HomeMy Public PortalAbout01 January 22, 2001 Plans and Programsti
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA T14
Records 053537
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 12:00
DATE: Monday, January 22, 2001
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office
356Q University Avenue, Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
• • • COMMITTEE MEMBERS • • •
Robin ReeserLowe/Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet, Chairman
Percy Byrd/Conrad Negron, City of Indian Wells, Vice Chair
Robert Crain/Gary Grimm, City of Blythe
Gregory V. Schook/Jon Winningham, City of Calimesa
Alfred "Bill" Trembly/Jack Wamsley, City of Canyon Lake
Jan Rudman/Jeff Miller, City of Corona
Greg Ruppert/Matt Weyuker, City of Desert Hot Springs
Jack van Haaster, City of Murrieta
Frank Hall/Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco
Dick Kelly/Robert Spiegel, City of Palm Desert
Daryl Busch/Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris
Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I
Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV
Tom Mullen, County of Riverside, District V
••• STAFF •••
Eric Haley, Executive Director
Cathy Bechtel, Director, Planning and Programming
• • • AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY • • •
State Transportation Improvement Program
Regional Transportation Improvement Program
New Corridors
Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare)
Air Quality and Clean Fuels
Regional Agencies, Regional Planning
Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs
Congestion Management Program
•
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.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
•
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
http://www.rctc.org
MEETING LOCATION
3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100, RIVERSIDE 92501
CONFERENCE ROOM A
PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE PARKING GARAGE
ACROSS FROM THE POST OFFICE ON ORANGE STREET
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001
12:00 NOON
AGENDA*
* Action may be taken on any items listed on the agenda.
• 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (November 27, 2000)
5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
6. AMENDMENT TO FY 00/01 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR
COMMUTER RAIL Pg. 1
This item is to seek Committee approval to amend the Commuter
Rail FY 01 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate $588,000
in Federal Section 5307 funds to provide the match for the purchase
of seven additional Metrolink cars or two additional locomotives and
forward to the Commission for final action.
•
1
Plans and Programs Committee
January 22, 2001
Page 2
7. 2001/02 BEACH TRAIN SEASON Pg. 11
This item is to seek Committee approval for the 2001/02 Beach
Train Program, including the commitment to underwrite costs of
service beyond fare revenues at a not to exceed cost of $35,000,
and forward to the Commission for final action.
8. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Pg. 13
This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Rail
Program Update as an information item and forward to the
Commission for final action.
9. RETROFIT SOUNDWALLS ON STATE HIGHWAYS
Pg. 36
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file this report.
2) Direct staff to report back in 60 days with a draft retrofit
soundwall priority list using Caltrans' criteria.
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
10. CANCELLATION OF BUS POOL AGREEMENT WITH RAYTHEON
Pg. 41
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Cancel the existing buspool agreement with Raytheon
Corporation for the operation of a buspool between Riverside
and Fullerton due to low ridership;
2) Provide 60 days' notice to current riders and the employer to
allow sufficient time to identify, organize and establish other
•
•
•
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee
January 22, 2001
Page 3
ridesharing transportation alternatives, and
3) Forward to the Commission for final -action.
11. AMEND SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR SUNLINE
TRANSIT AGENCY Pg. 43
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend the Section 5307 Program of Projects to correct the
line item for the Lease/Purchase of Replacement Transit
Coaches from $413,924 to $452,000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting will be at noon, Monday,
February 26, 2001 at the RCTC offices.
•
MINUTES
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Monday, November 27, 2000
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chairperson Robin
Lowe at 12:10 p.m., at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560
University, Suite 100, Riverside, California, 92501.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Members Absent:
•
•
Eugene Bourbonnais
Daryl Busch
Bob Buster
Percy Byrd
John Chlebnik
Frank Hall
Richard Kelly
Will Kleindienst
Robin ReeserLowe
Jack van Haaster
Roy Wilson
Gerald Zeller
Robert Crain
Greg Ruppert
At this time, Eric Haley, Executive Director, introduced Larry Rubio, Interim RTA General
Manager.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments from the public.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C (Byrd/Busch) approve the minutes dated October 23, 2000 as submitted.
Abstain: Zeller and Kleindienst
5. APPROVAL OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT FOR THE NORTH/SOUTH CORRIDORS
BETWEEN 1-10 AND SR -60 BETWEEN 1-15 AND 1-215
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, provided an overview of this item with a brief history
and progress of the Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR -60
between 1-15 and 1-215 produced by Meyer, Mohaddes and Associates (MMA).
Vigon Davidian of Meyer, Mohaddes and Associates, provided an overview of the Feasibility
Study supplemented by a Power -Point presentation.
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
November 27, 2000
Page 2
Commissioner Percy Byrd expressed his concerns regarding the bottlenecks that would occur
at the 1-10 and SR -60 as a result of any proposed future North/South Corridors. In response,
Vigon Davidian stated that this study included data on each of the alternatives under
consideration, as well as, improvements of the corridor and for each a recommendation was
included on how these corridors would connect to the 1-10 and SR -60. Emphasis had been
placed on the current situation at the interchange of the 1-10 and SR -60 to insure that traffic
could be delivered, as well as looking at the additional traffic on the corridor in order to be
certain that the improvement would not create any additional bottlenecks.
Commissioner Bob Buster requested that information be provided regarding the level of benefits
of the Feasibility Study as compared to the prospective level of benefits of the CETAP
Corridors, and suggested the postponement of the assignment of priority.
Eric Haley explained that when this study started Riverside County showed reluctance to take
part in this project. San Bernardino County approached this as an expedited effort outside of
CETAP, in fact, when Riverside County did move forward with this study CETAP was
approximately one month into their contract. The history of this study dates back seven to
eight years.
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming, advised the Committee that when the
CETAP Corridors were chosen it was acknowledged that the North/South study was underway.
RCTC changed their focus to other areas with the understanding that this study was underway
and would provide RCTC with information needed regarding these issues. Riverside County
staff was also involved in the North/South corridor study with the intent of rolling this study
into any general plan improvements in their own circulation study.
Vigon Davidian stated that in his opinion, due to the topography of the Pyrite Hills in the West
End and the Box Springs area north of Moreno Valley these studies were necessary. He added
that the incorporating the Feasibility Study into the CETAP would demonstrate that both are
necessary.
In response to Commissioner Will Kleindienst's question regarding funding sources and
scheduling, Eric Haley responded that the funding sources for these programs are different. A
critical point to remember is that SanBAG was not aware of or engaged in the CETAP process
at the time they were partners of this study and a different track was purposely chosen. The
projected scope of combinations of western routes has changed. As far as cost is concerned,
this was a modest effort of approximately $ 100,000 and divided equally between the two
counties and does fall outside of the CETAP funding arena.
Craig Nuestaedter, City of Moreno Valley, advised the Committee that when the North/South
corridor was presented to the Committee, and subsequently to the Board for authorization of
funding, a parallel or similar study was requested to be conducted on the segment in question
from Moreno Valley to the San Bernardino Area. The Committee and the Board advised that the
issue should be combined with CETAP, which demonstrated a history of progress on this
particular corridor versus the segment east of the 1-215. The Committee felt that from a
technical standpoint the issues were very similar and suggested that a program of arterial
improvements was necessary to address the grave capacity deficiencies on the freeway
segments.
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
November 27, 2000
Page 3
Eric Haley stated that the impacts would be on major arterioles such as Market Street in
Riverside and Pacific Avenue. A study should be done of these arterials for the south side of
the freeway, as well the arterials that feed into them as that he believed that on Market Street
the study only went as far as the freeway itself not south of it. In addition a cost breakdown
on the improvements of Riverside County as opposed to San Bernardino, including cost
alternatives broken down by each county was included in the report. The greater mileage and
topographical challenges are on the side of San Bernardino County.
M/S/C (Wilson/Kleindienst) recommend the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the
Feasibility Study Report for the North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR -60 between
1-215 per Contract No. RO-9936; and 2) Approve the recommendations contained in
the report.
6. RCTC'S ACE GRADE CROSSING PRIORITY LIST
J.D. Douglas, Parsons Brinckerhoff, advised the Committee that through their work with the
subcommittee several factors which would require consideration in the prioritization process
were identified, and RCTC will include the prioritization and these factors into the four -county
prioritization study.
In response to Commissioner Buster's question of whether all of these crossings are signalized
and if this analysis assumed that the delays were uniform across a 24 -hour period regardless
of the rush hours and train congestion, J.D. Douglas responded that they are indeed equipped
with signalization. Information differentiating between the rush hours and when the trains
actually occurred during the day was used in this analysis.
In response to Commissioner Dick Kelly's question on whether the data included the new tracks
at Pennsylvania Avenue in Beaumont, J.D. Douglas responded that this was doubtful as the
analysis focused on the mainline track and its traffic. The deadline for this analysis was
approximately one month and as such it had not been possible to go out in the field and obtain
local track data. However, Parsons Brinckerhoff has recommended that RCTC request these
local line factors be included in the four -county study.
M/S/C (van Haaster/Chlebnik) recommend that the Commission approve the RCTC
Alameda Corridor -East Grade Crossing Priority List presented by Parsons Brinckerhoff.
7. METROLINK 2000 ON BOARD SURVEY PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Henning Eichler, Market Research Manager for SCRRA, informed the Committee of the
preliminary results of the first 2000 Metrolink Onboard Survey since 1997. Stating that a key
objective was to obtain representative data of the actual ridership. The survey methodology
was based on a scientific sample of approximately 3,500 riders and included all trains operated.
Commissioner Buster requested additions to the existing equipment, such as overhead racks
for personal items, and asked staff if there was a reason these were not included in the original
design. Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager, responded that to the best of her knowledge
this was a deliberate decision made during the initial design process of the cars, which were
designed for maximum use and seating availability.
Cathy Bechtel stated staff will obtain this information and bring it back to the Committee.
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
November 27, 2000
Page 4
In response to Eric Haley's concerns regarding the substantial loss of ridership and the actual
year to year figures, Henning Eichler replied that the numbers are down at present, however in
an attempt to increase ridership, Metrolink was offering 2 for 1 tickets for the month of
December, and will be implementing target marketing during the coming year.
Stephanie Wiggins responded to Commissioner Byrd's question of whether travel direction
played a role in seating availability and advised that recently Metrolink added an additional car
when they discovered that and estimated 140 people were standing during one particular route.
Each car has a seating capacity of 140.
M/S/C Ivan Haaster/Hall) recommend the Commission receive and file the presentation
on the Metrolink 2000 Onboard Survey as an information item.
8. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
Stephanie Wiggins informed the Committee of a slight rebound from the MTA strike. The
Holiday Toy Express Train, a charitable event sponsored by Metrolink has been scheduled for
the second and third week in December. The Technical Advisory Committee has recommended
the dissolution of the Southern California Inter -City Rail Group, a JPA, which meets to discuss
inter -city Amtrak issues. Commissioner Kleindienst and Commissioner Roberts are
representative's of this group and stated that they will both be voting regarding this item on
December 1, 2000. If the decision is made to dissolve the Group, RCTC will return to this
Committee with a formal agenda recommending approval of that decision.
M/S/C (Wilson/van Haaster) recommend the Commission receive and file the Rail
Program Update as an information item.
9. CONSULTANT SELECTION FOR THE PERFORMANCE AUDITS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATORS
Tanya Love, Program Manager, provided an overview of this item with an update on the current
status of the RFPs received.
M/S/C (Kleindienst/Byrd) recommend that the Commission approve to: 1) Authorize the
Executive Director to enter into a contract with O'Melia Consulting to conduct the
Performance Audits of the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the
Riverside County Transit Operators in an amount not to exceed *70,000.
10. REQUEST FROM ANZA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION TO PURCHASE NEW WHEELCHAIR LIFT
EQUIPPED VEHICLE
M/S/C (van Haaster/Kleindienst) recommend that the Commission: 1) Reallocate
Measure A Specialized Transit funds in the total amount of *16,916 ($10,212 from FY
98/99 and 56,704 from FY 99/00) for the purchase of a new wheelchair lift equipped
vehicle; 2) Re -designate Measure A Specialized Transit funds in the total amount of
*13,820 156,500 from FY 00/01 and $7,320 from FY 01/02); and 3) Direct Anza
Valley Transportation to secure a minimum of three bids for the purchase of a vehicle
(including one through the Riverside Transit Agency's procurement process or through
Caltrans' Section 5310 Program).
•
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee Minutes
November 27, 2000
Page 5
11. REALLOCATE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND AMEND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY'S
SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR FY 00/01
M/S/C (van Haaster/Zeller) recommend that the Commission: 1) Reprogram $680,000
in Local Transportation Funds originally identified for the purchase of two expansion
buses. $346,000 of the reprogrammed funds will be used for bus maintenance and
modification to their maintenance facility, with the balance of $334,000 set aside as
capital reserves; and 2) Amend SunLine Transit Agency's Short Range Transit Plan
for FY 00/01.
12. RE -BID OF SMART CALL BOX INSTALLATIONS AND ENHANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
CENTER SITES
M/S/C (Byrd/Buster) recommend that the Commission approve to re -bid the Request for
Proposals/Bid Package for the installation of Smart Call Boxes and Caltrans Traffic
Management Center Sites for the purpose of including updated federal provisions.
At this time, Chairman Lowe thanked Commissioners Zeller and Bourbonnais for their time with
RCTC and the Committee, as this would be their last Committee meeting.
Commissioner Kleindienst advised the Committee that RTA was in line for $2 million from
MSRC for buses and infrastructure.
Eric Haley reminded the Commissioners that RCTC would be hosting the California
Transportation Commission meeting on December 5 & 6, 2000. On December 6`h Chairman
Mullen would be presenting the CETAP to the CTC.
Commissioner Buster announced that Riverside County was given one of nine economic
governor awards which will open funding opportunities. Palm Dessert received an award as
well.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 1:36 p.m. The next meeting will be held at 12:00 p.m., Monday,
January 22, 2001 at the RCTC offices.
Respectfully submitted,
A
Traci R. McGinley
Deputy Clerk of the Board
•
AGENDA ITEM 6
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and. Programming
SUBJECT:
Amendment to FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan for Commuter
Rail
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to amend the Commuter Rail FY 01 Short
Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and allocate $588,000 in Federal Section 5307 funds to
provide the match for the purchase of seven additional Metrolink cars or two
additional locomotives and forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This item was originally agendized for the January 10th Commission meeting. The
item was pulled by the Executive Director due to concerns over commitments related
to the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Line. This Line extends 61.6 miles between
downtown Riverside and downtown Los Angeles. The corridor is included in the
SB1402 regional plan, and currently three trains operate on the route in reverse off-
peak directions (i.e. Los Angeles - Fullerton - Riverside). Pending track improvements
and- the delivery of two train sets, peak period service is planned for this Line in
Spring 2002, but OCTA, a funding partner on the Line, has yet to formally support
and commit resources for this peak period service. (Attached is an issue paper
related to this service.) In spite of the uncertainty of OCTA's position, we still need
the support of the Commission for the purchase of the additional rail cars.
Currently, Metrolink has two locomotives and 28 rail cars on order. Delivery of cars
is expected to begin this spring and two train sets are reserved for the Riverside -
Fullerton -Los Angeles service. The Commuter Rail Program is requesting an
amendment to the SRTP because Metrolink has an opportunity to exercise the
remaining option on the current order. This option allows for the purchase of seven
additional cab cars estimated at $15,000,000. Last month Metrolink was successful
in securing $9,700,000 in ITIP funds for this project however this amount only covers
the cost of five cab cars. The most cost effective approach is to secure the
$5,300,000 additional funding for the purchase of the two additional cab cars now,
rather than at a later date.
000001
It is important to note that future growth on the Metrolink system will be constrained
by the lack of new equipment. RCTC's local share for the seven cars is estimated at
$588,000 using the Metrolink All Share Formula. By advancing the funds now for the
two additional cars, we have an opportunity to add additional equipment to the
system sooner, and avoid additional costs at a later date.
Since the publication of this agenda item, Metrolink has discovered that it needs an
additional two locomotives to serve as spares for fleet maintenance. Therefore,
Metrolink will use the money for either the locomotives, if they are available, or the
purchase of the additional cars.
Federal Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula revenue is generated by the commuter
rail program for rail capital expenditures. RCTC began accruing these revenues in
FY92/93 when the Riverside Line began operating. These funds are in addition to bus
Section 5307 entitlement to the County; rail capital Section 5307 comes from a
separate pot of money. RCTC has adequate federal commuter rail Section 5307
monies to advance these funds now and no current or planned RCTC rail projects are
impeded by this advance.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N Year: FY 2000-01
Source of Funds: Federal Section 5307
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Amount: $ 588,000
Budget Adjustment: N
Date: 12/27/00
00000,'
•
•
•
•
•
•
Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles Issue Paper
The alignment roughly follows the Riverside Freeway (SR91) through Riverside County
to Fullerton in Orange County where it continues northwest to downtown Los
Angeles. Existing stations that would serve this Line include Riverside -Downtown,
Riverside -La Sierra, West Corona, Fullerton, Norwalk, Commerce, and Los Angeles
Union Station. Future stations that could serve this Line include Van Buren, North
Main Corona, in Riverside County, and Buena Park in Orange County. Planning at
Metrolink is now underway for the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles service.
Some of the significant issues associated with this service are as follows:
• The Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles route was included in the original system
plan for Metrolink, adopted in 1990. This system plan is referred to as the
"Senate Bill 1402 Plan".
• Based upon the 1402 Plan, all Metrolink agencies undertook major capital
investments. For its part, among other investments, RCTC purchased
passenger train operating rights from the Santa Fe Railway on the tracks
through Fullerton. In addition RCTC purchased two trains to be used on the
Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles line;
• The two trains RCTC purchased pursuant to the 1402 Plan have since been re-
distributed (with no cost reimbursement to RCTC) throughout the Metrolink
system. Some of these cars have undoubtedly and appropriately ended up on
the Orange County line. In a recent letter to OCTA and RCTC, Metrolink
acknowledges that the new cars currently on order and scheduled for delivery
over the next few months are available for the new service;
• In an effort to accelerate the implementation of the Inland Empire Orange
County (IEOC) line, OCTA and RCTC entered into two agreements dated
November1992 and July1996. These agreements permitted the more rapid
development of the IEOC line by adding more trains while at the same time
removing the absolute obligation for OCTA to fund the Riverside -Fullerton -Los
Angeles service. Nevertheless these agreements left in place the following
statement in Paragraph 4: "OCTA and RCTC each agree to cooperate with each
other in developing and implementing Oceanside-LAUPT service, Riverside-
LAUPT service and Riverside -Irvine service, and each agrees to use its best
efforts to support and expand such services, including, without limitation,
transit integration programs."
• From humble beginnings, the IEOC service has exploded during the past year
with a 50% gain in ridership, year-to-year. This growth has been aided in part
by OCTA's earlier agreement to add more train service on this line. We at
RCTC also think that much of the credit for this unprecedented growth during
the year 2000 is due to RCTC's decision to fund 100% of the net costs of a
new midday train on that route in November of 1 999. We are as confident
that a similar service on the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles route will achieve
similar results.
• Because of the surge in ridership on the IEOC line, RCTC has embarked on a
$16 million dollar expansion program. We are building two new stations and
adding almost 900 additional parking spaces. These improvements will be in
place in early 2002. These projects will also benefit the Riverside -Fullerton -Los
000003
•
•
1
Angeles service. In fact, no new stations or track work is required to implement
the new service.
• Previous ridership estimates conducted on this route in 1995 forecast an initial
range of daily one way trips of 1,032-1,616 depending upon the number of
trains and whether Buena Park Station was in service. At a similar pre -service
stage on the IEOC route the RCTC ridership study forecast approximately 1,200
daily one way trips. We have greatly exceeded that IEOC estimate and have
every confidence that we will have the same experience on this new route.
• The Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles service will also benefit the Orange County
line. Seven Orange County line trains currently travel north through Fullerton
during the morning peak period. The new service will add 2 or 3 more schedule
choices, undoubtedly increasing the attractiveness of Fullerton, and eventually
Buena Park and Yorba Linda, for your own residents who are commuting to Los
Angeles.
• Finally, the Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles line will be a ridership anchor for
OCTA's Centerline light rail line at Fullerton. Each will be synergistic with the
other, strengthening both. Ridership modeling for the Centerline suggests that
a significant percentage of riders will be comprised of Riverside County
residents commuting to Orange County for jobs.
• Riverside -Fullerton -Los Angeles service is included in OCTA's long-range
transportation plan. The service is also assumed in every relevant regional
transportation plan and necessary for enhanced mobility and air quality
improvements.
"VIA FULLERTON" ROUTE
ca
a o° �. .6`''c
a a� c G°�°ca` oQ'J>e Q-ae �o�
0�ec Jr° 4 e2' I tr 41, e
t
Atwood Junction
Train Routes to Los Angeles
• Stations Served on Routes to Los Angeles
• Future Stations
000004
•
RCTC and OCTA have been urgently addressing the major congestion issues
associated with the 91 Freeway. We will continue to discuss the various options
available to us on the highway side. The rail option can also make a significant
contribution and serves as a relatively easy step to bring demonstrable relief to our
commuters.
While we are awaiting the provisional cost estimates from Metrolink for this new
service it is clear that the most likely operating costs will still be several magnitudes
cheaper than any of the eventual highway capital projects. We are also sensitive to.
the cost of transportation solutions yet the urgency of our transportation challenge
compels us to push this long -delayed project forward. Lamentably, our highway
quick -fixes often stretch into years even before the groundbreaking. The rail option
has the enviable characteristic that it can be implemented very quickly, as soon as
May of 2002.
•
•
000005
•
•
•
URBANIZED AREA:
BUS APPORTIONMENT:
RAIL APPORTIONMENT:
CARRYOVER FUNDS -BUS:
CARRYOVER FUNDS -RAIL:
TRANSFER FUNDS -BUS:
TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -BUS:
TOTAL FUNDS AVAIL -RAIL:
RECIPIENTS:
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 2000/01
RIVERSIDE - SAN BERNARDINO
$4,465,893
$3,785,814
$2,190,465
$9,622,057
$0
$6,985,465
$13,407,871
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
CITY OF CORONA
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSP. COMM.
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS:
(1) CITY OF CORONA -PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
(2) CITY OF CORONA - 3 REPLACEMENT VANS
(3) CITY OF CORONA - NEW FACILITY CONSTR.
(4) CITY OF RIVERSIDE - 5 REPLACEMENT VANS
(5) RTA - 10 REPLACEMENT & 2 EXPANSION
TRANSIT COACHES
(6) RTA - DEBT FINANCING FOR 57 TRANSIT
COACHES
(7) RTA - 20 DAR VANS (10R, 10E)
(8) RTA - BUS STOP AMENITIES
(9) RTA - OFFICE ITS HARDWARE & SOFTWARE
(10) RTA - 8 SERVICE SUPPORT VEHICLES (2R,6E)
(11) RTA - DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT FOR
10 TRANSIT COACHES
(12) RCTC TIER 11 COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS *
(14) RCTC COMMUTER RAIL CARS
SUBAREA APPORTIONMENTS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$792,000
$180,000
$250,000
$250,000
$4,380,000
$5,226,000
$379,400
$207,500
$3,000,000
FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED
SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT
$30,000 C
$149,400 C
$200,000 C
$207,500 C
$2,504,000 C
$619,000 $495,000 C
$1,200,000
$100,000
$1,000,000
$208,000
$379,000
$960,000 C
$80,000 C
$800,000 C
$84,000 C
$303,000 C
$15,750,000 $3,000,000 C
$15,000,000 $588,000
TOTAL PROGRAMMED $25,108,000 $9,400,900
BALANCE AVAILABLE -BUS
BALANCE AVAILABLE -RAIL
$1,172,565
$9,819,871
Approved by RCTC: July 12, 2000
Amended by RCTC: Sept. 13, 2000
Amended by RCTC:
* NOTE: Project increased by $3,000,000 in Federal Funds and included $6,000,000 programmed in FY 1999-00.
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
SCAG
000006
rage c of h
GOT
J?JiiiJ
3i2�1:3'L` i'SI
,:it.•, iIJ�J
aJ 3 '3J
• 1
•
::. . . . 'atJ&D.i1T -.
Feeling
Lucky?
SAN; MANUEL
INV st'
Fund feud may stall Fullerton train
route
Orange County says its share of a commuter
line is too much. Riverside County disagrees.
By Laurie Koch Thrower
The Press -Enterprise
Riverside and Orange counties, already at odds
over the Highway 91 toll lanes, now are wrangling
over how much they will pay for a new train route
from Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton.
Orange County says it's being asked to pay too
much. Riverside County disagrees.
And the Metrolink commuter train — and the
people who would use it — are caught in the
middle.
"Orange County and Riverside County really need
to work this out between themselves," said
Francisco Oaxaca, Metrolink spokesman. "Until
they do, we're kind of in a holding pattern."
Riverside County is pressing for the new route,
which would make it easier for Riverside County
commuters to reach Fullerton. Currently, riders
traveling to Fullerton have to get there via other
stops in Orange County or through Los Angeles,
Oaxaca said.
Orange County is balking at paying its calculated
share of the roughly $6 million to $8 million total
annual cost for the route, with funds also coming
from Metrolink and the two other counties the
route would serve — Riverside and Los Angeles.
George Urch, spokesman for the Orange County
Transportation Commission, said agency officials
aren't sure the route is a good deal for them.
Urch said most of the riders would be from
Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
•
Thursday, January 11, 2001
Today's headlines
Powerful storm hits region
Davis unveils budget
r. Long energy pacts urged
= Shelter law keeps dog, cat
Cages full
*Nand bank robberies on the
Festivities mark King's birth
Fund feud may stall Fullerton
tra.r route
19dZone board extends its
deadline for dosing
Masner sees utility costs as
pelwrtv issue
_, New state school test
pondered
Stand is sweet success
*Norco High swimmers add
iie study
*lime for changes,' Assembly
hopeful says
Youth church's prayer
answered
Ex -minister accused of affair
rah teen
* Yan sought for questioning in
death of Riverside woman
University police arrest 3rd
in knife attack on 2 in
parking lot
FAA puts March in line for
funds
-> Authorities seek leads in Lake
Elsinore holdup
Drowned boy's father may
face prosecution
Enron rethinking lake power
IE
=- New water directors begin to
make waves
Divers hope to save lives
= Epilepsy unit first in area
Murreta business owner
aoeused
} Wolf Creek project hits some
roadblocks
= Development fee proposed in
Temecula
s VWrehouse project gets
Murrieta OK
*99 cents. some misery will
buy a 19 -inch TV
; Tot pulled from Murrieta spa
improving, breathes unaided
Dien Bernstein: Gov. Davis
gambles on the unknown
Cassie Macduff: Council sees
what Penman can't or won't
Check it out!
Special series: Mother of
http://www inlandempireonline.com/news/stories/01 1 101/train.shtml
1/11/01
000007
Page 2 of 2
"We wouldn't get a lot of bang for our buck, from
an Orange County perspective," Urch said.
That kind of reasoning is short-sighted, said
Riverside County Transportation Commission
spokesman John Standiford.
The route would connect nicely with Orange
County's planned light -rail stop and would make it
easier for north Orange County residents to ride
the train to Los Angeles, he said.
"From our standpoint, it's a win -win situation for
everybody, Orange County included," Standiford
said.
The new Fullerton route would run on existing
tracks and parallel Highway 91, Oaxaca said.
Metrolink is anticipating that the route, scheduled
to start in late 2002, will be popular.
Riverside County transportation officials, eager to
get the new route going, tried Wednesday to gain
some leverage in the negotiations by refusing, at
least temporarily, to spend $2.5 million to help buy
new train cars for Metrolink.
"We want to make sure the route . . . does,
indeed, happen," Standiford said.
Riverside County's ploy won't have any immediate
effect, though. because Metrolink officials decided
to delay purchasing the cars when they realized
they need more locomotives to power them,
Oaxaca said.
Laurie Koch Thrower can be reached by e-mail at
lthrowerApe. com or by phone at (909) 248-6130.
Published 1/11/2001
Twelve
Win dinner for 2 at Cafe
Sevilla! Enter contest
Check out our new Family
and Opinion sections
Sth AnnualReaders' Choice
Awards
Marketplace
?Tour homes
Take house -buying to a new
level.
-Coupons
Save at local businesses with
online coupons'
Company Profiles
Inland Empire Employers and
Schools.
Send comments to feedback@inlandempireonline.com
(c) 2001 The Press -Enterprise Company. Read our Privacy Policy.
Designed and hosted by PE.net.
Comments to feedback@inlandempireon!ine_com.
http://www.i nlandempireont i ne.com/news/stories/01110 1 /train.shtml
000000
1/11/01
.D.. .... ......., .. •.. J%rua
Page 1 of 3
•
•
►'Il,to S
Saturday, January 13, 2001
Orange County Edition
Section: Metro
Page: B-1
Home 1 Site Map 1 Archwes 1 Pnnt Edihon 1 Discussions 1 Advertise 1 Feedback 1 Help
As O.C. Balks, Riverside Rail Proposal in Peril
By: MONTE MORIN
TIMES STAFF WRITER
A funding dispute between Orange and Riverside counties is threatening to doom
a long-awaited commuter rail line that could provide relief to thousands of
commuters who ply the clogged Riverside Freeway.
The proposed rail line, which was mapped out more than 10 years ago and has
since languished, would run from Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton.
Although Riverside transportation officials and commuters desire the rail
connection, Orange County officials are balking at the expense.
Orange County officials believe the line would primarily benefit Riverside
residents and that Orange County would get little in return for its share of the
operation expense, estimated at $6 million to $8 million a year. Riverside officials
say their counterparts are mistaken, that the rail line will pay heavy dividends in
the future by connecting Riverside residents with a light rail line planned to travel
through the heart of Orange County's business and tourism districts.
Metrolink officials are now asking the counties to come to a decision so the
expense can be budgeted for a 2002 start date. If Orange County refuses to pay its
share --roughly $1.8 million to $2.4 million a year --the route would likely be
derailed.
"We're in a holding pattern at this point," said Francisco Oaxaca, Metrolink
spokesman. "If Orange County decided that it won't pay, it would be up to Los
Angeles and Riverside counties to make up the difference. That would be
unprecedented."
The proposed route would use existing train tracks that parallel the Riverside
Freeway. The route would greatly benefit Riverside County train riders, who
currently have to choose between two messy and sometimes sluggish routes.
One route --the Riverside Line —runs through San Bernardino County and is slowed
by competing freight train traffic. Delays along the Riverside Line occur 40% of
hnp://www.Iatimes.com/cii-bin/siwebcli?DBLIST=1t01 &DOCNUM=3294&DBPUB=200101. 1/16/01
000009
Los Angeles Times Site Search Results Page 2 of 3
the time and trains sometimes run as much as 90 minutes behind schedule,
according to Metrolink.
The second option for Riverside -area residents is to take Metrolink to Orange,
then board a second train to Los Angeles. Problems can occur during this
transition as well, rail officials say.
Riverside officials contend the new line would help uncork traffic along the
Riverside Freeway --the bustling conduit linking Riverside County residents and
Orange County employers. "It certainly wouldn't solve problems on the freeway,
but it does help some people," said John Standiford, spokesman for the Riverside
County Transportation Commission.
But many officials at the Orange County Transportation Authority remain
unswayed.
"Basically, Riverside wants to use our money to help with their commute," said
George Urch, OCTA spokesman. "If we had tons of money that wouldn't be a
problem. We only have a finite amount, though, and we need to use it to look out
for Orange County's interests." Orange County commuters are already served by
Metrolink's Orange County Line, which runs north from Oceanside to Los
Anuzeles and stops in Fullerton.
OCTA officials have also faulted their Riverside counterparts for failing to offer
exact figures for the expense of the line. Riverside officials say, in turn, that they
are waiting for Metrolink to provide those numbers.
"We're still waiting to get numbers," Urch said. "We're perfectly willing to sit
down and talk to them when they do, but I can't say we're going to be
enthusiastic."
(BEGIN TEXT OF 1NFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC) Direct to L.A.
Metrolink is proposing a direct Riverside to Los Angeles route through Fullerton.
Commuters from West Riverside and Corona currently must endure lengthy delays
traveling through San Bernardino or be routed through Orange to get to downtown
Los Angeles.
GRAPHIC: Direct to L.A., Los Angeles Times
Descriptors. Riverside County - Transportation, Orange County - Transportation,
Commuting, Light Rail Systems, Orange County - Finances
Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times. May not be reproduced or retransmitted without permission
M Click tor permission to reonnt (PRCtt 1 528 Alt01 32941
If you have a question about your account, rr>x'.k ieLe or message a 1eMbersunoortagpasssorO It you nave other questions, check
Help
000010
•
•
•
latimac rnm/r rri hi / l�aivh li�rlRl ECT=Itl1R'r)(lCNI iM=;')A4,,flRP1 IR=7n(il01 1/16i/n1
AGENDA ITEM 7
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
2001/02 Beach Train Season
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval for the 2001/02 Beach Train Program,
including the commitment to underwrite costs of service beyond fare revenues at a
not to exceed cost of $35,000, and forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Developed and administered by RCTC in 1996, the Beach Train is a popular program
designed to maximize opportunities for public use of the commuter rail system in
Riverside County. The seasonal trains operate on various weekends between the
months of June and October and provide thousands of Riverside County residents a
stress -free alternative to freeway congestion.
The popularity of the program continued through the 2000 season. Trains departed
from Rialto, San Bernardino, Riverside, La Sierra, and West Corona Metrolink stations
headed for San Juan Capistrano, North Beach, San Clemente, and Oceanside. The
29 train season over 17 dates between June and October resulted in over 9,900
passengers. Total patronage over the last five years exceeds 39,900 passengers
(over 79,800 one-way trips).
Not all costs for the 2000 season are confirmed as yet, but it appears that the 2000
season will result in a subsidy of approximately $1.52 per trip or $30,1 20. Once the
costs are finalized, a detailed report will be provided to the Committee and forwarded
to the Commission.
As the planning process begins for the sixth season, the goal is to build upon the
success of prior years by developing a plan to create a self-sustaining program not
requiring public subsidy.
In order to plan for appropriate staffing and budget resources at Metrolink, and to
provide the necessary lead time for promotion, the Commission is asked to decide at
000011
this time if it wishes to proceed with scheduling Beach Trains next summer. Staff is
working with Metrolink to determine a per train cost cap in order to accurately set
fares and service levels with a continued go& of the program meeting a break-even
point. Though several logistical matters are yet to be determined, staff is confident
in recommending a continuation of the program in 2001 and assuming direction to
proceed for 2001, staff will report back on detailed operating and budget
assumptions.
000012
•
AGENDA ITEM 8
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Rail Program Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the Rail Program Update
as an information item and forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Riverside Line
Weekday Patronage: Passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of
December averaged 4,341, a decrease of 7% from the month of November, however
the Line has averaged an increase of 11% from a year ago (December 1999). The
decrease from the month of November is typical for the holiday season ridership.
Saturday Patronage: For the first time since the implementation of the two round -trips
in June 2000, the on -time performance for the Saturday service reached 100% during
the month of December. Poor operating times, on -time performance, and lack of
marketing have affected the ridership on this new service (high = 456 trips, low =
133 trips) over the last six months. On February 10th, the operating times will
substantially change and the long-awaited downtown Pomona station will be open.
These events coupled with a targeted marketing approach by SCRRA will help to
increase ridership.
Inland Empire - Orange County Line
Weekday Patronage: Ridership on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC)
Line for the month of December averaged 2,697, a 5% decrease from the month of
November due to the holiday season. However, this Line continues to grow
averaging a 57% increase from December 99 to December 00. Increased ridership
on this Line is due to the increase in gas prices, the addition of the mid -day train,
marketing efforts, and increasing congestion on the 91 Freeway. Unfortunately, this
increase in ridership has resulted in an overflow of parking at the La Sierra Station in
the City of Riverside (see Special Promotions below).
Special Promotions
Corona Utility Stuffer: The City of Corona partnered with RCTC to promote the IEOC
Line as an alternative to driving on the 91 Freeway. RCTC received over 1,050
000013
responses to our utility stuffer promotion. The promotion, which officially ended
October 31, required Corona residents to mail in a coupon to receive a ticket which
allows four free trips on the IEOC Line within a 60 -day period. The attached analysis
summarizes the results of the successful mailing.
La Sierra Parking Mitigation: The tremendous growth of the IEOC line during the past
year has resulted in an overflow of parking at the La Sierra Station. RCTC leases the
current property from the Riverside Community College District (RCCD) which yields
350 parking spaces. The RCCD also owns the adjacent vacant property however
they are not interested in RCTC expanding the parking lot due to their own pending
development plans. Therefore, a number of short-term strategies have been
implemented and are planned to address the parking constraints over the next 18
months:
1) November 15, 2000: Staff added an additional security guard to patrol the
parking lot to enforce that the lot is used for Metrolink train riders and not a
park and ride lot. The security guard identified 23 vehicles that were using the
lot as a Park and Ride facility. Park and Ride users are directed to use nearby
designated Park and Ride facilities;
2) December 24, 2000: RTA re -directed its fixed route bus No. 15 to serve the
La Sierra Station. RTA staff expects this route to serve at least 25 riders. RTA
and RCTC are actively promoting the new route to the riders;
3) January/February 2001: RCTC is exploring other parking mitigation programs
such as a Metrolink carpool parking program that would guarantee riders a
parking space if they carpooled to the train station. In addition, the RTA Board
last month approved the use of a shuttle to assist in alleviating the parking
problem. Staff is working with a bowling alley located near the station to allow
for overflow parking and riders to be shuttled by RTA to the station.
The long-term strategy to address the parking problem is the construction of the Van
Buren Station. Given the location of this new station and recent survey data, at least
30% of the current riders at the La Sierra Station would use the Van Buren Station.
The Station is currently under design and its estimated completion date is February
2002.
Special Trains
/EOC Midday Train: The December 2000 average weekday trips of 2,697 on the IEOC
Line continue to surpass the ridership performance target of 2,264. The
demonstration period for the midday train began November 1999 and ends March
2001. These ridership numbers need to be sustained for the next 3 months in order
for the Midday service to be included in the regular Metrolink budget for FY2001/02.
Q00014
•
•
•
ANALYSIS of CORONA UTILITY MAILING
There were 1,053 responses/requests for free train tickets. As expected, 98% came
from Corona residents. The remaining responses were scattered from other cities such
as Riverside, Anaheim, Ontario, Trabuco Canyon, etc. possibly indicating that Corona
residents shared their ticket request mailer with friends or family.
Respondents were asked to provide their work address to assess the likelihood of the
individual being a rail commuter candidate. Responses have been assigned to one of
four "categories:"
A. DON'T KNOW or NOT LIKELY (38%) — Twenty-seven percent of those
requesting tickets did not provide any work address. While it is possible that they
are commuters and simply didn't reveal their work address, it is also possible that
they do not commute to work at all and requested the offered tickets for pleasure
travel only. Another 11 % work in Corona, Chino, or Norco and would not take
the train to work.
B. NOT A FEASIBLE TRIP (8%) — These responses came from those working in a
city for which there is no peak -period commuter rail service (i.e. Colton,
Riverside, San Bernardino, Temecula) or that is close to another Metrolink line
but only reachable with extreme difficulty (i.e. Covina, Monterey Park, Pomona,
Rancho Cucamonga).
C. WOULD REQUIRE SPECIAL EFFORT (12%) — Travel to work destinations such
as (Cerritos, Huntington Beach, Long Beach, non -downtown Los Angeles,
Newport Beach, Placentia, Yorba Linda) is in the correct direction of train travel
but these cities are at such distance from a destination station that special
arrangements would be necessary. While we know that some commuters have
found it acceptable to park a car at their destination station or arrange for pick-up
from a co-worker, it is highly unlikely that these respondents would become rail
commuters.
D. GOOD RAIL COMMUTE CANDIDATES (43%) — Almost 41°/0 of the responses
came from people working a reasonable distance from a station on either the
IEOC line or the Orange County Line (must transfer in Orange). The most
frequently mentioned destination cities were Anaheim (103), Fullerton (26),
Irvine (79), Orange (82), or Santa Ana (72) but less -frequently mentioned work
destinations in thirteen other cities are also reachable from these lines. Another
2% of the respondents travel to downtown Los Angeles (20) for work, also
reachable by transferring at the Orange station and riding to Union Station.
Submitted 1/12/01, Schiermeyer Consulting Services
000015
• •
METROLINK PERFORM ANCE SUMMARIES
December 2000
I1�111 METROLINK
vrt
33.000
30,000
27,000
24,000
21,000
8,000
15,000
O,na Doom,
12.000
9,000
6,000
3. 000 -
N IV Lh•
Open
Nu r•
OC O 1pu Open
•
!AVE RAGE WEEKD AY PASSENGER TRIPS - INCEPTION TO DATE
METROLINK
iVOC LM. Op•n
0 - T _ _ ,H.�7,11,�1,9.II ,�.1�.L1.d,�.t1 �1 ..1�1 , . ,�.. ...,�.�. .�.��.E�
O N O J F M A M J J AS O N,D J+F M,AiMJ J 4 S O N O J,F M' ,M J J A S O N O J F M A M J J AI O N O J F M A M J J A S O N n
SJ •1 r u • .. _ .. _
94
94
m
97
99
99
9-
00
34,000
32,000
30,000
28,000
26,000
4,000
2,000
0,000 -
18,000
16,000
27,344
30,365
29,730
Jan -00 Feb -00
METROLINK
AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS
31,989
31,358
M ar -00 Apr -00
31,538
31,807
Dec -99
4--
31,474
31,396
M ay -00 Jun -00 Jul -00 Aug -00
[EOM Ho liday AdJ—1—UnadjAvg
31,169
30,190
Sep -00 Ocl-00
31,994
N ov -00 Doc00
29 460
•
•
3
•
•
Dec 99
METROLINK AVERAGE WEEKDAY PASSENGER TRIPS
THIRTEEN MONTH WINDOW - HOLIDAY ADJUSTED
:Vera#ura
gp_urty
3,537
Antelope:;:
Vitt'
4,322
Sari
I3ern ird:no
8,254
Burbank :::
Turns
Riverside
359
3,915
Orange::
Coun#y:
Jan 00
3,766
4,677
8,681
455
4,363
Feb 00
3,929
4,696
9,017
417
4,501
Mar 00
3,998
5,022
9,287
462
4,593
5,165
5,773
5,672
5,779
Inl Enip/
OG
Apr 00
May 00
Jun 00
4,150
3,959
3,829
5,178
4,992
5,006
9,616
9,541
9,636
453
462
460
4,554
4,614
4,676
Jul 00
3,722
4,911
9,586
481
4,335
5,714
5,577
5,667
5,818
1,717
1,922
2,040
2,113
2,220
2,301
2,433
2,521
RIv/Full/: .:
LA
75
93
93
104
104
92
100
100
TOTAL
SYSTEIV!(:
Aug 00
Sep 00
Oct 00
3,681
3,920
3,865
4,824
4,506
4,669
9,507
8,867
9,103
477
544
577
4,133
4,100
4,297
Nov 00
3,697
4,661
9,599
521
4,678
Dec 00
3,365
4,450
8,694
462
4,341
6,065
5,553
5,655
5,894
5,362
2,610
2,616
2,907
2,844
2,697
99
84
96
100
89
27,344
29,730
30,365
31,358
31,989
31,538
31,807
31,474
31,396
30,190
31,169
31,994
29,460
% Change
Dec vs Nov 00
-9
-5%
-9%
-7%
-9 %
-5%
-8%
% Change
Dec 00 vs Dec 99
-5%
School Trips - Dec 00:
IAvg Daily School Trips 1
% of Monthly Trips
3%
5%
29%
11%
I 4%1
57%1
19 %1
8%]
0%
0
151
0%
691
1%
421
9%
2
0%
y
0°01
0%1
0%1
0%J
'1a:Cfiar1
!S: FGIQi'.
-7%
9%
2%
3%
2%
-1%
1%
-1%
0%
-4%
3%
3%
-8%
ADR_ Mo
Inland Empire/Orange CountyLine
Average Daily Passenger Trips - H oliday Adjusted
Avg Daily Riders
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Aug
2907
Sep Oct
2844
2697
Nov Dec -00
•
Inland Empire/Orange County Line
% of Peak -Direction Trains Arriving Within 5 -Minutes of Scheduled Time
•
San Berna o Line Saturday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
Avg Daily Riders
3500,
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0z
Dec -99
Jan -00
[Nola : Sept Includes LA. Co unty Fair Riders'
2395
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
San Bernardino Line Saturday Service
% of Trains Arriving Within 5 -Minutes of Scheduled Time
80.0%- _
Dec -99 Jan -00 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Aug
Sep
M.
100 .0'
98 .3°i
Oct Nov Dec -00
Avg Daily Riders
3500
3000-
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Dec -99
Jan -00 Feb Mar Apr May y Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -00
Antelope Valley Line Saturday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
Antel ope Valley Line Saturday Service
% of Trains Arriving Within 5 - Minutes of Scheduled Time
May
Jun
93.8°i
95 .0°
Jul Aug Sep
400 .0
1-
97.5°
Oct Nov Dec 00
•
•
7
•
Avg Daily Riders
3500
3000
2500
2000-
1500
1000-
500
Riversi ine Saturday Service
Ave e Daily Passenger Trips
9 P
0 Dec -99 Jan -00 L Feb 1
Mar Apr May Jun
Jul
Aug Sep Oct
i kiciti ,,"
Nov
Dec -00
0
100.0%
80.0% -
60. 0% -
40. 0%
20.0% -
Riverside Line Saturday Service
% of Trains Arriving Within 5 - Minutes of Scheduled Time
0.0% /
Dec -99 Jan -00 Feb Mar Apr May
Jun
"Riverside Line Saturday Service Began 06/24/00
Jul Aug Sep
San Bernardino Line Sunday Service
Average Daily Passenger Trips
Avg Daily Riders
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Nov -99 Dec -99 Jan -0O Feb Mar Apr May Jun -00
c*,
100.0%l
80. 0%
60.0% -
40.0% -
20.0%
San Bernardino Line Sunday Service
of Trains Arriving Within 5 -Minutes of Scheduled Time
0. 0%`
Dec -99 Jan -00 Feb Mar Apr May Jun -00
00 .0°
Jul
100 .0°
Aug Sep
L
100 .0
93.8°
Oct Nov Dec -00
Sunday Service Began 06/25/00
•
•
9
•
Dec 99
METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE
Peak -Period, Peak -Direction Trains (Latest 13 Months)
Sep 00 Oct 00 N ov 00 Dec 00
Mar 00 Apr 00
M ay 00 Jun 00 Jul 00 Aug 00
r% Arriving With 0 -Minute Delay ❑% Arriving With 5 -Minute Delay 1
10
Peak-OTP
METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE
All Weekday Trains (Latest 13 Months)
1
94%
I �I
Dec 99 Jan 00
Feb 00
95 %
L
Mar 00 Apr 00 May 00
95 %
94 %
❑% Arriving Within 5 -Minutes Of Scheduled Time 1
•
•
1!
• OT-13M o
•
•
METROLINK SCHEDULE ADHERENCE SUMMARY
Perce ntage of Weekday Trai ns Arrivi ng Within 5 Minutes of Sch eduled Time
LATEST 13 MONTHS
Ventura Bounty
Antetope
Ro ut s ... :
• -• :i...
Out -::.
.. Valley
- :::::::.: 6 4::
Irr
San Bernardifi o
.. .. ,.
:::' Irt : :.: Out:
Burbank Turns
In� � •: �. C1ut
Riverside ::
�:�. In • �: -. Qut::
Orange -County:
;• � .-:�;:�Oilt
::Inland Em /Oe
. .>::.•:: _
::. Ri .'
v F::::: ..
; l:5yslem::: .:.;::':;:.:: .1:.;: .: .it
:�:
: .Isl :� �:�
< .Tf o . ...-.�.S o .�
�:�: ai::��:�:��0ut:� '
... .
.=:�aii
:�#iSiaf:
Dec 99
99% 98%
99% 97 %
98% 95%
99% 100%
i 78% 80 %
....•Ofak ..
Jan 00
89 % 93%
92 % 92%
81% 98 %
94 % 95%
94%
99% 96%
99 % 98 %
98% 98%
99 % 97%
85% 79 %
85% 85%
95 % 93 %
Feb 00
98% 97%
100% 98%
96 % 96 %
98% 98 %
92% 83%
86% 88%
95 % 93%
94 %
Mar 00
99% 97%
98% 96%
98 % 97%
100 % 99 %
83%
83 % 88 %
97% 96 %
76 % 93%
95% 94 %
94%
88%
88 % 89%
97 % 96 %
96% 93%
Apr00
98% 98%
98% 99%
97 % 98 %
98 %
95 % 95 %
95%
97%
83% 71 %
94 % 96%
97%
93%
70 % 95 %
95% 95%
95%
May 00
98% 94%
95% 93%
92 % 96%
99% 99%
80 % 83%
93% 95%
98%
Jun 00
98%
97 %
95 % 95 %
94% 94 %
94%
95%
95% 88%
95% 94%
99% 100%
77% 73%
84% 89 %
98% 95 %
Jul 00
99% 95%
95% °
88 /0
97% 94%
o
98 /0 97%
86% 98%
93 % 91%
92%
74%
58 %
82% 78%
84% 93%
65% 90 %
91% 87%
Aug 00
97% 96%
98% 97%
95% 98%
99% 99 %
�o
✓ 86% /0 77
o
80 /0 79 %
89 %
91 % 93%
82% 93%
92%
Sep 00
99% 97%
96% 94%
98%
92%
92%
99%
99 % 99%
88% 74%
95 % 89%
92% 96%
90%
O ct00
98% 97%
98% 98%
96% 97%
84% 81%
86% 92%
88%
96 % 93%
95%
100% 100%
92 % 83%
Nov 00
99% 96%
97% 99%
98% 99%
100%
82 % 86%
94 % 93%
93%
98%
77%
83%
90% 92%
93% 96%
100% 95 %
95%
Dec 00
100% 99%
98% 97%
96% 96%
96%
95%
98% 99%
92 % 88%
96% 93 %
98%
97 %
100% 95 %
97 % 96%
96%
Peak Perio d Trains Arriving Within 5 M inutes of Schedu led Time
IDec 00
Peak Period Trains
100% 98%I 98% 95%
.:.SNB:Route: <B.UFt:Tdrns:::•: RIv RQut�: :::: .:•: •:• •:-:Q� Route ;:::::
96% 96%J 98% 100% 91% 87 %I 97% 91%
•::olnl: rh OG: Reu Rlv(Fol/l'A::'::::.:::.:;: Tot:In6it:::TlitOiittld T:otSYst; :
99 % 95 %I 0% 0%l 97 % 94 %I 96%1
No adjustments have be en made fo r relievable delays.
Terminated trains are co nsidered OT if they were on -time at point of Termination.
Annulled trains are not included in the on -time calculation.
COCD
4'
()TAW°
CAUSES OF METROLINK DELAYS
DECE MBER 2000
viiirviANY CNUSt OF I HAIN DELAYS GREATER THAN 5 MINUTES
CAUSE:
VEN
AVL
SNB
BUR
RIV
OC
INL/OC
R/F/L
TOTAL
TOT
% of
Signals/Detectors
0
2
9.
0
2
1
2
0
16
18%
Slow Orders/MOW
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
2%
Track/Switch
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1%
Dispatching
0
0
1
0
8
7
0
1
17
19%
Mechanical
0
1
4
0
2
1
1
1
10
11 %
Freight Train
0
1
0
1
4
3
0
0
9
10%
Amtrak Train
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
6
7%
Metrolink Meet/Turn
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1%
Vandalism
1
1
5
0
2
5
1
0
15
16%
Passenger(s)
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
5
5%
SCRRA Hold Policy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other
0
2
1
2
3
1
0
0
9
10%
TOTAL
2
10
22
4
24
21
6
2
91
100%
. 13
Saturday
SNB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Saturday
AVL
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Saturdi
R
(
(
0
0
0
0
0012crt„
•
•
•
FREQUENCY OF TRAIN DELAYS BY DURATION
December 2000
MINUTES LATE:
VEN
AVL
SNB
BUR
RIV
OC
IE/OC
RIV/FUL
TOTAL
%otTOT
NO DELAY
347
388
470
221
180
337
215
58
2216
88.0%
1 MIN • 5 MIN
11
42
67
16
36
21
18
0
211
8.4%
6 M IN - lO M IN
2
5
7
2
11
11
2
•
0
40
1.6%
11 MIN -20 MIN
0
3
6
2
11
4
2
1
29
1.296
21 MIN • 30 MIN
0
2
5
0
1
4
1
1
14
0.6%
GREATER THAN 30 MIN
0
0
4
0
1
2
1
0
8
0.3%
ANNULLED
0
0
3
1
0
1
1
0
6
0 .2%
TOTAL TRAINS OPTD
360
440
559
241
240
379
239
TRAINS DELAYED >O min
13
52
89
60
2518
100%
20
60
42
24
TRAINS DELAYED > 5 min
2
10
22
4
24
21
6
2
2
302
12.0%
91
3 .6%
This summary excludes Satu rday & Sunday Service.
4
00121req
PERCENT OF DELAYS BY DURATION (ALL WEEKDAY TRAINS)
DECEMBER 2000
0 min delay
(88.0% )
% Of Trains Arriving Within 5 Minutes = 96.4% I
•
l5-
1-2 min delay
(4.2%)
> 20 min late
(0.9%)
11-20 min delay
(1.2%)
6-10 min delay
(1 .6 %)
3-5 min delay
(4.1%)
...JANUARY 2001
40,
W
ATTERS
Metrolink News and Events
Who's Who in The Railroad Business?
What's the difference between Metrolink, Amtrak and the MTA?
Where do Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Union Pacific fit in?
All operate trains in Southern California on the same tracks but are
owned ! managed by different organizations. This primer should help
sort it all out.
Metrolink
Rail service: Commuter rail carrying long-distance passengers from
outlying suburban communities to employment centers such as
Burbank, Irvine and downtown Los Angeles.
Ownership/Management: The
Southern California Regional Rail
Authority ISCRRA), a joint
•wers agency formed by
transportation
commissions in Los
Angeles, Orange. Riverside,
San Bernardino and Ventura
counties. Through its member
agencies, Metrolink owns
;119 miles of Southern
California's rail
system. The 11 -
member hoard
:;ovrms independently
ktt the county transit agencies that appoint its members.
Established: 1992. when service on three lines began.
System size: 12S daily trains running on six routes in six counties,
carrying 31.000 daily passengers to 47 stations.
Future projections: By the year 2010, Metrolink will connect
Southern California with more than 450 miles of track, seven routes and
51 stations, forming the nation's sixth largest commuter
train system.
Otherresponsibilities: Dispatches freight and Amtrak passenger
0 ns travelling on its track, which amounts to more than 100 freight
n_s and nearly 30 Amtrak trains every weekday.
MTA
Rail service: Local passenger rail service in Los Angeles County on
the Blue Line and Green Line light rail and Red Line subway.
Ownership/Management: Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) board, composed of 13 members,
including the Los Angeles County supervisors, the mayor of Los
Angeles and city representatives. Owns 59 miles of light rail and
subway track. The MTA Board chair appoints 4 members to serve on
the Metrolink governing board.
Established: 1993, with the merger of the Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission and the Southern California Rapid Transit
District.
System size: More than 200,000 daily passengers traveling
between 50 stations.
Other responsibilities: Transportation
planner, designer. builder and operator for
Los Angeles Count; including 1,900 daily
buses.
Rail service: intercity passenger rail
throughout United States.
Ownership/Management: Amtrak, the
National Railroad Passenger Corp., operates
long-distance passenger rail service with federal
subsidies. Runs primarily on track owned by other railroads.
Established: 1971, when it assumed operation of national
passenger rail from privately owned railroads.
System size: 500 stations, 22,000 mute miles in 45 states. In
Southern California, local service is provided by 11 daily round -trips
between San Diego and Los Angeles, with four of those trains contin-
uing north to Santa Barbara.
Other responsibilities: Amtrak operates trains owned by others
under contract, providing engineers and conductors, as it does
for Metrolink.
1 8 0 0 1 3 7 1 - L I N K W W W. M E T R O L I N K T R A I N S. C O M
000032
METROLI NK MATTERS JANUARY 2 0 0 1
Hold On!
The safety of our passengers is our top priority. Our primary goal is to get you to your
destination as safely as possible. Many of the injuries that are reported by passengers occur
while boarding and alighting the train and using the stairs. To prevent tripping or falling,
suggest that you always watch your step and hold the post or hand rail when entering
the train or using the stairs.
Metrolink has initiated a safety campaign to remind riders of th
using the handrails when boarding and disembarking the
walking inside the train. We suggest that you always..
to hold onto the handrail. Engineers and condu
the most stable position for someone stan
involves maintaining three points of conta
recommended points of contact are both feet
M We also suggest that you limit the number
with you. Overloading yourself with many small ba
or make it impossible for you to grip a handrail. Consider
'" into one larger bag or using a handcart or briefcase with wheels
;h Metrolink's Safety Department would like to thank Miriam Schoengarthsand
members and regular train riders, who volunteered to model for the new safety posters.
ink staff
COVER STORY (continued)
Burlington Northem Santa Fe
Rail service: Freight service. including hauling coal, grain, chemicals, metals and
minerals, automobiles and consumer goods.
Ownership/Nlanagement: Publically held company; headquartered Ir. Fort
\orth. Texas.
Established: Created in 1995 with the merger of Burlington Northern and the
Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. The onginal railroads that preceded the
tomlation of the Burlington Northern Railroad date back as early as 1849.
system size: One of the largest railroad networks in North America, stretching
more than 33,500 miles in 28 states.
Union Pacific
Rail service: Freight service, including a diversified commodity rnix of chemi-
cals. coal, food and tood products, forest products, grain and grain products, metals
and minerals, automobiles and earts.
Ownershipimanagement: Publicallv held company headquartered in Omaha,
Nebraska.
Established: 1860s. Merged with the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1996.
System size: Also one of the largest railroad networks in North America,
stretching more than 38,500 miles and serving 23 states.
monthly pass holders get
advantage - free
rides on some
Amtrak trains.
Step-up coupons
are not necessary for
morning Amtrak trains N
Station to Oceanside andj
No. 585 from Oceansideh
simply need to show
coupons. Check the
train times.
Amtrak conductors Pleese 1io thi Malrolink monthly
pass holders who ' IRS SUS W11 fume
•
800 1 3 7 1 - L I N K INTERNET
1000033
KEYWORD: METROLINK
METROL
7115= !NZ
F
•Erik Florentin Loves Metrolink Trains!
Fril% eft -
Meet Metrolink's little buddy, Erik Florentin. At 3 years old,
Erik has come to love Metrolink trains. When
he first started talking about trains at age 2,
Erik's parents began taking him to the
Claremont Metrolink Train Depot, where
he eagerly watched each Metrolink
.train arrive. Without a doubt, Erik's
tavorite thing to do is to "Go see a
train " VN•hich means watching the
7:43 p.m. Metrolink train leave for San
Bernardino or the -:30 p.m. train
depart for Los Angeles. Erik makes
it a ritual to wave and talk to
conductors, Tami and Greg, and greet
his favorite engineers, Mike and Larry
of the San Bernardino Line.
•
•
Your Questions Answered -.
Frequently asked questions posed by passengrrs on all
lines.
Erik's mother created this handmade Metrolink train costume
One evening, while Erik, his parents, and his baby sister,
Aubrey, went for their nightly stroll around Claremont Village, Erik
began to hear the "shoo-chooing" of the
Metrolink train. Erik's mom reminded him,
"We'd better hurry or we'll miss the -
train." Dad, kidding around, said,
"Oh, that is OK, we have already seen
the train every night'this week."
€ Without hesitation, Erik replied,
"We have to go see the train,
.because trains are our life!"
Metrolink's mission is to
provide safe, reliable commuter
service, but we're particularly
inspired in being the source of a
child's delight.
for him to wear for Halloween this year.
a I want to buy a ticket from Fullerton to Burbank Airport battlers are no
Burbank Airport buttons on the vending madine atFillertoa,
Whatdoldo?
A Purchase a bast to Bwbank Station. t is wad to
Burbank Airport
0: Cana use a step-up coupon brideAanal
Diego if my Metrolink merdldy pas- -jai=
Fullerton to Los Angeles?
k No. you anent Slep-up anpeasareaai!
valid to and from Ilre *dices it ilo z sal
the be kw which your pass iasboa
purdwet Slop -up nupensarsaaid
only on Amtrak tool.. Fal.h r
Los Angeles. lfgentruitle bibs ti l
San Diego Zee ulna Narfd,w Irigblraow seed%
you mast buy an Amtrak lidoetio i se:
Andten-trip ticket idiom runontierthat slop cups area
Metrolink uanditypasses. Se phase below wiiMir* elide=bib
cannot atxepta*Wink f6 -b blot andragayuaiewhaler Amtrak
ticket while riding Amtrak.
s o 0
3 7 1- L I N K
ithy dente aadrmlor make se inmy
A tendioxlersaa required io Ui *Wart arwrmanurls iris
paoseog.a.Bon an.ostitielpti orb inlregmbribersand re
aointdlatinyaoire .abit 6ssenotryen eansonodaagu rilunogeis
iYsarever nnil-d In passengers ably and a.iortanibape aramwcannin
ernana4ataaapig care Ind ananntorloaagen
W W W. M E T R O L I N K T R A I N S. C O M
000034
M ETR OL 1
r4 TA
Ems' t 1.
A R Y 2 0 0 1
Dithnicritnjoya.clayin.the snow when Westwind
;oiums intoa Winter Wonderland. In addition to snow fun
Aherewillbeseasonal arts and crafts games to round off
Jitheiifay'szctivities.Wear cloths that will keep you warm
' o'sWmberlifonderland will take place at
1dte Afest indtoamaunityfenter on Saturday, January
lh 3Z 1308 t.Ticketsa e $5.00 per resident
'slj>noatsidentsadd$L5O.). All boys and girls over the age
:yeaisarewelmme.$ormore information, call the
4onterat 395-2020 or visit The City of
sWebsiteathttp://www.d..ontario.ca.us.
• • - townSanta Ana comes alive in the
?w'3ten$alleries,.artists, theatres and restaurants host
WilageDpenHouse.This free event attracts
- �''ri002a7000 individuals from throughout Los
andlarange County to see the latest works from
of thisartscolony. The Village includes
-than 50 art studios and galleries located in seven
m historic Downtown Santa Ana. Each open
isimique and different, from the art exhibited to
peckinnances presented- Lout live theatre and
art to local bands and multimedia. A
evening is assured. Come enter the world
iheartist at the Artists Village Open House, during
first Saturday of each month on Second Street,
L,Bush and Broadway, from 7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
additional information, or to receive arts related
, contact Jim Gilliam, Arts Administrator,
@a.santa-ana.ca.us, 714/571-4229.
METROLINK MATTERS
Editor. t hristiae Tao
Writers: Christine Tao, Cheryl Downey, Eliza Shanahian, Tracy Berge
Manager External Communications
Francisco Oaxaca
C.E.O.: David Solon
Said any caveats or story ideas to
"Mamba Matters," 700 South Ebner St., Sate 2600,
Los !Memos, CA 90017.
® Prrntea on Recucled Paper with ,Jul u7
8 0 0 i 3 7 1- L l N K
Metrolink On -Time Performance
May '00
June '00
93.8%
94.1%
91.7%
821%
-,Zt 91.6%
89-1%
July '00
- 97.4%
92.3%
August '00
The Antelope
Vallee Line
AV Lino
Tot.F-,AII tines
r
Metrolink Looks Back on the Year 2000
Did you know that?
fro® lay b November 2000
A The highest muter of passeppir trips on one day in Metrofnki history
marred on lute 21, 2000 with
34,713 trips riders on our trans.
A Dung this time period, 49,203bipsaere taken by students
travefng through Metroitk's school fieldtip prelim.
Metroink's Mechanical Department is respeas Ie
for having 27 locomotives and 106
cars ready for service
evety weekday.
Dung the year,
iok placed orders for
2 addrtionarocomidires and 33
addition coaches.
A The two lies that Mania ispatthes in their entirety (the
-Patebpe Yaky and San Baaadno ins) had better on -time
performance than the Metroink system overall The Antelope
a
Miley and Sail —ermine Lines operated en tine over 96% of the
time rhiie over 93% of al traits en al Iles operated on time .
trwmareb inld aia.con readied an average of over.
100,000 user sessieus *month.
W W W. M ETRO L I N KTRA 1 N S. C O M
000035
AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
Retrofit Soundwalls on State Highways
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Receive and file this report.
2) Direct staff to report back in 60 days with a draft retrofit soundwall
priority list using Caltrans' criteria.
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During the late fall, staff received several requests for soundwalls from Assemblyman
Pacheco and from Congressman Calvert, on behalf of constituents. Additionally, staff
has received several telephone inquiries from residents, as well as California Baptist
College, related to soundwalls. The Commission does not have a retrofit soundwall
policy or program and this item is put forward to begin a discussion on whether or not
the Commission should establish one.
As you are aware, SB 45, statutes of 1997, established wholesale change to the
statewide distribution of federal and state transportation funds. SB 45 enacted
sweeping consolidation of the programs administered by the California Transportation
Commission (CTC). The most prominent change was the establishment of a 75% local
and 25% state formula split of state discretionary funding under the State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). This created, for the first time,
entitlements of state transportation program funding to local agencies such as RCTC.
Post SB 45, retrofit soundwalls became an issue to be addressed at the local level and
not by the state. The federal definition of a retrofit soundwall is a noise barrier
addressing freeway sound levels exceeding 67 decibels for residences predating the
freeway. Furthermore, federal regulations restrict the use of federal funds to only
those walls determined to be retrofits. There were a number of issues behind this
shift in responsibility such as, for many years within the overall state program, retrofit
soundwalls were a low priority and received funding on a sporadic basis, the state
.00°0+036
does not have authority over local land use decisions, any new capacity enhancing
construction must, through the environmental process, address freeway noise impacts
in the project area and the state Government Code (Section 65302) requires local
governments to include a noise element in their general plan.
For your information, the Commission is on record opposing the change in
responsibility for the retrofit soundwall program including the method through which
the CTC funded the former retrofit soundwall program.
This shift in responsibility may prove to be very difficult to address in an area such as
Riverside County. We have several dynamics at hand. First, it would take some
research to determine which residences actually preceded the construction of freeways
and would therefore be eligible to be considered as a potential retrofit soundwall.
Second and potentially more difficult to address is our continued population growth.
Growth will result in more houses adjacent to existing freeways in the future.
This situation poses a conundrum for the Commission. Without making a judgement
as to right or wrong, while RCTC does not control local land use decisions, each of the
RCTC's member agencies make land use decisions as part of their local jurisdiction's
responsibilities. One possible approach could be that soundwalls are simply a local
issue created by local decisions and, therefore, should be a local responsibility to cure.
To illustrate, here are a couple of hypothetical examples using Caltrans' previous
retrofit soundwall criteria.
Hypothetical Example #1
Housing tract #1 is approved and developed prior to a freeway being established.
Seven years later a freeway is constructed adjacent to Housing tract #1. At the time
of construction of the freeway, noise studies are conducted and the peak noise level
emanating from the freeway is 60 decibels and a soundwall is not required as part of
the mitigation for the freeway project. Fifteen years pass and the increased traffic
(including trucks) now "qualify" the housing tract as eligible to be considered for a
retrofit soundwall because the ambient noise emanating from the freeway due to
traffic is now 71 decibels. If the Commission had a policy and program mirrored upon
the Caltrans program, there would be several criteria yet to be satisfied.
Caltrans used a formula which essentially results in the creation of a priority list. The
factors included:
1) Achievable Reduction. In plain terms, this is the average reduction in noise
levels the proposed barrier will achieve. The proposed soundwall must result
in an average minimum reduction of 5 decibels (per residential unit).
2) Number of Living Units. This is the number of residential units immediately
•
•
•
000037
•
•
adjacent to the freeway. Residences located above the first floor in multi -story
units are included in the residential count only if the proposed barrier will
provide a 5 decibel reduction for those units, as well.
3) Cost effectiveness. In simplistic terms, Caltrans applies $37,500 as the cost
per unit of benefit as being the basis for cost effectiveness. Therefore, if the
noise studies establish that 25 residential units will benefit from the
construction of a soundwall the maximum recommended level of funding for the
wall is $937,500.
Without identifying funding, the application of the criteria would result in establishing
a priority list for retrofit soundwalls. This is how Caltrans addressed retrofit
soundwalls on a state wide basis prior to SB 45. Over time, due to soundwalls being
a very low statewide priority the list was artificially constrained to a list of projects
which existed prior to 1989. The CTC decided to fund the long standing retrofit
soundwall list on a one time basis off the top of the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) in the 1998 STIP Augmentation (In Southern California these walls
were primarily located in Los Angeles County).
The Commission could establish a policy to maintain a retrofit soundwall priority list
but, without funding, this would prove to be an administrative process with no means
of building the walls. Given the Commission's criteria for funding discretionary
projects, soundwalls cannot receive a score which would qualify it for funding.
However, the list would be available if an unforeseen funding opportunity arose.
Hypothetical Example #2
This example goes beyond the issue of retrofit soundwalls•. This is provided because
it will likely be the largest sector where soundwall requests will come from in the
future. People who are adversely impacted by freeway noise will not differentiate
between an area which is eligible for a retrofit soundwall vs one that is not.
Housing tract #2 is approved for development adjacent to freeway "A". Housing tract
#2 does not precede the establishment of the freeway and cannot be addressed by a
retrofit soundwall policy or program. At the time of development, the peak period
noise levels recorded adjacent to the freeway was 60 decibels and the development
was not conditioned by the local agency nor through the environmental process to
build soundwalls or install noise attenuation improvements in the construction of the
housing (e.g. double pane or laminated windows).
Twelve years later, due to increased traffic, the peak noise levels at the residences
adjacent to the freeway now exceeds 75 decibels and even if the Commission had a
retrofit soundwall policy and funding program, there is no means of addressing these
requests. Yet adjacent residents are impacted daily by the noise from the freeway.
000038
The reason for bringing this up as a hypothetical issue is that staff has already received
inquiries (phone) from several residents and anticipates that given the continued
growth in population as well as goods movement, staff expects these requests
increase over time. One could take an approach such as "didn't you notice the
freeway before you moved in?" Probably not a popular, sympathetic approach or the
Commission could consider funding these requests as they arise. Staff sees no means
to address such requests but wanted the Commission to be aware of them.
Funding of Retrofit Soundwalls
While the Commission has programming authority over the majority of federal and
state transportation dollars, only two sources may be used to fund retrofit soundwalls.
The sources are federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) and STIP Regional
Improvement Program funds (RIP).
The Commission's Measure A program of highway improvements are jointly funded
with Measure A and RIP funds. In the Commission's 1999 Measure A Strategic Plan,
the 1-215 project from the 91/215/60 interchange to the San Bernardino County line
remains the last highway project which has yet to be funded. Any funds redirected
from the RIP or STP programs to fund retrofit soundwalls could directly impact the
timing for the future delivery of the last Measure A highway project. As for the STP
program, the Commission has programmed all of the TEA 21 STP funds (through FY
2002-03). The Commission has not programmed any funds from 2003-04 through
the end of the Measure A program period which is approximately 2008-09.
The future STP discretionary program remains uncommitted and potentially available
to fund the 1-215 north project or almost anything else such as retrofit soundwalls.
The major limitation on the potential use of STP discretionary funds for retrofit
soundwalls is that Measure A funds could not be used as local match.
Conclusion
The issue of retrofit soundwalls is complicated and likely emotional. There are no
simple answers, as each request must be assessed on its merits. Caltrans conducted
a retrofit soundwall program for decades which consisted of a list of projects which
were eventually funded. While Caltrans is no longer responsible for funding retrofit
soundwalls, Caltrans established and over time refined a process for assessing when,
where and the potential cost benefit criteria for establishing and maintaining a priority
list.
Caltrans continues to include resources in its budget to support the requisite noise
studies as requested by the public. Staff recommends that the Commission receive
this report and direct staff to work with Caltrans to establish a draft priority list by
applying Caltrans' criteria and bring the draft list back to the Commission in 60 days.
•
•
•
0Q.0:Q.3n
•
•
•
This will allow the Commission to assess the existing retrofit soundwall funding needs
prior to considering any decisions on funding. Please note that this action will not
provide a forecast of potential future funding exposure.
000040
•
AGENDA ITEM 10
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
John Standiford, Public Information Officer
THROUGH:
Marilyn Williams, Director of Regional Issues and
Communications
SUBJECT:
Cancellation of Bus Pool Agreement with Raytheon
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Cancel the existing buspool agreement with Raytheon Corporation for
the operation of a buspool between Riverside and Fullerton due to low
ridership;
2) Provide 60 days' notice to current riders and the employer to allow
sufficient time to identify, organize and establish other ridesharing
transportation alternatives, and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Riverside County Transportation Commission first established a buspool program
in 1 990 to assist local residents in making long commutes to Orange and Los Angeles
Counties. Buspools are formed in cooperation with employers and are operated by
a private sector service contractor.
The Commission's role is to provide a subsidy of $25 per seat each month in support
of the program. Along with a subsidy from their employer, buspool riders can buy a
monthly buspool pass for a cost of less than $150 per month depending on their
destination. This results in a much easier commute on a comfortable bus for a cost
that's much less than driving alone (especially if using the toll lanes). More
importantly for the Commission, the low subsidy level is a very cost-effective use of
Measure A Commuter Assistance Program dollars. However, based on previous/y
established Commission policy approved in June 1995, ridership must remain at a
level of more than 25 per month to ensure the ongoing viability of the buspool for the
operator and the employer since payments from the employees are the largest source
000641
of revenue to pay for the service.
The subsidy program and each individual agreement is brought before the Commission
on an annual basis, and on June 14, 2000, the Commission approved agreements
with the Raytheon Corporation for three buspools that travel between locations in
Riverside County to Raytheon worksites in El Segundo and Fullerton. Those buspools
operate between 1) Riverside and Fullerton, 2) Riverside and El Segundo and 3)
Moreno Valley and El Segundo.
Ridership on both buspools to El Segundo is strong and exceeding the target of 25
passengers per day. In fact, average daily ridership on both buspools to El Segundo
exceed 40 passengers. The long commute and large workforce at Raytheon's
worksite in El Segundo provides plenty of passengers.
Unfortunately, the same situation does not exist in Fullerton. Fewer employees at the
location mean fewer passengers and ridership has failed to reach the 25 passenger
standard in recent months. As part of the Commission's action in June of 2000,
Raytheon staff developed a marketing plan to attract additional interest in the
Fullerton buspool. The effort did attract a few additional riders for a short period of
time, however it has been a struggle to maintain 20 riders, much less 25.
Staff is requesting Commission approval to cancel the buspool agreement for the
service between Riverside and Fullerton. The cancellation will include a 60 -day notice
period to allow Raytheon and the Commission's Commuter Assistance Program to
work with employees to form carpools or vanpools. Overall, the relationship with
Raytheon has been quite positive and should the firm increase its number of
employees in Fullerton, another buspool could be formed- in the future.
000.04
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 11
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
January 22, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Amend Section 5307 Program of Projects for SunLine Transit
Agency
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend the Section 5307 Program of Projects to correct the line item for
the Lease/Purchase of Replacement Transit Coaches from $413,924 to
$452,000; and
2) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Due to an error on the Section 5307 Program of Projects (POP), SunLine Transit Agency
(SunLine) has requested that the line item for the Lease/Purchase Replacement of
Transit Coaches be corrected to show the original approved amount of $452,000. On
September 13, 2000, RCTC approved an amendment to the FY 00/01 POP. The POP
amendment incorrectly decreased the Lease/Purchase Replacement for Transit Coaches
from $452,000 to $413,924. However, what should have occurred was an
amendment to decrease the Bus Replacement Fund accumulated in a prior fiscal year.
The attached POP corrects the error.
To eliminate potential errors in the future, a Regional Transportation Improvement
Program (RTIP/POP Amendment Form will be provided to all agencies when requesting
amendments. In addition, forms for the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) have been up-
dated so that staff from transit agencies can provide the RTIP number to RCTC when
requesting amendments. Lastly, RCTC staff will provide a workshop for transit
agencies on the POP, SRTP, and RTIP processes in the near future.
000043
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS
FTA SECTION 5307
FY 2000-01
URBANIZED AREA: PALM SPRINGS
APPORTIONMENT: $1,058,042
CARRYOVER FUNDS: $148,560
TRANSFER FUNDS: $0
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE: $1,206,602
RECIPIENTS: SUBAREA APPORTIONME
SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY $1,206,602
PROGRAM OF PROJECTS:
TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT
AMOUNT SHARE TYPE
(1) SUNLINE--OPERATING ASSISTANCE $13,987,000 $324,000 0
JULY 1, 2000 TO JUNE 30, 2001
(2) SUNLINE--LEASE/PURCHASE $565,000 $452,000 C
REPLACEMENT TRANSIT COACHES
(3) SUNLINE-- HYDROGEN FUELING $450,000 $360,000 C
INFRASTRUCTURE
(4) SUNLINE— COMPUTER & $35,000 $14,178 C
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
(5) SUNLINE--PURCHASE TWO (2) $105,000 $56,424 C
REPLACEMENT PARATRANSIT VEH.
TOTAL PROGRAMMED $15,142,000 $1,206,602
BALANCE AVAILABLE $0
APPROVED BY RCTC: July 12, 2000
AMENDED BY RCTC: September 13, 2000
AMENDED BY RCTC:
•
JR:, 1%17/0'1` 1_1
nnnn44-