the next 20 years in Banning/Beaumont, with even greater percentage increases on I-10 in the Coachella Valley. In addition, there are few good modal choices in this corridor except for local transit services. This is being remedied, in part, by the anticipated commuter bus service from the Coachella Valley to Riverside. This corridor is also one of the most heavily traveled freight rail corridors in Southern California. Land Use and Environmental Issues Although wind and accompanying blowsand are a concern in the pass area, this only rarely impacts transportation in the corridor. Development in the Coachella Valley is rapidly expanding north toward the 1-10 corridor. Connections to the I-10 will likely need improvement to accommodate projected growth. State Route 111 is congested through Palm Springs and the cove area in high season. Issues of potential concern include needed crossings of the Whitewater River, habitat preserve and habitat areas along the north side of I-10. and potential impacts on agricultural resources within the Coachella Valley. Expanding the existing I-10 freeway or establishing a parallel corridor would also involve the use of Indian lands. X00052 CETAP — Overview of Candidate Corridors Page 33 Draft, August 27 1999 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PLAN COMMUNITY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) WORIDNG PAPER NO. 2 CORRIDOR EVALUATION CRITERIA (DRAFT) Prepared for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency and the Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by TransCore August 27, 1999 1000053 INTRODUCTION This working paper identifies a possible set of corridor evaluation criteria for use in Phase I of the Community, Environmental, and Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). CETAP is one part of a three-part planning and implementation program being undertaken by the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The other two parts are the development of a Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and a new county General Plan. A description of CETAP and its role in the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) is described in Working Paper No. 1, "Overview of Candidate Corridors." The evaluation criteria are to serve as a basis for determining which corridors should be advanced to Phase II, for more detailed development and analysis of transportation alternatives. For those corridors advanced to Phase II, a revised set of criteria will be developed, more focused on issues faced in that corridor. The Phase II criteria will focus on the evaluation of specific transportation alternatives, whereas the focus in Phase I is on the evaluation and prioritization of corridors. The proposed evaluation criteria are in draft stage, for discussion and acceptance by the CETAP advisory committee at the September 7 meeting. The draft criteria were developed based on factors that are typically used in studies of this nature and on a review of the SCAG Regional Performance Indicators. A description of these performance indicators is contained in the August 3 handout to the advisory committee. The indicators include mobility, accessibility, environment, reliability, safety, livable communities, equity, and cost-effectiveness. It should be noted that the SCAG performance indicators were designed for evaluating the transportation strategies in the regional transportation plan and some of the indicators are not as directly applicable to the purposes of corridor -level evaluation in CETAP. It is important to note there is no weighting implied by the criteria. It is not implied that all criteria will have equal weight, nor will there be an assigned set of weights. The criteria are not listed in priority order. The various criteria are valued differently by different individuals and groups. The intent is that the criteria will be used as the basis for identifying impacts and benefits of potential transportation improvements in each corridor. Data will likely be presented in a matrix format, with an assessment of each corridor for each of the evaluation criteria. The advisory committee will then make recommendations on corridors based on this information and on the value judgments they individually place on those impacts and benefits. PROPOSED CRITERIA The following set of criteria are proposed for consideration by the CETAP advisory committee: 1. Expected rate of population growth in corridor — This can be expressed as a ratio of future to existing households or population or an annual growth percentage. A higher rate of growth would indicate a greater degree of urgency in taking action in the corridor. ?. Expected rate of employment growth in corridor - This can be expressed as a ratio of future to existing employment or an annual growth percentage. A higher rate of growth would indicate a greater degree of urgency in taking action in the corridor. 3. Importance of the corridor to the County economy — This is a qualitative criterion that takes into consideration a combination of the movement of goods and job growth potential. The volume of truck traffic would be an important indicator of the economic importance, as would the level of business/industrial activity along the corridor. Higher priority would likely be placed on preservation of mobility for corridors most important to the economy. • 1,)00054 • • • 4. Existing and future congestion levels — A basic indicator would involve the volume/capacity ratios on major facilities. An indicator such as number of miles of roadway with a 0.9 or greater volume/capacity ratio (or other appropriate value) could also be used. Existing congestion is important as an indicator of the magnitude of the problems now. Future congestion is important in identifying how serious the problems are expected to be. It is important to note that congestion levels can be affected not only by highway improvements, but by transit and travel demand management improvements as well. Thus. although volume/capacity ratio is a measure applied to highways, it can be affected by transit strategies as well. 5. Physical/operational feasibility of a high capacity transportation enhancement(s) — In some corridors, the physical feasibility of a major improvement may be limited due to topography, existing development, etc. This is related to the cost. but is more of a "fatal flaw" test. Corridors that have no physically or operationally feasible capacity enhancements (highway or transit) would not be reasonable to carry forward into Phase II. However. these corridors may be considered for other types of strategies such as additional upgraded transit service or trip reduction measures. 6. Potential cost of a high capacity transportation enhancement(s) — "Ballpark" planning - level costs will be estimated for improvements being considered. There will be no engineering of alignments associated with these estimates in Phase I, but approximate, planning -level unit costs will be applied. A general indication of operating and maintenance cost requirements should be included, where appropriate. 7. Potential regional mobility enhancement/congestion relief through a transportation improvement — The benefit to mobility will be estimated based on changes in vehicle hours of travel (VHT). One or more transportation alternatives may be identified for testing in each corridor. Estimates of changes in VHT will be developed using either the travel demand model or other engineering estimation techniques, depending on the type of alternative. A greater reduction in VHT will indicate greater benefit. 8. Potential enhancement of transit access and mobility — Certain corridors may be more amenable to the improvement of mobility for transit and other alternatives to the automobile. This could be because effective transit -friendly land use strategies have a higher likelihood of being put in place in the corridor, or because the corridor is more amenable to expanded, effective transit service. This criterion is related to the SCAG livable communities performance indicator. 9. Potential reduction in vehicle miles of travel through a transportation improvement — Estimates of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) are indicators of the extent to which travel and trip making may be reduced or increased by a particular improvement. Reductions in VMT are a regional goal and, in turn, provide benefits to air quality and energy consumption. One or more transportation alternatives may be identified for testing in each corridor. Estimates of changes in VMT will be developed using either the travel demand model or other engineering estimation techniques, depending on the type of alternative. The VMT criterion is directly related to the "livable communities" criterion in the SCAG regional performance indicators. An average speed can be computed when VMT is divided by VHT. This applies to the SCAG "mobility" performance indicator. 10. Potential level of community impact — Potential impacts of improvement alternatives need to be considered in addition to the possible benefits. Both new and expanded transportation facilities can have impacts, and these potential impacts need to be recognized in making decisions. In Phase 1, the assessment of community impacts will be identified in general terms and based on multiple factors, such as potential residential and business displacements, noise. etc. 1 1. Potential level of environmental impact — Likewise, new and expanded transportation facilities can have environmental impacts. These will be assessed in general terms, keeping '1 0055 in mind that there will be no specific alignments identified in Phase I. However, the characteristics of areas through which alignments could pass will be identified and considered. This could include multiple factors, such as habitat, parklands, wetlands, cultural resources, air quality, etc. Specific types of possible environmental impacts will be identified for each corridor. 12. Probable level of community support — Although community support (or lack thereof) cannot be fully determined until more details are developed on the nature and location of possible transportation alternatives, a general sense of the level of support behind certain transportation improvements or initiatives often emerges at an earlier stage. It is important to recognize that there will be concerns from some segment of the population over almost any transportation improvement. Community support must be gauged by looking at the view of the entire population, while recognizing that local concerns over project impacts are legitimate and need to be dealt with. The localized impacts need to be balanced against the long term good of the county and its population as a whole. An important element of community support is also the views of neighboring counties to which transportation facilities may need to connect. The extent to which other counties are willing to work with Riverside County on these inter -county connections will be a significant determining factor in whether improvements in those corridors should be pursued further. 13. Equity — Improvements in corridors should not disproportionately benefit or impact particular groups. This usually needs to be considered as a criterion that shapes the transportation program as a whole, but could occasionally come into play as a factor in a single corridor. 14. Opportunity — The decisions on which corridors need to move forward should consider the importance of time frame. In some cases, there may be a window of opportunity that allows for particularly cost-effective action that supports other actions or initiatives. For example, an area plan may be developing that is ripe for a major decision on a transportation corridor. This opportunity needs to be seized at the right time to allow plans to be firmed up and move forward. Although subjective, this criterion can have a major influence which corridors should be advanced first. At the same time, the transportation action needs to fit in with other county objectives. An action should not necessarily be taken just because it is possible to take it. • • ?��,056 • • • AGENDA ITEM 6 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Possible Exchange of Funds with SCAG for the Maglev Highspeed Rail Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend Commission approval of an administrative action to exchange up to $700,000 of SB45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds, on a dollar for dollar basis, with SCAG for FHWA Planning funds with the following conditions: • That the Commission require SCAG and Caltrans to provide the Commission approval of the agreement which facilitates the access to FHWA Planning funds to support CETAP either prior to or simultaneous with the transfer or availability of Commission 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds, retroactive to July 1, 1999. • That the Commission authorize staff to amend the Activity Program for the SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds to facilitate this action. • That this action is administrative and does not change the Commission's neutral position on high speed rail technology. BACKGROUND INFORMATION At the September 8, 1999 Commission meeting in the City of Corona the Executive Director raised a proposal from SCAG to exchange, on a dollar for dollar basis, a portion of the Commission's SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds for SCAG FHWA Planning funds. The purpose of the proposal is to provide SCAG a source of non-federal funds to match the TEA 21 Maglev planning funds awarded to a Southern California maglev proposal. 000057 SCAG in conjunction with the California High Speed Rail Authority (California HSRA) has received a commitment of approximately $3.0 million of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) funds to support this effort. The matching ratio required for the funds is 2/3 federal 1/3 local. The amount of match SCAG is seeking is $1.5 million. The maglev study has a requirement that this study must be completed by June 30, 2000 so, from SCAG and the California HSRA viewpoints, time is of the essence. The discussion at the September 8th Commission meeting included an observation by Commissioner Kleindienst that the Commission has remained neutral on the issue of high speed rail technology and that approving this transaction could be construed as tilting the Commission toward maglev. Staff has reviewed the issue and presents the following information to the Commission. The Commission has a neutral position on highspeed rail technology. It is important to note that the California High Speed Rail Authority also maintains a neutral position on high speed rail technology. The Governor of California has communicated with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater that the State of California maintains a neutral position technology. This communication was included in the submittal of the application for federal maglev funding. HIGH SPEED RAIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTS There are several significant pieces of information which the Commission needs to be aware of: • The California HSRA currently has a contract with Parsons Brinkerhoff to perform a study of conventional (steel wheel on rail) high speed rail in existing rail corridors. The alignment of the study is consistent with what the Inland Empire continues to support. (From Ontario Airport to Riverside and down the 1-215 to Temecula and south to San Diego. • The California HSRA and SCAG are "partners" on the maglev study. SCAG selected the consultant (Parsons Transportation Group) and the California HSRA is hiring the project manager for the study. The SCAG/HSRA effort will study maglev in freeway rights-of-wav and the alignment in the federal application is from LAX to Union Station to Arcadia to Ontario Airport to March Air Reserve base. • Progress is being made in Europe. Very recently (approximately the last 2 weeks) the German Government entered into an agreement with Transrapid to build a maglev high speed rail system between Berlin and Hamburg. • ;►00058 • • Given this information and having discussions with both the California HSRA staff and SCAG staff, the following assessment is made. Staff recommends that the Commission view this as an administrative action to exchange funds with SCAG on a dollar for dollar basis to facilitate the study of high speed rail alternatives in the Southern California region. This action, if approved, serves the interests of the Commission, the California HSRA, the SCAG region and the Commission's goal of building high speed rail to serve the Inland Empire. With the advent of a maglev system being built in Germany and having the potential of two high speed rail studies which include alignments supported by the Inland Empire it is important that the Commission maintain a neutral position on the subject of technology along with the Governor and the California HSRA. Who knows? Perhaps there may be an operational maglev system by the time a technology selection needs to be made. COMMISSION/SCAG FUNDING RELATIONSHIPS With respect to the funding exchange, Caltrans has indicated this exchange can occur on an administrative basis. However, the Commission has formally approved $1.5 million for CETAP in the activity program for the SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds. Staff estimates the project funding which could be redirected is approximately $700,000. The reason for this is that a portion of the funds were expended in FY 1998-99 and the Transportation & Community& Systems Preservation funds (TCSP) we are pursuing requires a 20% cash match. If we are successful in securing a total of $2.0 million dollars of TCSP funds it will require $500,000 of match. To date, SCAG has provided $780,000 of FHWA Planning funds to the Commission to support CETAP. SCAG has also been a very good partner in assisting the Commission and the County of Riverside to secure additional discretionary state and federal planning funds to support the underfunded CETAP project. Recently, SCAG was successful in securing an addition& $350,000 of state discretionary planning funds and SCAG is the agency through which funds must flow from a federal earmark of approximately $1.0 million of TCSP funds. This funding flows from the FY 1999-00 federal transportation budget. SCAG and Caltrans will make every effort to obtain additional federal and state discretionary funds in FY 2000- 01 and SCAG is committed to provide a minimum of $500,000 of FY 2000-01 Overall Work Program funds to CETAP. 000059 Even if we are successful securing a similar amount of discretionary funds in the ensuing year ($1.35 million) the CETAP effort will require approximately $500,000 of additional funding to make it whole. However, if this years funding is secured and this effort is duplicated next year, we will have made significant strides to close the project funding gap. SCAG and Caltrans staff have assured staff that this exchange would not create a disruption in funding to the Commission's funding of the CETAP project. Staff recommends that the Commission require SCAG to provide approval and reimbursability of FHWA Planning funds to support CETAP either prior to or simultaneous with the transfer of Commission 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds. The reason for this condition is to maintain continuity of funding to support CETAP. Financial Assessment Project Cost $0 Source of Funds Dollar for dollar exchange of 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds for SCAG FHWA Planning funds. Included in Fiscal Year Budget n Year Included in Program Budget y Year Programmed 1999-00 2000-01 Approved Allocation y Year of Allocation 1999-00 Budget Adjustment Required y Financial Impact Not Applicable • • 000060 • • • AGENDA ITEM 7 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Annual Local Transportation Fund Planning Allocations to CVAG and WRCOG STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Plans and Programs Committee recommend Commission approval of Local Transportation Fund allocations of $168,609 to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and $350,000 to the Western Riverside Council of Governments to support transportation planning programs and functions as identified in the attached work programs. BACKGROUND INFORMATION On an annual basis the Commission, CVAG and WRCOG develop transportation planning programs. The Commission's planning program is identified in the annual budget which was approved on June 2, 1999. Staff has reviewed the attached FY 1999-00 transportation planning and administrative work programs submitted by CVAG and WRCOG and finds them consistent with the overall RCTC transportation program and planning objectives. The funding requested is consistent with the approved FY 1999-00 Commission budget. ^100061 Financial Assessment Project Cost $518,609 Source of Funds Local Transportation Fund Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation 1999-00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable • 300062 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS • FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND PROGRAM OBJECTIVES The Coachella Valley Association of Governments Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Work Plan is separated into eight program areas. Of these, three have been identified to be partially funded from Local Transportation Funds. Transportation Operations • Transportation Program Administration • Other Transportation Planning • Operational Systems Management and Administration • • Primarily an administrative function area. Consists of general transportation program administration activities and various transportation planning duties in support of the Transportation Department. Local Transportation Funds Allocated: $ 85,600 Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Programs State Routes in the Coachella Valley Congestion Management Program (CMP) • RCTC Technical Advisory Committee • Measure A/TUMF Discussions Includes staff time to support the Riverside County Congestion Management Program through permit analysis of the two non-TUMF jurisdictions and analysis of traffic patterns through the traffic count program; participation in the Surface Transportation Program/ Congestion Management -Air Quality project selection for CVAG and eastern county areas; assist RCTC staff in the selection of SB 821 projects in the Coachella Valley; provide RCTC staff with regional transportation project information for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and; support the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee. Local Transportation Funds Allocated: $ 18,609 000063 COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS • Transportation Planning, Programming and Monitoring • STIP/ RTIP Implementation • Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) Implementation • Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Update • SB 45 Participation • Signal Synchronization Project Implementation Interstate -10 Lane Addition Project Study Report Completion Palo Verde Valley Transportation Master Plan Completion This area includes staff time in support of the STIP and RTIP development, to implement the TPPS update, to coordinate updates to the CIP and to monitor and examine the impacts of implementation of SB 45, and to coordinate efforts for the signal synchronization project, the I- 10 lane addition project and the Palo Verde Valley Transportation Master Plan. Local Transportation Funds Allocated: $ 64,400 TOTAL LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS ALLOCATED: $ 168,609 _+00064 • • • Western Riverside Council of Governments Fiscal Year 1999/2000 Local Transportation Funds Programs Objectives The work Plan for FY 1999/00 is divided into 4 key program areas: ▪ Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Programs ❑ Previous year rollover ❑ Fiscal year 1999/00 Participate in the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Technical Advisory Committee and attend technical committees to assist SCAG with the RTP revision; to perform specific transportation, air quality, planning and GIS work for SCAG as part of their Overall Work Program (OWP); conduct outreach on air quality, transportation and planning issues with the public, members' jurisdictions and regional agencies; participate in the Air Quality Management Plan 2000 (AQMP) development and prepare air quality and transportation legislation analysis. $170,000 -0 State and Federal Programs ❑ CMAQ ❑ STPL Support Department of Energy Clean Cities; develop emission reduction strategies; continued work on the western county Comprehensive Transportation Plan; assist in the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles and development of infrastructure; attend regional air quality and transportation meetings to provide sub -regional input into the RTP revision and Air Quality Management Plan 2000 development process. $83,000 Regional Air Quality Programs O South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) ❑ Caltrans O EPA and CARB Participate in the development of the Air Quality Management Plan 2000, assist Inland Empire Governing Board Members, participate in the South Coast Air Quality Management District committee structure, participate/attend in EPA and Air Resources Board public hearing and workshops. $45,000 000065 * Riverside Transportation Commission Programs ❑ Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) O RCTC Technical Advisory Committee ❑ Mobile Source Reduction Committee (MSRC) ❑ Measure A and future measure extensions Provide assistance in transportation planning and air quality programs (e.g., HOT Lane project), participation in the Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation Air Quality(STP/CMAQ) project evaluation for Riverside County, assist in the evaluation of SB 821 (Bicycle and pedestrian Projects), assist RCTC in ensuring Riverside County projects are included in the revised RTP, and other planning related tasks as determined in consultation with the RCTC Executive Director. $52,000 G:\DOC\LTF99.00 • • • ,100066 • • • AGENDA ITEM 8 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Plans & Programs Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the fiscal year 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency as submitted. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) covers the three apportionment areas of the county and is comprised of plans for the municipal operators, the Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, and Regional Commuter Rail. The Commission has previously approved all of the Plans except the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA). The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency operates a dial -a -ride service for the general public in the City of Blythe and adjacent unincorporated area. Service has been provided by the Valley Resource Center under a contractual agreement with PVVTA since September 1981. The Short Range Transit Plan for the PVVTA proposes a continuation of existing services for FY 1999-2000. The SRTP was reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Committee at its September 20, 1999 meeting, and the Committee was supportive of the proposed SRTP. 000067 PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY • • I. EXISTING CONDITIONS Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) operates a dial -a -ride service for the general public in the City of Blythe and adjacent unincorporated areas. Service has been provided by the Valley Resource Center under a contractual agreement with PVVTA since September 1981. A. CURRENT POLICIES 2. GOALS - To provide a transit service which will meet the mobility needs of seniors and persons with disabilities and the transit dependent. - To monitor increases in demand for transit by the low income population and general public and to develop and implement a financially feasible service to meet this need. 3. COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES The City Manager of the City of Blythe is a member of the Riverside County Transportation Commission's Technical Advisory Committee which meets on a monthly basis to provide recommendations to the Commission on transportation related matters. The PVVTA received access to teleconferencing equipment in FY 99. This has allowed staff greater access and participation in transportation meetings which have county -wide significance. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public participation regarding plan adoption was afforded at the RCTC Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearing held in the City of Blythe on March 4, 1999, at the RCTC Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council meetings, and at the monthly meetings of the RCTC. The PVVTA Board meetings are open to the general public and comments are encouraged. B. CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE 1. SERVICE INFORMATION PVVTA operates Monday -Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. There is currently no weekend service offered. 2. SERVICE DESCRIPTION Dial -a -ride service is available to the general public in the City of Blythe as well as to the adjacent unincorporated area within an 18 mile radius of the city. A mileage reimbursement and information program, TRIP, is also available in the Valley for eligible seniors and persons with disabilities. 3. FARE STRUCTURE The existing fare structure is shown in table 2. 4. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER TRANSIT OPERATORS PVVTA is the only public transit operator in the Palo Verde Valley. • • ��0070 5. EXISTING CAPITAL AND OPERATING FACILITIES • • • The system owns three intermediate buses and two vans. The vehicle inventory is shown in Table 3. II. EVALUATION OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM A. ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM PVVTA provides dial -a -ride service in the Palo Verde Valley under contract with the Valley Resource Center. The Agency continues to make every effort to improve the advertising to make sure that all residents are aware of the service and how to use it. These marketing efforts continue to prove to be successful as shown by a 40% increase in ridership from FY97 to FY 98 (1000 psgrs/mo to 1400 psgrs/mo). The growth continues in FY 99 with the system carrying an average of 1520 passengers per month (+8.5%). The demand for service continues to require the operation of two full time vehicles, with a third in operation during peak periods (10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.). In October 1995 the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) was initiated in the Palo Verde Valley in response to comments received at unmet transit needs hearings regarding the need for assistance with long distance travel. As of March 31, 1999, 1,409 one-way trips and 51,456 miles of travel have been provided to residents of the Valley. The average trip length is 36.5 miles per trip at a reasonable cost of $11.89 per trip. B. EVALUATION OF THE SYSTEM'S NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES An unmet transit needs hearing was held in the City in March 1999 with three individuals providing comments regarding the service needs in the area. There were a couple of requests for transportation of elderly and wheelchair handicapped to the Coachella Valley area for special doctor needs. The TRIP 000071 program, which provides reimbursement to volunteer drivers, is currently available and residents could also use Greyhound services to reach the Coachella Valley. PVVTA and the TRIP Director will work to increase awareness of these services. There was also a request for transportation from the Palo Verde Valley to the Veteran's Administration Hospital in Loma Linda. RCTC and PVVTA will work jointly with SunLine to attempt to coordinate a link with the Vets Express in order to provide service to the VA hospital. Also, the TRIP program could be used to reach the Coachella Valley. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE INVOLVEMENT The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency contracts for service with the Valley Resource Center. The operation has been provided under contract since September 1981. III. SEVEN YEAR PLAN A. SERVICE LEVEL In FY 2000 the PVVTA will continue to operate two full time dial -a -ride vehicles, with a third in operation during peak ridership times (10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.). The addition of the third vehicle was required to meet demand in FY 98; additional funds have been programmed to allow the continued operation of the part-time vehicle in FY 2000. B. STATEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS A 1995 six -passenger van was destroyed in an accident in FY98 (vehicle originally slated for replacement in FY2000). This vehicle was replaced in FY99 with a 16 passenger intermediate size bus. No other vehicles are needed until FY2004, when two intermediate sized buses will need to be replaced. • • • 000072 • • • C. SEVEN-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN The seven year financial plan is shown in Table 8. D. PERFORMANCE Expected performance is shown in Table 7. E. DISABLED POLICIES AND PRACTICES The proposed plan is designed specifically to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. TABLE 1 - AB 120 ACTION PLAN UPDATE • Actions Specified in Dec -97 AB120 Plan Update including Schedule Actions Taken By Operator including Implementation Date Future Actions Planned including Implementation Date Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency is the only transit system available in the Palo Verde Valley. • f)I0074 TABLE 2 - EXISTING FARE STRUCTURE • • • CATEGORY FIXED ROUTE 1 DAR CHANGES PROPOSED PEAK AND OFF-PEAK HOURS - UP TO FIVE MILES Full Fares 31.50 None Zones(s) Elderly 31.50 Disabled 31.50 Student 31.50 Transfer(within system) Transfer(other operator) OTHER DISCOUNTS: Book of 10 Coupons 310.00 Book of 20 Coupons 320.00 PEAK AND OFF-PEAK HOURS - 6 TO 18 MILES Full Fares 32.00 Zone(s) Elderly 32.00 Disabled 32.00 Student 32.00 Transfer(within system) Transfer(other operator) OTHER DISCOUNTS: Book of 10 Coupons 314.00 Book of 20 Coupons 328.00 000075 TABLE 3 - FLEET IN VENT ORY Y EA R BUILT MFGR. MODEL SE ATS LIFT- EQUIP ? TYPE OF FUEL OWN OR LE ASE FR VEHICLES D AR VEHICLES ACTIVE SER VICE MAJ OR REHAB ? YEAR TO REPL ACE 1989 Che v. 14 Diesel Own 1 Spare ---- 1991 Chev. 6 Ga s Own 1 Spare ___ 1997 El Dorado A ero tech 16/2 Yes Diesel Own 1 1 2004 1997 El Do ra do Aerotech 16/2 Yes Diesel Own 1 1 2004 1999 El Do ra do Ae rotec h 16/2 Yes Diesel Own 1 1 2006 • • • TABLE 4 - SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE E Systemwide �❑ Fixed Route Bus ❑ Specialized Demand Response E Systemwide (excluding new service exemptions) ki General Public Demand Response ❑ ADA Paratransit ❑ New Service DATA ELEMENTS FY 1998 ANNUAL ACTUAL FY 1999 SRTP FY 1999 EST. ACTUAL FY 1999 VARIANCE Unlinked Passengers 16.9 16.6 18.9 2.3 Passenger Miles 61.6 60.0 48.0 Total Vehicle Revenue Hrs 5.4 5.8 6.2 (12.0) .40 Total Vehicle Revenue Mile 61.6 60.0 48.0 Total Vehicle Miles 61.6 60.0 48.0 Collisions -0- -0- -0- (12.0) (12.0) -0- Major Revenue Vehicle System Failures -0- -0- -0- -0- Total Passenger Complaints -0- -0- -0- -0- Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled 16.9 16.6 16.9 2.3 Total On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips •otal Operating Expenses 16.9 16.6 16.9 2.3 115.2 168. 126.6 Total Passenger Fare Revenues 19.0 20.7 21.6 (41.4) .90 Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) 96.2 147.3 105.0 (42.3) PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Operating cost Per Revenue Hour $21.33 S28.96 S20.42 Farebox Recovery Ratio 16.5% 12.3% 17% (S8.54) Subsidy Per Passenger S5.69 S8.87 S5.55 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile S1.54 52.66 52.16 Subsidy Per Revenue Hour $17.81 525.39 S16.94 Passngrs Per Revenue Mile .27 .30 .39 4.7% (S3.32) (S .50) (88.45) Revenue Miles Between Collisions 61,600 60,000 48,0 0 0 Trips On -Time Complaints Per 1,000 Passengers 100% -0- 100% -0- 100% -0- .09 (12.0) 100% Total Miles Between Roadcalls -0- • • 000077 TABLE 5 - PROJECTED PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE - SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS (Page 1 of 2) • SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS F/Y 1999 EST. ACTUAL F/Y 2000 PLAN F/Y 2001 PLAN FLEET CHARACTERISTICS Peak Hour Fleet 3 3 3 Spares for Maintenance 2 2 2 Energy Reserve Fleet 0 0 0 Vehicles Unavailable for Service 0 0 0 Total Vehicles 5 5 5 EXPANSION Vehicles to be delivered 0 0 0 REPLACEMENT Vehicles to be delivered 0 0 0 FINANCIAL DATA Fare Revenues (5000) 21.6 23.2 II 25.1 Operating Costs (5000) 126.6 142.1 153.4 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS Revenue Miles (000) 48.0 51.0 53.0 Total Miles (000) 48.0 51.0 53.0 Revenue Hours (000) 6.2 6.4 6.6 Total Hours (000) 6.2 6.4 6.6 Linked Passengers (000) 18.9 20.4 22.0 Unlinked Passengers (000) 18.9 20.4 22.0 Full -Time Equivalent Employees 3.75 3.75 3.75 TABLE 5 - PROJECTED PERFORMANCE BY SERVICE TYPE (Page 2 of 2) OE Systemwide ❑ Systemwide (excluding new service exemptions) ❑ Fixed Route Bus ik General Public Demand Response ❑ Specialized Demand Response ❑ ADA Paratransit ❑ New Service DATA ELEMENTS F/Y 1999 EST ACTUAL F/Y 2000 TARGET F/Y 2000 PLAN F/Y 2001 PLAN Unlinked Passengers 18.9 20.4 20.4 22.0 Passenger Miles 48.0 51.0 51.0 53.0 Vehicle Revenue Hours 6.2 6.4 6.4 6.6 Vehicle Revenue Miles 48.0 51.0 51.0 53.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 48.0 51.0 51.0 53.0 Total Operating Expenses 126.6 142.1 142.1 153.4 Passenger Fare Revenue 21.6 23.2 23.2 25.1 Net Operating Expenses 105.0 118.9 118.9 128.3 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS perating Cost Per Hour $20.42 S22.20 522.20 S23.18 Farebox Recovery Ratio 17% 16% 16% 16% Subsidy Per Passenger $5.55 S5.83 $5.83 $5.83 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $2.16 $2.33 $2.33 $2.39 Subsidy Per Hour $16.94 S18.58 $18.58 519.44 Subsidy Per Mile $2.16 $2.33 $2.33 $2.39 Passengers Per Hour 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.3 Passengers Per Mile .39 .40 (a) F/Y 2000 Performance Targets apply to systemwide performance only. "" These figures do not include S24,000 programmed for TRIP or $100,000 for claim settlement or S25,000 for Tranist Origin & Destination Survey .40 • .41 ��00079 TABLE 6 - SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHARACTERISTICS Service Name Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Service Type Dial -A -Ride Service Area City of Blythe & unincorporated area within an 18 mile radius of the City Days & Hours of Operation Monday - Friday - 6:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Service Operated By Valley Resource Center Primary Markets Served Senior Citizens, Persons with Disabilities and the Transit Dependent Citizen 1 Service Change Summary None Marketing Plans The Transit Agency markets its Transit service through several means of advertising (newspaper, public broadcasting channel). These marketing efforts will continue since they have proven to be very successful. X00080 •O TABLE 7 - PROJECTED PERFORMANCE BY ROUTE (Specify Name): Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Fixed Route Bus Specialized Demand Response a General Public Demand Response ❑ ADA Paratransit O New Service DATA ELEMENTS F/Y 1999 EST. ACTUAL F/Y 2000 PLAN F/Y 2001 PLAN Unlinked Passengers 18.9 20.4 22.0 Passenger Miles 48.0 51.0 53.0 Vehicle Revenue Hours 6.2 6.4 6.6 Vehicle Revenue Miles 48.0 51.0 53.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 48.0 51.0 53.0 Total Operating Expenses 126.6 142.1 153.4 Passenger Fare Revenue 21.6 23.2 25.1 Net Operating Expenses 105.0 118.9 128.3 ERFORMANCE INDICATORS Operating Cost Per Hour 520.42 $22.20 523.18 Farebox Recovery Ratio 17% 16% 16% Subsidy Per Passenger $5.55 55.83 55.83 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 52.16 52.33 S2.39 Subsidy Per Hour 516.94 518.58 519.44 Subsidy Per Mile 52.16 52.33 52.39 Passengers Per Hour 3.0 3.2 3.3 Passengers Per Mile .39 .40 .41 "Theses figures do not include 524,000 programmed for TRIP or 100,000 for claim settlement or S25,000 for Tranist Origin & Destination Survey • J) 0081 TABLE 8 - TRANSIT PR OJECTS SC AG F/Y 2000 - 2006 SRTP/RTIP 00 lv Projec t Descriptio n Program Year Expend. Y ear T otal ($000) LTF ($000) FTA ($000) Fare ($000) M easure A ($000) ST A ($000) Other ($000) O perating Assistance/DAR 1999/00 1999/00 142.1 * 118 .9 23.2 Operating A ssis tance/DAR 2000/01 2000/01 153.4 128.3 25 .1 O pera tin g A ss istance /DA R 2001/02 2001/02 213.0 187.0 26 .0 O perating Ass is tance /DAR 2002/03 2002/03 219.0 192.0 27.0 Operatin g A ssistanc e/DAR 2003/04 2003/04 225 .0 197.0 28.0 2 Replacemen t Vehicles w/lifts and tiedowns 2003/04 2003/04 200.0 200.0 O perating A ssistanc e/DAR 2004/05 2004/05 232. 0 203 .0 29.0 O pe ra ting Ass istanc e/DAR 2005/06 2005/06 240. 0 210.0 30 .0 * Exc ludes TRIP Pr ogram, Trans it 0 & D Surve y, & Continge nc y Reserves . • • • TABLE 9 - CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 2004 - Purchase two replacement transit buses 2006 - Purchase one replacement transit bus PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Replacement of transit buses PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES: Article 4/Transportation Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE Program Year Total Funds Allocated Spent To Date Type Funding Allocated N/A Reason For Delay • 1)0 0083 TABLE 10 - PROJECTED EXPENSES AND REVENUES FINANCIAL ELEMENTS F/Y 1998 ACTUAL F/Y 1999 EST. ACTUAL F/Y 2000 PLAN F/Y 2001 PLAN OPERATING EXPENSE (Less Depreciation) 142,171 153,720 291,147 174,454 OPERATING REVENUES: Prior Carryover LTF - 0 - - 0 - 38,491 - 0 - New LTF Subsidies 116,886 160,761 229,406 149,254 FTA Operating Subsidies - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - STA Subsidies - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Measure A Subsidies - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Farebox Revenues 19,759 21,600 23,200 25,100 Other Operating - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Other Grant Subsidies 5,526 15 50 100 OPERATING SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) - 0 - 28,656 - 0 - - 0 - II CAPITAL EXPENSES 101,117 50,165 - 0 - - 0 - CAPITAL REVENUES: Prior Year LTF Grants - 0 - 19,118 - 0 - - 0 - Current Year LTF Grants 101,117 40,882 - 0 - - 0 - Prior Year FTA Grants -0- - 0 - -0- -0- Current Year FTA Grants - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Prior YearSTAFunds -0- -0- - 0 - - 0 - Current Year STA Funds - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - -0- Other Grant Funds - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - CAPITAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) - 0 - 9,835 - 0 - - 0 - +)034 TABLE 11 - PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT • PRIOR AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS Prior Audit Recommendation Action(s) Taken And Results (a) City of Blythe, PVVTA and VRC staff meet to ensure an understanding of data reporting requirements and definitions. City of Blythe and PVVTA met with VRC staff to clarify the understanding of reporting requirements and definitions. Revise VRC's driver logs to separate deadhead mileage. City, Transit Agency and VRC staff initially were not aware of separating out deadhead miles. Since that clarification from the auditor, forms have been modified and deadhead miles are being tracked separately. During the audit, it was found that the vehicle service hours and FTEs for FY96 were incorrectly reported by the City's financial auditor in the State Controller's Report. The ity should review all draft reports before they re finalized. City and Transit Agency staff now review a draft audit before it is finalized and reported to the State Controller's Office. (A) If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation Is no longer relevant. • 000085 • • • AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Plans & Programs Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Director of Plans & Programs SUBJECT: Local Transportation Fund Allocations for Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency and the City of Corona STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommend the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 LTF Allocations for Transit in Riverside County as shown on the attached table. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In order for the public transit operators to claim Local Transportation Fund (LTF) money for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The Riverside County SRTP for all operators except the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) have been previously approved by the Commission. The PVVTA Plan is schedule for review and approval by the Commission as a separate agenda item. The FY 2000 LTF allocation for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency is consistent with the SRTP and the funds allocated are explicitly for the projects as stated in the Plan. The City of Corona staff has also informed Commission staff that the estimated beginning fund balance was overstated in their Short Range Transit Plan which resulted in the Commission allocating Tess LTF funds to Corona than needed to operate for the year. The SRTP for the City of Corona included a beginning fund balance of $29,067. However, City staff indicates that the Commission's auditors, Ernst & Young, are finalizing the City's audit, and they have found a deficit of $25,832 in capital funds for FY 1998-99 due to unexpected added costs in the purchase of vehicles. The auditors also discovered a surplus of $5,925 in operating funds. 000086 Therefore, the City of Corona will require an additional LTF allocation of $48,974 ($29,067+$25,832-$5,925) for FY 1999-2000. It is understood at the time the allocations are made that the fund balance estimates are preliminary and adjustments may be necessary. The revised allocation table reflects the revised carrryover amount and adjusted LTF allocation to Corona of $545,307. Project Cost Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Included in Program Budget Approved Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable Financial Assessment $278,380 Local Transportation Funds Year Programmed Year of Allocation 1999-00 • 000087 • • t FY 1999-00 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND ALLOCATI ONS FOR TRANSIT TRANSIT OPERATOR ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED RECOMMENDED OPERATING CAPITAL TOTAL CARRYOVER NON LTF LTF TRANSIT COSTS COSTS COSTS FUNDS REVENUES ALLOCATI ON BANNING $577,000 $9.000 $586,000 $17,327 BEAUMO NT $600,000 $307,000 $907,000 $0 CO RONA $651,000 $30,000 $681,000 ($19,907) RIVERSIDE SPECIAL SERVICES* $1,600,387 $150,000 $1,750,387 $150,000 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY $26,162,141 $18,061,000 $44,223,141 $0 METROLINK $4,437,500 $314,600 $4,752,100 $323,133 $0 WESTERN COUNTY TOTAL $34,028,028 $18,871,600 $52,899,628 $470,553 $24,924,173 SUNLINE TRANSIT A GENCY $12,155,000 $2,725,000 $14,880,000 $34,397 $6,746,000 COACHELLA VALLEY TOTAL $12,155,000 $2,725,000 $14,880,000 $34,397 $6,746,000 PALO VERDE VALLEY T. A. $291,147 $0 $291,147 $38,491 $23,250 PALO V ERDE VALLEY TO TAL $291,147 $0 $291,147 $38,491 $23,250 COUNTY TOTAL $46,474,175 $21,596,600 $68,070,775 $543,441 $31,693,423 " Includes $100,000 for Transportation Termin al funded through STA funds. JR: 06/22/99 Rev ised: 08/26/99; 09/15/99 $123,000 $445,673 $205,0001 $702,000 $155,600 $545,307 $352,232 $1,248,155 $24,088,341 $20,134,800 $4,428,967 $27,504,902 $8,099,603 $8,099,603 $229,406 $229,406 $35,833,911 (9091 7362235 (909) 279-3627 (FAX) AnneP@ci.corona.ca.us (E-mail) wDIu:lltrr,ead September 15, 1999 OFFICE OF: -t PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PWA-0603-99 13.54 815 WEST SIXTH STREET, P.O. BOX 940, CORONA, CALIFORNIA 91718-0940 CORONA CITY HALL - ONLINE, ALL THE TIME (http://ci.corona.ca.us) Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue #100 Riverside, CA 92501 SUBJECT: TDA CLAIM FOR FY 1999/2000 You should have received a letter dated September 2, 1999 from the Acting Public Works Director, John Licata, indicating that the City of Corona did not have any carryover funds available for the Dial -a -Ride program at the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, the City requests that the $29,067 be re -allocated back to the program. In our last conversation, you indicated that the October RCTC Commission meeting would be the next opportunity to increase the allocation to include the $29,067 for the City of Corona. Furthermore, upon completion of an audit that was just performed by Ernst & Young, it was found that there is a deficit of $25,832 in Capital Expenses for the FY 98/99 due to unexpected added costs in the purchase of vehicles. A surplus of $5,925 was identified in Operating Funds, therefore, the City is seeking RCTC's permission to apply these funds towards the deficit leaving a balance of $19,907 in unfunded capital expense. The City hereby requests an additional $19,907 allocation to cover the shortfall in capita! expenses due to the purchase of vehicles during FY 98/99. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, i ANNE PALATINO Transportation Planner AP/Irt X00089 (909) 736-2235 (909) 279-3627 (FAX) AnnePgci.corona.ca.us • • PWA-0575-99 1.14 OFFICE OF: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 815 WEST SIXTH STREET (P.O. BOX 940), CORONA, CALIFORNIA 91718-0940 September 2, 1999 CORONA CITY HALL - ONLINE, ALL THE TIME http://www.ci.corona.ca.us) Jerry Rivera, Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue #100 Riverside, CA 92501 SUBJECT: TDA CLAIM FORM FOR FY 1999-2000 The TDA Local Transportation Fund Claim (LTF) form for the amount of $496,333 is in the process of being completed and will be sent to you as soon as all signatures are secured. Upon review of the "FY 99/00 LTF Allocations for Transit" table, dated June 22, 1999, it came to my attention that the estimated carryover funds in the amount of $29,067 is shown as available funds. This is incorrect. The City does not have carryover funds, in fact, funds had to be transferred into the Dial -A -Ride account from another fund. Supporting documentation is attached. Please consider this request for the required funds and revise the allocation for the City of Corona to reflect the additional $29,067 necessary for Operations of the Transit Service for FY 99/00. If you have any questions, please call Anne Palatino, Transportation Planner at (909) 736-2235 or me at (909) 736-2483. incerely, OHN N. LICATA Acting Public Works Director JNL/AP/Irt G: \GC\DOCS\pwa057599. d oc 000090 • • AGENDA ITEM 10 • • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Plans & Programs Committee FROM: Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Hideo Sugita, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: FY 1999-2000 State Transit Assistance Allocations and Resolution No. 99-012, "A Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds" STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Committee recommend the Commission approve the FY 1999-2000 State Transit Assistance Fund allocations in Riverside County as presented on the attached table and adopt Resolution No. 99-012. BACKGROUND INFORMATION In order for the public transit operators to claim State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the approved FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) identified for funding with State Transit Assistance funds. When the SRTP was prepared, the operators assumed for planning purposes that the State appropriation of funds would be the same as the previous year. According to the State Controller's Office, the amount of STA funds that are expected to be received in Riverside County for FY 2000 is $2,395,666 ($2,170,936 discretionary pot, $224,730 operators specific pot). An additional $108,508 in unapportioned STA funds is also available, bringing the total to $2,504,174. The attached table outlines the specific operators' allocations which need to be approved by the Commission. The State allocated non -discretionary funds will be used first with the balance derived from the discretionary allocation. ►"00091. Financial Assessment Project Cost $ 1,870,095 Source of Funds State Transit Assistance Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation 1999-00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable • • • '00092 Attachment A • State Transit Assistance Fiscal Year 2000 Allocation County Allocation Western County Bus Rail Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Current Year Allocation Requests per SRTP Banning $9,000 Beaumont $145,000 Corona $15,000 Riverside Transit Agency $967,095 SunLine Transit Agency $734,000 Total Current Year Funding Requests $1,870,095 $1,136,095 $0 $734.000 $0 • • f:\users\bechtelc\lotus\99staf.wk4 21 -Sept -99 100093 RESOLUTION NO. 99-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plan and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268.9, as applicable; and WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's allocations from the state transit assistance fund Oand from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979 from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license. WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance Section 1808.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code section 99251. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 1999-00 as detailed in Attachment A. 000094 This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Approved and adopted this 13th day of October, 1999. Jack F. van Haaster, Chairperson Riverside County Transportation Commission Attest: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Riverside County Transportation Commission 000095 AGENDA ITEM 11 THIS ITEM WILL BE PROVIDED BY WAY OF RAIL CLIPS • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION DATE: September 27, 1999 TO: Plans & Programs Committee FROM: Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The most recent rail operating reports and related materials are provided as a side packet at Committee meetings. Staff will be prepared to discuss these materials at the Committee's direction. �n0096 • • • leMETROLINK SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 TO: MEMBERS, ALTERNATES AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM: DAVID SOLOW SUBJECT: WEEKLY PROGRESS: WEEK OF AUGUST 30 - SEPTEMBER 4 04'7548Southern California Regional Rail Authority 700 Souty t 26th Floo: Los A - r....: a � y�:`'17-4101 MEDIA AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS At approximately 8:50 p.m. on Saturday evening, San Bernardino Line train 390 (the last eastbound train from Los Angeles to Riverside via San Bernardino) encountered a male trespasser lying on the tracks near Indian Hill Avenue in Claremont. The train engineer sounded the horn but the individual did not move. Emergency braking was applied but the train was not able to stop in time and struck the trespasser who died instantly. Local authorities consider the incident a suicide. The train was delayed approximately 80 minutes while Amtrak staff, Metrolink Sheriffs deputies, Claremont Police Department, and the Los Angeles County Coroner responded to the scene. There were no injuries to passengers or crew members reported. The conductor asked to be relieved of duty and a substitute conductor proceeded with the train to Riverside. ROLLING STOCK GRANT RELEASED The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has approved our grant application for $35 million to purchase additional rolling stock. The grant approval process has taken almost a year, partly because this was SCRRAs first direct award of Federal funds. These funds along with $8.5 million in prior State and local funds and an additional $11.5 million recently allocated to the SCRRA by the State will be used to purchase two locomotives and approximately 28 rail cars which should be available for revenue service within two years. Along with the State BOE decision on tax exemptions, it's been a good week in terms of equipment purchases. METROLINK INTERNET WEB SITE IS NOW "UP" As you may be aware, our Web site has been "down" for the past few days. Anyone wishing to view our site may view it at http:/www.metrolinktrains.com. Staff is continuing to make some technical changes behind -the -scenes which should prevent such an unusual occurrence, again. Thank you for your patience. '.0009'7 Members. Alternates and Executive Directors Weekly Update: Week of August 30 - September 4 September 7, 1999 Page 3 MARKETING AND PASSENGER SERVICES DEPARTMENT Take a Thrill Ride to the LA County Fair on Sept. 11. 18 & 25th Metrolink Saturday Explorer Service has been expanded for the Los Angeles Co. Fair on three lines. Regular San Bernardino Saturday service will make 12 special stops at Fairplex to drop off fairgoers. Easy connections in Los Angeles at 8:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. and 1:55 p.m. from the Antelope Valley Line to San Bernardino Saturday service is available. Special service from Chatsworth departs at 10:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. with connections in Los Angeles to the Saturday San Bernardino Line. This year Metrolink is offering expanded late night service back to Lancaster, Chatsworth, San Bernardino and Riverside with trains departing after 10:00 p.m. for the night owls. Monkey Business on Metrolink On Sunday, September 12 a Sony commercial is scheduled to be shot using Metrolink equipment from the Central Maintenance Facility. Trained cappuccino monkeys (with handlers) will be used during the commercial while onboard the train. Farewell to Summer Beach Trains Labor Day weekend marked the end of the summer beach trains for this year. Ridership for the two trains was low due to the holiday weekend. Metrolink carried approximately 450 (900 trips). There will be a special beach train to the annual Chowder Festival on Sunday, October 3rd. ?00098 eMETROLINK, 047603Southern California Regional Rail Authority 700 South Flower Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-4101 410 • • SEI'I EMBER 13, 1999 TO: MEMBERS, ALTERNATES AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS FROM: DAVID SOLOW SUBJECT: WEEKLY PROGRESS: WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 6 - SEI-' h STATE BOARD DECISION I didn't get the opportunity at the Board meeting to discuss this, but listed below is the fiscal impact, in terms of taxes not yet paid or potentially due, of the BOE decision of September 1. PURCHASE CONTRACTOR 8 GM Locos 2 Philip Morris -Locos 25 Bombardier Cars State for SCRRA SALES TAX STATUS $1.45M Paid (approximate) SCRRA SCRRA Sub Total Future Purchase 1 $.045M 1 Not Paid $3.09M $3.54M Not Paid SCRRA $4.6 M Not Paid jestimate) Total $9.60M 1 Funded with $35 M + $11.5 M federal, and $8.45M state and local Many thanks to all who assisted in this victory: Board Members: Davis, Catz and Clifford Legal Expertise: Rick Richman, O'Melveny & Myers Ike Berkman, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott Chuck Spitulnik, Hopkins Sr Sutter Helen Parker, County Counsel Legislative Reps: D. J. Smith and Tim Egan SCRRA Staff: Joanna Capelle, Bill Lydon and Anne Louise Rice 1 ii00099 Members, Alternates and Executive Directors Weekly Update: Week of September 6 - September 11 September 13, 1999 Page 2 Y2K As you would expect, given the age of our computer equipment, we had no impact by the 9999 phenomena. We will work with our contractors to ensure an error -free January 1, 2000. As of now, we don't anticipate any problems. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT Riverside Line: Union Pacific service improved during the week, although the on -time performance continues to fall below the 90% benchmark that UP has committed to. Staff is meeting with UP in Omaha this week to discuss the poor performance. Orange County Line: On Friday afternoon, while a contractor was installing a pedestrian underpass in Lake Forest, between Irvine and San Juan Capistrano, a cave in occurred (see below). As a result, all passenger and freight service south of Irvine, in both directions was disrupted on Friday evening. Trains operated as much as 43" late, and one Inland Empire train (#806, 5:05 p.m. from San Juan Capistrano) originated at Irvine. The track was completely shut down most of Saturday. No Metrolink trains were affected, but Amtrak operated a bus bridge between Irvine and San Juan Capistrano most of Saturday. ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION The Bridges at Oso Creek - Orange County Line The bridge work scheduled for last weekend was canceled because the bridge fabricator, for the Orange County Flood District, shipped the wrong abutment. Work on the No. 2 track is now scheduled for next weekend. Trains will continue to run on the No. 1 track while the bridge is changed. Ridge Road Pedestrian Underpass - Orange County Line On Friday, September 10, the City of Lake Forest began a weekend tunneling operation to install a pedestrian underpass between Irvine and Mission Viejo at Ridge Road, which is a narrow vehicle underpass. Normally this method of construction is not disruptive of the railroad embankment, however the contractor encountered an 90.0100 Members, Alternates and Executive Directors Weekly Update: Week of September 6 - September 11 September 13, 1999 Page 3 • • • abandoned timber structure. This caused the ground to collapse under the north track as the old timbers were dislodged. Our inspectors protected train traffic and the contractor for the city pumped slurry cement into the void to stabilize it. The north track was taken out of service and the south track was restricted. The slurry would not hold because of the movement of the box, so both tracks were taken out of service. SCRRA employees monitored the situation all night. Because a void opened up under both tracks, the contractor was allowed to continue to push the box into the fill until it reached its final resting place at 12:00 noon on Saturday, September 11. At this point, a slurry was added and allowed to firm up and ballast was placed under the track and surfaced. The No. 2 track was opened at 5:19 P.M., and the No. 1 track was opened at 9:20 P.M., both on Saturday, September 11. MARKETING AND PASSENGER SERVICES DEPARTMENT Focus on Communication Metrolink held two focus groups with current riders last week. The groups' members discussed their perspectives on how well Metrolink communicates with them both on a routine basis and when an unusual incident or service disruption occurs. This is the first step in developing an instrument to measure our riders' satisfaction with our communications and their communication preferences and expectations. Los Angeles County Fair This Saturday was the beginning of the 1999 LA County Fair service. Metrolink operated special service on the Ventura Co. Line from Chatsworth. Expanded Saturday Explorer Service on the Antelope Valley and San Bernardino/Riverside Lines provided late night service from the fairgrounds after 10:00 p.m. Ridership for the weekend was nearly 1,200 passenger trips, which is almost double from the first weekend last year. CMF was a Zoo on Sunday A Sony commercial was shot at the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF) and onboard a Metrolink train Sunday. The spot included typical commuters including business people, teenagers and cappuccino monkeys. A Merrill Lynch commercial is scheduled for this Sunday using a Metrolink train. X100101 Page 1 of 3 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:Y5-32=6700 (PDT) From: Susan Cornelison <suzia311@yahoo.com> J Block address Subject: BABY, YOU CAN HAVE MY CAR To: Suzia311@yahoo.com METROLINK eNEWS Monday, September 6, 1999 Orange County Register BABY, YOU CAN HAVE MY CAR TRANSPORTATION: There are a few in O.C. who get around quite nicely, thank you, without owning an automobile. By JENIFER B. McKIM Jane Reifer doesn't immediately offer this bit of personal information to her clients - but she doesn't have a car. No, the Fullerton businesswoman hasn't lost her license in a scuffle with the law. Yes, she can afford to buy a vehicle. But the 34 -year -old Southern California native refuses to join the car culture and become a slave to car payments or insurance.. Instead, she takes the bus, the train, a cab, or her feet - sometimes a combination of all four - to job sites from San Clemente to Santa Monica. "I spend more time traveling than most people," said Reifer, who runs a one -woman business called Clutter Control Organizing Services. "On the other hand, I never have to search for parking, I don't have to stop and fill a gas tank." This dark-haired, green-eyed entrepreneur joins a small but faithful group of Orange County residents who choose to live without a car. They are often quiet about it, sometimes even embarrassed, but they say they can get along just fine without an auto. "It's much healthier," said property manager and developer Jay Laessi, co-founder of a support -advocacy group, Auto -Free Orange County. "I love my lifestyle without a car." It is unclear how many people like Reifer and Laessi exist in this county of 2.7 million. But Auto -Free Orange County - a group formed in 1996 to support people who choose to live without cars or drive less - says it has 200 members, 100 of whom have abandoned their cars altogether. Such people buck a national trend in which cars per capita continue to grow But Laessi expects more people to reject their cars as roads become more congested, car costs rise, and the government promotes "transit -oriented development." "This is an emerging market," said Laessi, who hopes to start auto -free groups in other Southern California areas. "The alternative is much more congestion." Reifer, who grew up in Garden Grove, has never had a driver's license or even been in the driver's seat of an automobile. Somehow, teen lust for the open road bypassed her. She had a social conscience. "The car society in Orange County marginalized everybody who can't drive," Reifer said, sitting on her porch in Fullerton, across the street from a parking lot. "I thought it didn't need to be like this." LIFESTYLE NOT HAMPERED Reifer moved to Fullerton about 20 years ago - embracing an older, -4 00102 Paize 2 of • • • walkable city with a Metrolink stop, a bus terminal, and one of the county's only taxi stands. She follows two of Auto -Free Orange County's biggest tips - choose your city to fit your lifestyle and live close to public transit. She buys groceries either by car-pooling with a friend or taking a cab. And she's a master of public transportation - in fact she's thinking of writing an insider's guide to getting around Orange County without a car Reifer says she could afford a car on her $40,000 salary. But without one she spends a maximum of $150 a month on transportation costs. People in Los Angeles and Orange counties spend an average of $6,291 a year owning and maintaining a car, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Laessi, for example, lives in a $1,400 -a -month luxury apartment in Laguna Beach, equipped with pools and Jacuzzis, something he says would be harder to do if he also were maintaining a car. Fullerton attorney Judith Kaluzny agrees. Kaluzny says she could afford an automobile on her $50,000 to $60,000 salary. But when her car was totaled almost two years ago she decided to keep the insurance money and cash she used to spend maintaining her car. "I had never really calculated it, but I certainly feel like I have more money," Kaluzny said. At first Kaluzny was uncomfortable hopping a bus, but soon she found she could take the bus to court and review her files. "I get to court calm and relaxed," she said. SOME EMBARRASSED The decision to live without a car is not simple, however. The 64 -year -old family law attorney doesn't like to make her choice a big issue. "I would be embarrassed to tell them I don't have a car," Kaluzny said. "(People) probably think I'm weird." This is a common feeling among people who choose not to have cars in Orange County, said Laessi. Indeed, many men declined to have their names used for this article because they were uncomfortable about publicizing their decision, he said. Laessi - a 43 -year -old bachelor - said he is over any discomfort. He decided to get rid of his car three years ago after becoming involved in protests against the building of the San Joaquin Hills (73) Toll Road. He donated his 5 -year -old Suzuki Samurai to charity and sensed people's doubt that he did so voluntarily. Starting Auto -Free Orange County, he said, gave him more legitimacy. "I knew people thought that I had a DUI," said Laessi. "I got rid of (the car) and improved my lifestyle." The group has grown from two members in 1996. Newcomers who need counseling receive a conference call in which they are asked a series of lifestyle questions, including whether they are married, where they work, and whether they have any hobbies. Last month, Auto -Free Orange County launched a promotional campaign by leaving magazines on buses. Reifer lives near a bus stop. She also is walking distance to the commuter rail and a taxi stand. She arms herself with Mace and a stun gun. She carries bus and train schedules as well as phone numbers of some of her favorite taxi drivers. She also needs patience. Lots of it. On a recent day, Reifer needed to get to a job in Irvine at 9 a.m. In the past, she has taken the bus, an effort that could take up to three hours and three transfers. Instead, she decided to splurge on Metrolink and a cab. But after the train ride it took three phone calls and 30 minutes at the Irvine station for a cab to arrive. 000103 PaLle 3 of3 "Sometimes you have to have immense patience," she said. Staff writer Jenifer B. McKim can be reached by phone at (714) 285-2864 or by e-mail at mckim@link.freedom.com. 11)(3104 Paee 1 of 1 From: "Hidalgo, Peter" <HIDALGOP@scrra.net> To: Subject: MAN HIT BY METROLINK TRAIN DIES Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:32:02 -0700 METROLINK eNEWS Monday, September 6, 1999 Inland Valley Daily Bulletin MAN HIT BY METROLINK TRAIN DIES CLAREMONT -- A 30 -year -old man from Sweden was killed when he was struck by a Metrolink train Saturday night in.what police believe was a suicide. S'gt. Cliff Dean said the train's engineer spotted the man lying prone on the tracks at Indian Hill Boulevard and Santa Fe Street just before 9 p.m. He had laid his head on one of the rails, the engineer told police. The engineer sounded his horn, but the man did not move, Dean said. The train struck him at 50 mph before the engineer could hit the emergency brake, he said. "It had all the apparent markings of a suicide," Dean said. Police identified the man through his passport photographs. His name was being withheld pending notification of family. "We don't know what he was doing (in the United States)," Dean said. Police were unsure which direction the train was heading, but Sgt. Ann Ramirez of the Transit Service Bureau speculated it was likely eastbound. The collision stopped the train for at least 40 minutes, Ramirez said. 000105 9/7/99 Pate 1 of 1 From: "Hidalgo, Peter" <HIDALGOP@scrra.net> To: Subject: METROLINK SELLING TICKETS FOR ROSE PARADE PACKAGE Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:42:15 -0700 METROLINK eNEWS Published Monday, August 30, 1999 Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Region: METROLINK SELLING TICKETS FOR ROSE PARADE PACKAGE David Seaton Metrolink is selling $80 tickets for its Metrolink Rose Parade Express package, which includes round-trip train seats, lunch and shuttle service to the parade in Pasadena on Jan. 1. Passengers can board the Rose Parade Express at stations in San Bernardino, Rialto, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Montclair, Claremont, Pomona, Covina and Baldwin Park. Limited number of tickets are available. Orders must be received by Oct. 29. Information: (800) 371 -LINK. 1300106 9/7/99 Pace 1 of 3 • From: "Hidalgo, Peter" <HIDALGOP@scrra.net> To: Subject: FAIRPLEX GETS SET FOR TRAFFIC ONSLAUGHT Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 08:37:24 -0700 METROLINK eNEWS Published Monday, September 6, 1999 Inland Valley Daily Bulletin FAIRPLEX GETS SET FOR TRAFFIC ONSLAUGHT Caltrans, Metrolink and shuttle service to alleviate crunch By Michael Cicchese, Staff Writer POMONA -- When the Highland -based Morrison Knudsen Corp. won a $15.9 million contract to replace the aging concrete on Interstate 10, the company knew September would be a slow month. The now -familiar closures of lanes on Interstate 10 from its interchange with Interstate 210 and the 57 Freeway to Garey Avenue that started in the spring will be curtailed for the duration of the Los Angeles County Fair, Sept. 9 to 26. • • "Part of our agreement with Caltrans is not to have closures during major events at the Fairplex," said Sid Robinson, Fairplex spokesman. Terms of the pavement replacement contract call for all work to stop three hours before the fair opens and work cannot resume until two hours after the fair closes. With the fair hours being 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. Mondays through Thursday, 11 a m. to 11 p.m. on Fridays, 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Saturdays and 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Sundays, lane closures will not start any earlier than midnight and reopen no later than 8 a.m. So with all those freeway lanes wide open, getting to and from the fair should be no problem, right? That's the hope Fairplex and Pomona police officials have as they gear up for the annual traffic boom. The fair's theme may be "Diversity," but "alternative routes and transportation" is the goal for those charged with preventing gridlock around the Fairplex. "People need to know that Fairplex (Drive) is not the only way to get to the fair," said Sgt. Ken Gillestie. "People know, of one way to get there and it's hard to break from that route." An alternative to Fairplex Drive for fairgoers coming in via Interstate 10 is White Avenue. "For those coming from points north or east of us, Arrow Highway is an excellent route to the fair," Gillestie said. "There is usually ample parking off of Arrow." 9/7/99 fiOO1o7 Pace2of; Gillestie warned that parking in residential neighborhoods or on dirt lots is illegal during the fair and cars will be towed or cited. In the past, Gate 17, near where Fairplex Drive and McKinley Avenue meet, has been the most heavily used. Robinson suggested fairgoers look to the large lot on White Avenue, accessed by Gates 7 and 14, as an alternative. "We do have tram service to all the parking lots and people can take the tunnel (under White Avenue), which is just as convenient," Robinson said. Parking prices range from $5 for general parking to $8 for preferred, $10 at the Sheraton Suites Fairplex Hotel and $15 for valet parking. Reversible lanes for entering and exiting the gates played a part in easing the car crunch during peak periods last year, Robinson said. Another relief valve for the weekends was Metrolink train service to the Fairplex on Saturdays. A 9:35 a.m. Saturday train from San Bernardino, with stops in Rialto, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, Montclair and Claremont, will get fairgoers to the Fairplex by 10:15 a.m. There also are Fairplex-bound trains leaving San Bernardino at 11:50 a.m., 1:25, 3:52 and 6:17 p.m. The last San Bernardino -bound train from the Fairplex leaves at 10 p.m. The 8:30 a.m. train from Union Station in Los Angeles, with stops in El Monte, Baldwin Park and Covina, arrives at the Fairplex at 9:12 a.m. The other Fairplex-bound trains from Los Angeles leave Union Station at 11:30 a.m., 1:55, 3:10, 5:35 and 8 p.m. Metrolink trains will also run along the Antelope Valley Line and the Ventura County Line through the San Fernando Valley to Union Station, where fairgoers can connect with trains to the Fairplex. Those Saturday trains will stop at a special platform set up on the north end of the Fairplex, with shuttle vans used to bring passengers to the gates. Last year Foothill Transit provided bus service from the Pomona Metrolink station to Fairplex on weekdays. That service, however, will not be offered this year, said Joyce Baner, director of marketing for Foothill Transit. "There was not enough ridership last year to justify spending the additional money for that service," she said. There will be additional bus trips on the 479 and 480 Foothill Transit bus lines during the fair. Ten trips on weekdays and 25 on weekends will be added to line 479, which starts at Cal Poly Pomona. Twenty trips will be added on weekends on line 480, which extends to Los Angeles. 00►0108 • • • 9/7/99 PaLte 1 of 2 • Subject: ASSEMBLY REJECTS SALES TAX PROPOSAL To: Suzia3 1 1@yahoo.com METROLINK eNEWS Published Wednesday, September 8, 1999 Sacramento Bee ASSEMBLY REJECTS SALES TAX PROPOSAL SACRAMENTO. (AP) -- Assembly Republicans have rejected a proposal' to let counties use a majority vote to raise the sales taxes they use to finance transportation projects. • • Counties currently need a two-thirds vote to boost sales taxes, a level of support that is more difficult to obtain. The proposed constitutional amendment that would have changed that needed backing from two-thirds of the 80 -member Assembly, but the vote was only 46-27 Tuesday. Democrats have a majority in both houses, but needed Republican support to get a two-thirds vote. If the proposal by Senate leader John Burton, D -San Francisco, had been approved by the Assembly, it would have gone to California voters next year. Currently, 18 counties that represent 80 percent of the state's population have passed local transportation sales tax increases by majority votes. Most of those tax hikes must be reauthorized by local voters 15 to 20 years after initial passage. In 1986, voters approved Proposition 62, an initiative that requires two-thirds voter approval for tax increases earmarked for specific purposes. The Supreme Court upheld that requirement. .• Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, D -Martinez, said the proposed amendment is backed by local governments and business groups, which say the money is needed for local transportation projects. Republicans said transportation projects should be funded from current highway -related taxes, such as the gasoline tax. They propose raising money for public works projects by cutting back oh state spending. "All we have to do is discipline our spending habit and we can have an abundance of money for infrastructure," said Minority Leader Scott Baugh, R -Huntington Beach. 000109 Paize 1 of 2 To: Subject: GOP DEFEATS TRANSIT TAX PLAN IN ASSEMBLY Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:23:54 -0700 METROLINK eNEWS Published Wednesday, September 8, 1999 Los Angeles Times GOP DEFEATS TRANSIT TAX PLAN IN ASSEMBLY Capitol: Ballot measure would have extended existing half -cent sales taxes for transportation, .and allowed other counties to adopt them with simple majorities. By VIRGINIA ELLIS, NANCY HILL-HOLTZMAN, Times Staff Writers SACRAMENTO --In an issue expected to reverberate through next year's elections, Assembly Republicans on Tuesday killed the Democrats' plan for rehabilitating California's deteriorating transportation system, accusing the majority party of engaging in a "taxing jubilee." Invoking the principles of Proposition 13 and other anti -tax measures, Republicans defeated a.proposed constitutional amendment (SCA 3) that would have allowed voters in many counties to approve by a simple majority a half -cent sales tax earmarked for transportation. The Republican solidarity denied Democrats the two-thirds vote needed to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. "Assembly Republicans had the opportunity . . . to show some leadership on the state's transportation crisis," said the plan's author, state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D -San Francisco). "I'm baffled that they instead turned their backs on the business community and . . . commuters." But for Republicans, who had planned their move for weeks, the Burton amendment afforded the first opportunity to draw a clear distinction between the parties over an issue on which the GOP had both leverage and a position it could sell to voters. Republican leaders said there was little risk of Democratic retribution, because. the majority party had already jettisoned most significant GOP legislation this year. "We don't have much to lose," said Assembly Republican Leader Scott Baugh (R -Huntington Beach). In most urban counties but not Los Angeles, the ballot measure would have extended existing half -cent transportation sales taxes for 20 years beyond their expiration dates and raised an estimated $41 billion for highway needs. If the amendment had won statewide approval, counties without such a half -cent tax could have adopted one with the assent of a simple majority of voters. onolio 9/8/99 Paue 2 of 2 Los Angeles is the only county that would not have been affected by the Democrats' proposal, because it has a permanent one -cent transportation sales tax. Republicans set the stage for battle by unveiling a counterproposal that would have dedicated a small percentage of tax revenue growth to transportation and capital improvements. They insisted that their proposal, unlike the Democratic approach, would have offered more money for projects --$75 billion to $125 billion --without raising taxes or increasing the state's bond debt. But Democrats quickly voted it down, saying the Republicans' "20-20 Vision" plan would have eventually diverted money from health, education and other vital programs. "We have blurred vision and voodoo math here," said Assemblyman Tom Torlakson (D -Antioch). Minutes later, Republicans turned the tables, refusing to cast a single vote for the plan that Burton had shepherded through the Senate as the cornerstone of a Democratic effort to rebuild the state's road system. Another part of the plan, a proposed.$16-billion bond issue, is stalled in a committee and not expected to be considered until next year. Both Republicans and Democrats predict4d that the other party's action would give them fodder for next year';s election debates. "I think it's a beautiful political issue," said Assemblyman Dick Floyd (D -Wilmington). "I want to be on drive time radio and say, 'Hey, you that are stuck on the freeway again, look what your Republican Assembly members did.' " Earlier in the day, Baugh said GOP lawmakers will tour the state identifying road projects that their proposal would have built. Assemblyman Robert Pacheco (R -Walnut) said Republicans will also remind voters that the Democratic plan would have undermined a principle of Proposition 13: that all local tax increases require a two-thirds majority vote. "(The Democratic plan] is a hidden way of attacking the two-thirds vote," he said. Torlakson, who presented the proposal in the Assembly, said the two-thirds requirement applies to local taxes, not to a statewide measure such as the constitutional amendment. Copyright 1999 Los Angeles Times. All Rights Reserved 'i 0 0111 ` ' 9/8/99 Page 1 of To: Subject: GOP EXPECTED TO DELAY FEDERAL SPENDING BILL Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 08:19:52 -0700 METROLINK eNEWS Published Wednesday, September 8, 1999 Associated Press GOP'EXPECTED TO DELAY FEDERAL SPENDING BILL By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress is returning from its summer break with just 23 calendar days remaining until the new federal fiscal year begins - and big questions about how it will resolve an inevitable spending showdown with President Clinton. With the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2000 just ahead, lawmakers have sent Clinton just two of the 13 annual spending bills that keep federal agencies functioning. No one anticipates a replay of the 1995-1996 government shutdowns that Democrats used to brand Republicans as extremists, but it is unclear precisely how the clash will conclude. Legislators swing back into business today after a four -week recess. The House plans to debate a $90 billion measure financing housing, veterans and science programs, while the Senate resumes consideration of a $14 billion bill covering land and cultural programs. Sometime next week, Clinton is expected to send Congress a multibillion -dollar request for more spending for farmers, Kosovo and perhaps the Turkey earthquake. It is unclear how it would be financed. Clinton and lawmakers face two major problems. Clinton wants to spend at least $20 billion more than Republicans. And both sides - particularly the GOP - are struggling to figure out how to honor their pledges to not spend huge Social Security surpluses. We have stiffened our resolve not to spend Social. Security, " said John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R -I11. But Feehery did not say how they would achieve that. Few.expect they will because of fierce pressure.from members of both parties to boost spending for defense and domestic programs, and a lack of consensus over how to pay for the extra money. Highlighting their problems, congressional Republicans probably will delay writing the year's biggest spending bill until at least next week, a $300 billion measure financing health, education and other programs. The House and Senate appropriations committees planned to write separate versions of the bill this week. But GOP and Democratic aides in both chambers said the legislation would probably be delayed, citing the Republicans' ongoing struggle over financing the measure without using 000112 9/8/99 Pule 2 of the Social Security surplus. • • • Republicans must find about $16 billion in savings if they are to avoid using Social Security funds to help pay for the measure. Among the options they have considered are cutting federal payments to the states for Medicaid, welfare and child support enforcement. The nation's governors have opposed those proposals. So far, Clinton has issued a half -dozen veto threats. Disputes include: -Provisions on the Senate Interior bill affecting mining, timber and other industries using federal lands. -Cuts in Clinton's requests for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, housing and veterans approved by the House Appropriations Committee. -How much emergency aid to grant farmers hurt by low commodity prices and drought. Many Democrats want more than the $7.4 billion the Senate has approved. The House hasn't approved any. -House- and Senate -approved cuts in the departments of Commerce, Justice and State, including Clinton's plan to continue helping communities hire police officers. - House language restricting U.S. family planing aid abroad. - The House's decision to kill Pentagon plans'to buy F-22 fighter planes. - Senate language that would limit federal mass transit aid for states, in effect cutting funds for California and New York. Further highlighting problems facing the GOP, an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that congressional spending proposals, if enacted, would eat into Social Security's surplus - even without the labor -health bill. In July, the CBO projected a fiscal 2000 surplus of $14 billion, excluding Social Security. But in an Aug. 26 letter to Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., CBO Director Dan Crippen said that based on assumptions adopted so far by lawmakers, that surplus would become a $13 billion deficit if House proposals became law and a $16 billion shortfall under Senate plans. The CBO said expenditures eating away the surplus included $5 billion Republicans would use next year for their 10 -year, $792 billion tax cut; the House's decision to declare the 2000 census a budget emergency so its $4 billion price tag could come from the surplus; and $7 billion for Senate -passed aid to farmers. In addition, the House has ordered the CBO to boost its savings estimates by $17 billion, while the Senate has directed it to add $16 billion in savings, Crippen wrote. 000113 9/8/99 Page 1 of To: Subject: MTA'S METRO RED LINE RIDERSHIP TOPS METRO BLUE LINE NUMBERS FOR F IRST TIME Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:44:22 -0700 METROLINK eNEWS Published Tuesday, August 24, 1999 MTA News Release MTA'S METRO RED LINE RIDERSHIP TOPS METRO BLUE LINE NUMBERS FOR FIRST TIME LOS ANGELES, CA -- For the first time in its six -and -a -half year history, the Metro Red Line subway has surpassed its sister rail line, the Metro Blue Line, in ridership. In July, the first full month of operation of the 4.6 -mile Vermont/Hollywood extension, the Metro Red fine notched a record 59,000 average weekday boardings, an increase of nearly 21,000 over the May figure of 38,250 average weekday boardings. Ridership on the Metro Blue Line grew in July to 54,800 average weekday boardings, also an all-time high. It is a development that Keith Killough, deputy executive officer for countywide planning, says was not unexpected. "Many Angelenos still are not aware of where the rail system goes and what destinations it serves, but a synergy is beginning to develop," said Killough. "As the rail system grows, so too will ridership." "When the North Hollywood extension of the Metro Red Line opens in mid -2000, expect ridership to attain levels that few would have believed not too long ago," added Killough. With the addition of the 4.6 -mile Vermont/Hollywood extension, the Metro Red Line spans 11.1 miles from Union Station to Wilshire/Western and to Hollywood/Vine. The 22 -mile -long Metro Blue Line reaches from downtown Los Angeles to Long Beach and is the nation's busiest light rail line. The 20 -mile -long Metro Green Line stretches from Norwalk to Redondo Beach and operates primarily in the center median of the 105 (Century) Freeway. # # # #00)0114 9/8/99 • Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 01:55:22 EDT Subject: Rai1PAC September E -Letter To: Train97@aol.com RailPAC & InterRail E -Letter Vol. I Number 7 September 1999 1008 10th St -703, Sacramento, CA 95814-3584 Edited by Russ Jackson & Ric Silver http://www.trainweb.com/railpac/ RicSilver@aol.com 916-498-9662 • • (note: some items from the last E -letter has been posted again. There's a reason for that....Some of that information is still important and relevant. Also, our membership is growing each month and we keep getting e-mail addresses from our older members. I've italized for easy identification). Web Site: Our Web Page has been cross linked to over 30 different web pages. Please let us know if you know of any other pages we should link to our page. Position Papers: From time to time Rai1PAC will issue a position papers on a rail issue or project in California. Before it becomes official it is reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors. Then it is posted to RailPAC members who are on the E-mail list for review and comment. Then it becomes the official position of RailPAC. This procedure actually is fairly fast, never talking more than 1 week for approval. Also, it gives our members, (at least those that have e-mail) a chance to be part of the process. Regional Meeting: None are planned as of the posting of this E -Letter, but look for more information next month about something planned for Sacramento and Los Angeles. Newsletter: Our newsletter editor, Russ Jackson, needs the help of all RailPAC members. If you see something in your local papers about rail service that you think should be passed along to the membership, please clip it and send it to him at 136 Amethyst Dr., Vacaville, CA 95687. E-mail address Editrail@aol.com. Membership: Do you know anyone that we should be sending Rai1PAC information? If so please E-mail me their name and address and I will send then new members information. Legislative Updates (from Russ Jackson): Legislative update: A $2.1 billion parks and natural resource bond measure was sent to Governor Davis September 3, to go on the March ballot. That is all well and good, and we wish it well, but a companion bond issue for transportation is not likely to be authorized to go to the people. That $16 billion measure was designed to invest in the state's overloaded and aging transportation infrastructure. Republicans objected to spending for this purpose with a bond issue, prefering to take $800 million in gasoline sales taxes that now go into the state general fund each year and dedicate the money to transportation spending so that projects can be paid for in cash, avoiding high interest payments on bond indebtedness. So, the bill may die in committee this 000115 Paue 2 of 4 session. Democrats also postponed a vote on a state constitutional amendment which would allow voters to approve (or renew) special half -cent sales taxes for transportation by majority votes instead of the 2/3 requirement. Two bills moving through the legislator are of interest to rail California. Both are by Senator Perata (D -Oakland). SB-428 would establish an extensive passenger ferry service on San Francisco Bay. RAILPAC IS OPPOSED. We opposed this bill because the cost to set up the service could rob rail and other bay area transit service of the S2 billion set up cost and $100-120 million a year operating shortfall to carry 40-50,000 riders a day. (This shortfall is greater than the BART, Muni and AC transit shortfalls combined. And together they carry almost 1 million riders a day). RAILPAC feel that we don't have enough money now to develop and operate the current transit systems NOW! We don't need to add another one. Recently several environmental groups have also come out in opposition to this bill. SB-428 is expected to pass the Assembly and will be sent to the Governor. Please write or call the Governor and ask him to veto AB -428 SB-804 also by Senator Perata could have seriously effected the Amtrak west thruway bus services. A previous bill doing the same thing by Perata last year was vetoed. Publicly operated bus services would be prevented from bidding for service. Caltrans has been meeting with Greyhound's "lobbyist" and says it has worked out the detailed amendments so both sides will be satisfied. No changes in current Amtrak California bus connections are expected, but the policy of a rider having to have a train ticket as well as a bus ticket will be enforced on routes where competing buses are running and have been running for at least a year. That means no riding a Thruway bus between bus points only. Rai1PAC is officially opposed, but these changes put us in neutral. News items from RailPAC Newsletter Editor Russ Jackson: This is what has happened since the September REVIEW went to press on August 30th: 1. In a hastily called "press conference" on September 3 Amtrak was forced to admit what many observers figured out some time ago: The Acela trainsets were not going to be ready this Fall as Amtrak had planned. The Associated Press broke the story on August 31, reporting that the exact cause for the delay was unclear, but that "wheel hunting" problems over 130 mph caused a shaking from side to side, and the trucks would have to be redesigned. Also, and rail advocates have known this for months, the AP's Glen Johnson reported the 20 $710 million eight -car Acela trainsets were built 4 inches too wide to take complete advantage of the tilting mechanism, limiting them to 4.2 degrees instead of 6.8 degree tilt. That will slow the train top speeds, especially on the curving track between New Haven and Providence. During Amtrak's "press conference," which was done by telephone hook-up and no questions allowed, Amtrak admitted all of these reasons and said it would be some time into next "Spring" before the sets were ready for introduction but that once they were introduced they would appear quickly. Gene Poon called this "Amtrak's saddest day," and hoped "they do succeed in bringing Amtrak, and Acela as part of it, to the status of a vital national system, because if they do not, Sept. 1, 1999 will turn out to be the saddest day in the company's history. It will be the day we first saw the end of the tunnel. And no light." 2. The Acela debacle raises another point about Amtrak's future. Word has been floating around that the George Warrington administration at Amtrak has decided to split Amtrak into two divisions as soon as Acela is ready, if not before. One, under the Acela name, would be not just the Northeast Corridor, 000110 9/8/99 Pa ze 3 of 4 • • • but all corridor services run by Amtrak including the ones in California (the SAN DIEGANS will be "rebranded" as SURFLINERS). If you look at how Amtrak is spending its capital money these days you will notice how much is going into "studies" of corridors nation wide. In California alone $5 million is earmarked for such studies ($25 million nationally...which would buy 10 new badly needed passenger cars). The other division, called "Vista," would be all the long distance trains. Have you noticed that Amtrak is not spending an extra dime on them? Instead, a "marketing study," which was due out by now but as we reported in the September REVIEW has "been delayed for several months," will determine the fate of the long distance trains. What this redividing of the NRPC means is "Amtrak Intercity" and "Amtrak West" would not exist any longer, and the whole company would be run from Mr. Warrington's office in Washington. What the fates of the. very capable Gil Mallery, Lee Bullock, and Brian Rosenwald will be under this new organization can only be surmised. 3. Just as the September Rai1PAC REVIEW was going to the printer we learned that California's Business, Transportation and Housing Agency was going to cancel CAPITOL trains 725/745 and 728 east of Roseville October 1 due to very low ridership (less than 20 per day) on this segment, and the high annual cost ($400,000) of this service extension up to Colfax. RailPAC recognized that it was hard to justify running this train under these circumstances. The train's scheduled arrival back in Colfax (9 PM) was too late for "commuters," and there was the expensive requirement to "deadhead" the equipment back to Roseville each night and back out to Colfax the next morning because there was no money allocated for a layover facility. Therefore, the cancellation met Rai1PAC's philosophy of doing what is economically feasible. However, when conceived, this train was supposed to extend across the Sierra to Reno. When then -Governor Wilson said he would not spend California money for a train to Nevada, Caltrans was forced to truncate it at Colfax. Rai1PAC Director Ken Ryan said, "We should be jumping up and down demanding the State establish and fund" this service, "then we would have a realistic test of the demand for rail service in this corridor." Rai1PAC asked Ric Silver to quickly issue a strongly worded statement saying the service should be continued until a "proper and complete investigation of extension of rail passenger service to Reno/Sparks is completed." (For a copy of Rai1PAC's statement email or write Ric Silver.) On September 2 the BTHA announced it would "review its earlier decision to drop Capitol Corridor service east of Roseville." Officials from Placer County had also rallied to the cause, and along with Rai1PAC were providing.the agency with information on plans for the Reno service, which could boost ridership from day one. It is not out of the woods yet, but prospects are brighter and could result in a more economical service. 4. The Glendale station will hold a Grand Reopening ceremony on Wednesday, September 15, at 4:30 PM. How many years has it been closed? Two? Three? Well, when it reopens it will remain an unstaffed station despite having 8 Amtrak SAN DIEGANS and 2 COAST STARLIGHTS a day stopping there. Metrolink has more trains stopping there, making it the busiest station in the state except for LAUS and the Caltrain stations. Ed Von Nordeck told Rai1PAC that Metrolink would not want to pay for staffing it as they rely on machines in all stations (except the windows at LAUS). Amtrak has decided, apparently, that they are doing well without it being staffed, so why spend the money? The question then becomes how much better would the station do if there was an agent on duty? 000117 9/8/99 Paze 1 of 3 To. Subject: AMTRAK SAYS NO DECISION YET TO END STAFFING Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:40:01 -0700 METROLINK eNEWS Published Friday, September 10, 1999 Press -Enterprise AMTRAK SAYS NO DECISION YET TO END STAFFING There are other options to consider in reducing costs at the San Bernardino train station, it says. By Dan Lee The Press -Enterprise SAN BERNARDINO Amtrak has not made any decision about eliminating staffing at the San Bernardino train station, a spokeswoman for the federally subsidized rail service said Thursday. A newspaper article published Thursday morning had cited an internal Amtrak memo that stated staffing would be eliminated because Amtrak West, the division that serves California, was facing a $30 million shortfall. "That's an internal budget issue, but I can tell you that's not true," Amtrak spokeswoman Elizabeth O'Donoghue said. "Declaring that it will be unstaffed is a premature story." As part of a regular budget review, Amtrak looks at stations and service throughout its system to find ways to reduce costs, she said. Existing and potential ridership are factors that are considered, she said. "Unstaffing stations throughout the system is always an option," O'Donoghue said. "It might end up not happening." Eliminating staff at the San Bernardino station is therefore an option, but Amtrak officials have not made any decision,, she said. They are not expected to make any decision until the federal fiscal year endslater this month, O'Donoghue said. City officials will be notified if there is any change, she said. Mayor Judith Valles did not return a phone call for comment Thursday. '100118 9/ 10/99 Page 2 of Valles supports renovating the historic landmark railroad depot on Third Street into to include restaurants and shops. • • • City Councilman Gordon McGinnis said the article caught officials by surprise and that the mayor's office has not been able to get any more information to council members. "Hopefully, Amtrak is not thinking about doing such a thing," McGinnis said. "It's a valuable service that isn't measured in ticket sales, but customer satisfaction." If the report were true, McGinnis said he hoped Amtrak would have informed San Bernardino officials before making a decision. McGinnis added that he favors renovating the rail depot building for use by Amtrak, Metrolink, Santa Fe freight rail service and a train museum rather than for shops and restaurants. If staffing were eliminated, Amtrak trains would still stop at the San Bernardino station to pick up passengers. The passengers, however, would have to check their own baggage and buy tickets by phone, the Internet or through a travel agent, O'Donoghue said. Adding a ticket machine would be an option, she said. "If there is interest in the community, we would reassess things," she said. One way to keep customer service at a station is to obtain financial support from state or local governments, she said. The San Bernardino station is served by Amtrak's Southwest Chief line, which runs between Chicago and Los Angeles and stops twice a day in San Bernardino. An estimated 28,000 Amtrak passengers will use the San Bernardino station by the end of the fiscal year, according to Amtrak. Dan Lee can be reached by e-mail at dlee@pe.com or by phone at (909) 890-4446. Published 9/10/1999 '� 0 011 9 )/10/99 Pane 1 of Subject:TRAIN RIDERS TAKE UP PARKING Date:Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:44:15 -0700 ME' F:011NK eNEWS Published Monday, September 13, 1999 '.'al_ev Daily Bulletin. R=ERS TAKE UP ?ARK=_:3 1,,noral-: Clark, Staff Writer rPLAND -- Those who take Metrolink tc work know that riding the train makes the commute easier, but finding a parking space at the downtown _-anon can be a headache all its own. "Metrolink is so successful that it has created an impact on the downtown merchants," Councilwoman Sue Sundell said. On some days, commuters fill the station parking lot and overflow into yes meant for those whc want to shop, dine or have their hair done "',iet_clink riders are not supposed to park there, and some have been _Keted," Sundell said. "But the merchants don't like to ticket people. =t's not a way to win friends." Demand for parking at the station has increased because some Rancho Cucamonga residents forgo the Metrolink station in their city, which has had its own problems providing enough parking, and opt instead to use tne Jpland station, Sundell said. "It's closer for people whc live on tne west side of Rancho Cucamonga, she said. The council is expected today to approve a plan that will add 122 additional spaces for Metrolink commuters, putting 53 additional parking spaces in the existing parking lot on Third Avenue and A Street, and adding an additional parking lot with 69 spaces on city -owned land at Second Avenue and Stowell, one block from the station. The proposal also calls for additional work in the lots, including improvements to lighting, sidewalks, gutters and landscaping. The city has $1.3 million in state money to use for the project, which is expected to cost about S1.8 million, Mayor Robert Nolan said. Nolan said the additional spaces should provide adequate parking for downtown Metrolink riders. ":f not, we will go to plan B," Nolan. said. "We'll build more parking spaces." Metrolink's popularity shows no signs of abating. The regional rail service began in late 1992 with a total of 2,400 daily riders. Five 000120 f r 9/13/99 Patil 2 of • • n=per ha ._�.o a s: in -an , ..as :..e .. lies_ ricers.. Lines. .s Ga�_c , S,224 were Ine ; _.. ne Orance County line, running from Oceanside tc Los Anaeies, r.as - seco-:c-hionest number of daily riders. It tops in at a mere 5,I1C7 ce t_ more than 3,10E fewer than the San Bernardino line. 000121 9/15/99 Pa<_e I of Subject:RESIDENTS TIED TO THE TRACKS Date: Mon. 13 Sep 1999 09:52:37 -0700 ETA. _NK eNEWS. Published Monday, September 13, 1999 V nt.ra County Star RESIDENTS TIED TO THE TRACKS Temporary Metrolink stop draws criticism By Robert Hough, Staff writer PHCTC Staff photo by Victoria Sayer Pearson IN FAVOR: Lupe Contreras, 85, has lived by the train tracks near Nightingale Street in Ventura her entire life and welcomes the temporary Metrolink stop. Steve Herman is surprised a train station is coming to his Montalvo neighborhood -- along with potential traffic, noise and crime. Herman and dozens of others living near Nightingale Street received little advance notice about the City Council's decision last month to build a temporary Metrolink station in their back yard. "Who wants to live in a residential area where you've got traffic going .^', like it is on Johnson Drive?" Herman asked. "It's bad enough as it is w:_._ cars doing too fast along Nightingale." Residents will have a chance next week to talk with officials about the station, approved Aug. 3 by the council, said Councilman Brian Brennan. Council members Brennan, Sandy Smith, Jim Monahan, Donna De Paola and Jack Tingstrom also supported the plan. !Mayor Jim Friedman and Ray Di Guilic opposed it, saving the plan wasn't thought out. They said it was unfair to not let neighbors have their say beforehand. A meeting with city and rail officials is being planned for Sept. 22, said Brennan, who expects to hear from steamed residents. "There are going to be a lot of emotions about slamming it down their throats," Brennan said. 000122 Pasze 2 of The , ?:..__h e ardc..._. : : C.:OC, cc__ be ..ex: _- rds he __a.. _- • • se_ - -- "7stan--_, a temporary station had == icon:ifi_ secure $2 ... n =- feaeral money, c"--',.= Y..c-_ of that money likely ..ill be used for building at least cne __..?.-er: etrclink station in Ventura over the next three to _-- a's said. .ict:ria Avenue at Highway _01 and the _^'-ounds have been mentioned as possible sites. _rains lir.ki nd Lcs Anae-es and Oxnard al_ gad•. t..e area for overni ._ storage. _.., _ makes _ _ easy to add service there, with trains likely ieaving for A-:de_es around S and 6 a.m. and returning around 6:30 and -.;5 p.m., -- have said. _.._era County Transportation Commission already owns the2.3-acre :acent to the tracks where the station will be built. • _ �. officials do have concerns about upsetting neighbors, said Thriz _-eohens, commission deputy director. net interested in being perceived as bad neighbors," Stephens Herman ant others have started a petition drive. ' don't know of one eicncor whc didn't sign," he said. -..__1- Stock signed because she fears heavy traffic in an area that .z respect. his street, the kids come out and play baseball and kickball," SIook said while walking along Nightingale. "Obviously , nobody built a 'par-: for them." Stook hopes officials will at least spruce up the tracks fronting homes ant apartments when the station is added. "Look at this place," she said, pointing to a weedy, trash -tangled fence line along the track. "They don't dc anything to improve the area." 000123 • Distributed Wednesday, September 15, 1999 Metrolink News Advisory CONTACT: Peter Hidalgo/Anne Louise Rice (213) 452-0233/0322 News Advisory METROLINK SALUTES ITS COMMUTERS BY OFFERING RIDERS FREE BREAKFAST Stonyfield Farm to Distribute 20,000 Yogurt Cups at Los Angeles Union Station to Metrolink Train Riders on Thursday Morning LOS ANGELES, CA, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999: Metrolink is joining with the environmentally friendly yogurt maker, Stonyfield Farm, in offering free breakfast to train commuters Thursday morning. The gesture is in appreciation of commuters making an environmentally responsible choice. The event, dubbed "We Salute Your Commute," involves the distribution of 20,000 cups of free yogurt to Metrolink riders as they detrain at Los Angeles Union Station. WHAT: Stonyfield Farm will give Metrolink commuters 20,000 cups of free yogurt with specially made "We Salute Your Commute" lids to thank them for making an environmentally responsible choice. WHEN: Thursday, Sept. 16, from 6 to 9 a.m. A press conference will follow at 9:30 a.m. WHERE: Los Angeles Union Station, 800 N. Alameda St., (corner of Hollywood 101 Freeway and Alameda St.) downtown Los Angeles. Trackside, upper -level - between tracks 7&8 WHO: Gary Hirshberg, CEO, Stonyfield Farm David Solow, CEO, Metrolink Jason Mark, Union of Concerned Scientist The Stonyfield Moo Crew - Eartha the Cow, Stonyfield's costumed mascot, and its life-size cup of yogurt. ### fJf)(112'1 • • - CALIFORNIA RAILROADS RELEASE PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGES Pane - • • • From: "Hidalgo. Peter" <HIDALGOP@scrra.net> Date: 9/16/99 11.16AM Subject: CALIFORNIA RAILROADS RELEASE PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGES METROLINK eNEWS Distributed Wednesday, September 15, 1999 Operation Lifesaver News Advisory ADVISORY/California Railroads Release Public Service Messages WHAT: California Operation Lifesaver and railroads in the state will release the final series of a hard-hitting public service campaign called "Highways or Dieways." The television spots are intended to educate the public about safe and responsible behavior on or near railroad property. Two of the PSAs involve vehicles driven around railroad crossing gates; one involves a jogger trespassing on railroad tracks. BACKGROUND: California continues to lead the nation in railroad trespasser fatalities, with more than 300 deaths between 1995 and 1998. In the same period. there were more than 100 deaths and 250 injuries in over 750 highway rail -crossing collisions in the state. California Operation Lifesaver. Inc. is a non-profit safety coalition of freight, passenger and commuter railroads, law enforcement and federal, state and local officials. WHEN/WHERE: Events are sponsored by several railroads around the state. In addition, the Union Pacific Railroad is operating a special Operation Lifesaver train running through California and on to the Pacific Northwest, inviting students, local law enforcement and other invited guests for rides. The train rides will give law enforcement officers a chance to observe the right of way and monitor pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The "Highways or Dieways" public service announcements will be released at selected whistlestops along the way. Event dates and times follow. CALIFORNIA RAILROADS RELEASE PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGES Sept. 17 Union Pacific Train Riverside 9:30 a.m. press conference, Riverside Station, 4066 Vine St. (near 14th Street). Rides: 10 a.m. Officer on the Train begins with Riverside Police Department and Los Angeles County Sheriffs Metrolink Unit; 11 a.m - noon, from Riverside station and returning. Sept. 18 Union Pacific Train City of 9:30 a.m. press conference, City of Industry. Industry 17225 E. Arenth Ave. (near Azusa and Valley Boulevards). Rides: 10 a.m. Officer on the Train begins with City of Industry Sheriff and Los Angeles County Sheriffs Metrolink Unit, 11 a.m. Train then moves to Pomona. Rides: 1 p.m. from Amtrak Station at First and Main streets. Sept. 20 Union Pacific Train 0(10125 CALIFORNIA RAILROADS RELEASE PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGES Page Lancaster 8:45 a.m. press event at Lancaster Metrolink Station. 44812 N. Sierra Highway (near Lancaster Boulevard). 9 a.m. Officer on the Train, with Lancaster and Palmdale Sheriffs and Los Angeles County Sheriffs Metrolink Unit. Rides: 9 a.m., 10 a.m., and 11 a.m. from Lancaster Station. Local Metrolink Contact: Lois Cunning 323/259-6315 or Peter Hidalgo 213/452-0233; Media contacts for the Union Pacific Train are Jerry Hardesty, 801/941-3026 or Mike Furtney at 800/544-1869. MO 1_2 - INLAND EMPIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO WITNESS MOTORISTS & PEDESTRIANS RISKING [ E1�?H • • • From: "Hidalgo. Peter" <HIDALGOP©scrra.net> Date: 9/16/99 12.35PM Subject: INLAND EMPIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO WITNESS MOTORISTS & PEDESTRIANS RISKING DEATH ALONG RAILROAD TRACKS METROLINK eNEWS Distributed Thursday, September 16, 1999 Metrolink News Advisory CONTACT: Peter Hidalgo Metrolink Media Relations (213) 452-0233 NEWS ADVISORY INLAND EMPIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO WITNESS MOTORISTS & PEDESTRIANS RISKING DEATH ALONG RAILROAD TRACKS Riverside Police and Fire Department Deputies Ride Special Rail Safety Train on Friday Morning LOS ANGELES, CA, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1999: Metrolink and the Union Pacific Railroad are operating an officer -on -the -train ride -along in the Inland Empire Friday. Riverside police and fire deputies will witness from the train engineer's point -of -view the number of motorists and pedestrians risking death trying to beat the train. California consistently leads the nation in the number of fatalities and injuries resulting from trespassing on railroad tracks. At the same time, other police officers will be positioned in patrol cars along adjacent streets, and will issue citations to motorists who do not obey warning lights, bells and gates at rail crossings. Trespassing pedestrians will be cited, as well. The Metrolink coordinated special event is directed by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department/Metrolink Sheriffs Unit. The special rail safety train will depart from the Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station (4066 Vine St.. near 14th St.) at 10 a.m. • WHAT: Metrolink and the Union Pacific Railroad will operate an officer -on -the -train ride -along during which Riverside police and fire deputies will witness from the train engineer's point -of -view the number of motorists and pedestrians risking death trying to beat the train. WHEN: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1999 - News Event 9:30 a.m. WHERE: RIVERSIDE -DOWNTOWN METROLINK STATION - 4066 Vine St. Train Departs: 10 a.m. for one -hour trip WHO: Ameal Moore, Council Member. City of Riverside Eric Jacobsen, Operation Lifesaver CA Chairman 0'0'0127 - INLAND EMPIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT TO WITNESS MOTORISTS & PEDESTRIANS RISKING [teti-i? Sgt. Paul Villanueva. Riverside Police Department Chief Steve Earley, Riverside Fire Department Eric Haley, Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission ### ,O0012 • • • - SAN GABRIEL VALLEY LAW ENFORCEMENT TO WITNESS MOTORISTS & PEDESTRIANS RISIRI • From: "Hidalgo, Peter" <HIDALGOP@scrra.net> Date: 9/16/99 5:57PM Subject: SAN GABRIEL VALLEY LAW ENFORCEMENT TO WITNESS MOTORISTS & PEDESTRIANS RISKING DEATH ALONG RAILROAD TRACKS METROLINK eNEWS To Be Distributed Friday, September 17, 1999, 9 a.m. Metrolink News Advisory CONTACT: Peter Hidalgo Metrolink Media Relations (213) 452-0233 NEWS ADVISORY SAN GABRIEL VALLEY LAW ENFORCEMENT TO WITNESS MOTORISTS & PEDESTRIANS RISKING DEATH ALONG RAILROAD TRACKS L.A. County Sheriffs Deputies Ride Special Rail Safety Train on . Saturday Morning LOS ANGELES, CA, FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1999: Metrolink and the Union Pacific Railroad are operating an officer -on -the -train ride -along in the San Gabriel Valley Saturday. L.A. County Sheriffs deputies will witness from the train engineer's point -of -view the number of motorists and pedestrians risking death trying to beat the train. California consistently leads the nation in the number of fatalities and injuries resulting from trespassing on railroad tracks. At the same time, other deputies will be positioned in patrol cars along adjacent streets, and will issue citations to motorists who do not obey warning lights, bells and gates at rail crossings. Trespassing pedestrians will be cited, as well. WHAT: Metrolink and the Union Pacific Railroad will operate an officer -on -the -train ride -along during which L.A. County Sheriffs deputies will witness from the train engineer's point -of -view the number of motorists and pedestrians risking death trying to beat the train. WHEN: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1999 - News Event 9:30 a.m. WHERE: CITY OF INDUSTRY, 17225 E. Arenth Ave. (near Azusa Ave. and Valley Blvd.). Train Departs: 10 a.m. for one -hour trip WHO: Assembly Member Robert Pacheco, (R -Walnut) State of California Eric Jacobsen, Operation Lifesaver CA Chairman Deputy Steve Smith, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department ### 00 612 - TRAIN DEPOT OPENS DOORS IN GRAND STYLE Pace - From: "Hidalgo. Peter' <HIDALGOP@scrra.net> Date: 9/17/99 12 45PM Subject: TRAIN DEPOT OPENS DOORS IN GRAND STYLE METROLINK eNEWS Published Thursday, September 16, 1999 Los Angeles Times TRAIN DEPOT OPENS DOORS IN GRAND STYLE About 300 turn out to get look at restored station. Project cost $23.5 million. By BUCK WARGO GLENDALE CITY HALL -- After being closed for two years, the doors reopened Wednesday on a big piece of Glendale history, and along with it revived memories of many longtime residents. The comeback of the 1924 Spanish Colonial -style depot on West Cerritos Avenue won rave reviews from many among the 300 people who attended ribbon -cutting ceremonies. Including land and restoration work, the project cost $23.5 million. "I am thrilled with the design. It is so much nicer. It was run down," said Lucy Taliaferro Yarick, a 61 -year resident of Glendale. "This is the way it should be. This is the way it was in its prime. This is the place people will come to now." The Glendale Transportation Center provides service for Greyhound, Metrolink, Beeline, Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses and Amtrak. It has long been a hangout for train enthusiasts like Bill Topham. a member of the Glendale Model Railroad Club Inc. that is creating a model set inside the depot. "They have done a beautiful job. We like to see it properly kept up," Topham said. "People love trains. Before the airplane, that was the way to travel." "I think it is just wonderufl," added Mayor Ginger Bremberg, who was master of ceremonies at the event. "It is a big part of Glendale with the glamour of the past and movie stars coming in by train. It is such a wonderful old building." Historical buffs may get another of their wishes met. Lena Kaimian, a field representative of Rep. James Rogan, (R -Glendale), told the crowd that Amtrak is willing to staff a ticket office at the depot. Amtrak has been unwilling to staff the office in recent years, but Kaimian said it would be willing to do that if the city gave it breaks on water and power expenses. Glendale council members made no guarantees but said they may be able to 9130 TRAIN DEPOT OPENS DOORS IN GRAND STYLE Pa support that. • • • Amtrak user Lovell Majors said he would welcome a staffed office that would make it easier to buy tickets rather than purchase them on the train. The city built an office for Amtrak at the depot "It would be a lot less of a hassle." he said. The restoration project is more than just the depot. Supporters say Glendale's transit system has been improved with new platforms, a concrete busway and 450 -space parking lot. The station serves about 600 people during a typical weekday and about 500 use the Metrolink light rail system a day, said Jano Baghdanian, the city's transportation director. The more mass transit is made convenient and secure, the easier it will be to get people out of their cars. Baghdanian said. That means having enough buses. a safe place to park, and amenities such as bathrooms and a place to buy tickets, he said. "This is going to make it more feasible for future expansion for rail because Metrolink wants to expand (beyond its 42 trains a day)," Baghdanian said. "We will have to bring in more shuttles to meet the trains. If there is a express bus, this can be a pickup point. If Amtrak expands, we can accommodate them."