HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 26, 2001 Plans and ProgramsRIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TIG
53//9
•
•
•
RECORDS
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 12:00
DATE: Monday, February 26, 2001
LOCATION: Riverside County Transportation Commission Office
3560 University Avenue, Conference Room A
Riverside, CA 92501
• • • COMMITTEE MEMBERS • • •
Percy L. Byrd/Robert Bernheimer, City of Indian Wells, Chairman
Gregory V. Schook/John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Vice Chair
Robert Crain/Gary Grimm, City of Blythe
Alfred "Bill" Trembly/Jack Wamsley, City of Canyon Lake
Janice L. Rudman/Jeff Miller, City of Corot/a
Greg Ruppert/Matt Weyuker, City of Desert Hot Springs
Robin ReeserLowe/Lori Van Arsdale, City of Hemet
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 TRANSPORTATION 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, FEBRUARY 26, 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 (January 22, 2001)
5. 2000 DISCRETIONARY STIP FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Pg. 1
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Earmark the RCTC SR60 Widening Project for full funding
($3,261,000) through the 2002 Discretionary STIP;
2) Earmark the Riverside County Newport Road project (in
partnership with the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto) for
$6,000,000 (75% of requested funding of $8,000,000)
through the 2002 Discretionary STIP;
Plans and Programs Committee
February 26, 2001
Page 2
3) Support the 2000 Discretionary STIP funding
recommendations as presented in the attachment; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
6 ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST UPDATE
Pg. 6
This item is to seek Committee approval of the following:
a) Scenario 1 which weights equally the factors of delay,
accident reduction, adjacent grade separations, local ranking,
emissions reduction, and residential noise impact;
OR
b) Scenario 2 which emphasizes the factors of delay and accident
reduction;
AND
c) Approve the City of Banning's request to change their local
ranking of Hargrave Street to 2"d and Sunset Ave to 1st ; and
d) Forward to the Commission for final action.
7. FIRST QUARTER/FY 00/01 TRANSIT OPERATORS' REPORT
Pg. 14
This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the First
Quarter FY 00/01 Transit Operators' Report as an informational item
and forward to the Commission for final action.
•
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Committee
February 26, 2001
Page 3
8. 2001 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN - UPDATE
Pg. 25
This item is to seek Committee approval to forward comments on
the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan and coordinate such
comments with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments
(CVAG) and the Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG).
9. CETAP UPDATE Pg. 26
This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the
CETAP Update as an information item and forward to the
Commission for final action.
10. AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF CORONA'S FY 00/01 SHORT
RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AND ALLOCATION OF LTF FUNDS FOR
FIXED ROUTE SERVICE AND CNG REFUELING STATION
Pg. 28
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend the City of Corona's FY 00/01 Short Range Transit
Plan to provide funds to cover the start-up costs of fixed
route service and local match funding for a CNG refueling
station;
2) Allocate $166,111 in Local Transportation Funds ($98,835 for
fixed route and $67,276 for CNG refueling station); and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
•
Plans and Programs Committee
February 26, 2001
Page 4
11. FY 00/01 SECTION 5310 MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT
MATCH FUNDS Pg. 32
This item is to seek Committee approval to:°
1) Provide $21,200 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds as
local match to Transportation Specialists, Inc. for the purchase
of one modified van and one medium bus through the Section
5310 grant process;
2) Provide $13,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds as
local match to Anza Valley Community Services, for the
purchase of one 24 passenger bus through the Section 5310
grant process; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
12. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
Pg. 34
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.
13. ADJOURNMENT - The next meeting will be at noon, Monday, March
26, 2001 at the RCTC offices.
•
•
•
•
•
•
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
•
•
•
PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Monday, January 22, 2001
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chairperson Robin
Lowe at 12:08 p.m., at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560
University, Suite 100, Riverside, California, 92501.
2. ROLL CALL
Members/Alternates Present: Members Absent:
Daryl Busch
Bob Buster
Percy Byrd
Frank Hall
Richard Kelly
Tom Mullen
Robin Lowe
Jan Rudman
Greg Ruppert
Gregory Schook
Bill Trembly/Jack Wamsley
Roy Wilson
Robert Crain
Jack van Haaster
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
At this time, Commissioner Percy Byrd stated his appreciation to the Commission,
Commissioners, and staff for this expression of sympathy for the loss of his son.
There were no comments from the public.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C (Kelly/Hall) approve the minutes dated November 27, 2000 as submitted.
Abstain: Rudman, Trembly
5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Commissioners Percy Byrd and Greg Schook were unanimously elected as Chairman and Vice
Chairman, respectively. Chairman Byrd assumed the Chair.
At this time, staff presented a latebreaking item. The item arose at the January 17, 2001
meeting of the task force which included Commissioner John Hunt and representatives of the
cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency and
the Commission, and after posting of the Committee's agenda and mailout of agenda packet.
Plans and Programs Minutes
January 22, 2001
Page 2
M/S/C (Mullen/Lowe) to determine that the item, "Amend the City of Banning's Short
Range Transit Plan and Allocate Local Transportation Funds" is a Iatebreaking item and
to add the item to the Committee's agenda, as No. 12.
6. AMENDMENT TO FY 00/01 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN (SRTP) FOR COMMUTER RAIL
M/S/C (Mullen/Buster) to recommend that the Commission approve the amendment of
the Commuter Rail FY 01 Short Range Transit Plan 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.
7. 2001/02 BEACH TRAIN SEASON
M/S/C (Mullen/Lowe) to approve the 2001/02 Beach Train Program, includingthe
commitment to underwrite costs of service beyond fare revenues at a not to exceed
cost of $35,000, and submit to the Commission for final action.
8. RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE
M/S/C (Mullen/Lowe) to receive and file the Rail Program Update as an information
item, and submit to the Commission for final action.
9. RETROFIT SOUNDWALLS ON STATE
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director, informed the Committee of the effects of SB 45
whereby establishment of a 75% local and 25% state formula split of State discretionary
funding under the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) was made. Thus, it
created entitlements of State transportation program funding to local agencies such as RCTC.
Thereupon, soundwall retrofits were addressed at the local level rather than at the State level.
He noted the federal definition of a retrofit soundwall that is a barrier for noise addressing
freeway sound levels that exceeded 67 decibel and soundwalls were constructed for residences
which predated the freeway. At this time, the Commission does not have a policy to retrofit
soundwalls. The use of federal funds were restricted to only those walls that were determined
to be retrofits and, Measure "A" funds could not be used as local match. With regards to
funding, the Commission has programming authority on a majority of federal and state
transportation funds. Two funding sources are available - federal Surface Transportation
Program (STP) and STIP Regional Improvement Program (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 that has yet to be funded. Funds
redirected from the RIP or STP programs to fund retrofit soundwalls could directly impact
schedule in future delivery of this last Measure "A" highway project. This poses a dilemma for
the Commission as it does not control local land use decisions. However, each member agency
of the Commission make land use decisions and perhaps soundwalls be a local issue created
by local decisions and, therefore, should be a local responsibility to resolve.
Commissioner Lowe suggested that, in the final report, RCTC send a letter to member agencies
that they include the soundwall criteria as a condition in their building and land use decisions.
•
•
•
•
•
Plans and Programs Minutes
January 22, 2001
Page 3
M/S/C (Lowe/Ruppert) to: 1) Receive and file the report; 2) Direct staff to report back
in 60 days with a draft retrofit soundwall priority list using Caltrans' criteria; and, 3)
Submit to the Commission for final action.
10. CANCELLATION OF BUS POOL AGREEMENT WITH RAYTHEON
M/S/C (Mullen/Lowe) to approve: 1) Cancellation of the existing buspool agreement
with Raytheon Corporation for the operation of a buspool between Riverside and
Fullerton due to low ridership; 2) Providing 60 days' notice to current riders and the
employer to allow sufficient time to identify, organize and establish other ridesharing
transportation alternatives; and, 3) Submit to the Commission for final action.
11. AMEND SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY
M/S/C (Wilson/Lowe) to approve amendment of 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 forward to the Commission for final action.
12. AMEND THE CITY OF BANNING's SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AND ALLOCATE LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION FUNDS
Tanya Love, Program Manager, informed the Committee that the Commission, in April 2000,
approved use of $35,000 Local Transportation Funds to conduct a study of the regional transit
needs in the Pass area. The cities of Banning and Beaumont awarded the contract to
Nelson/Nygaard. At the "kickoff" meeting on January 17, 2001, the Task Force reviewed the
scope of work. They noted that while an on -board ridecheck surveying existing riders will be
conducted to analyze origin -destination patterns of current riders, it will not answer why
residents do not ride the transit systems. Thus, it was determined that additional information
is needed. They are requesting allocation of additional $12,093 in Local Transportation Funds
to the City of Banning to conduct a five-minute telephone survey of 400 residents. The survey
will focus on: 1) Perception of public transit; 2) Awareness of the service(s) operating in the
community; 3) Travel destinations; 4) Types of household trips; and, 5) Demographic
Information.
M/S/C (Wilson/Ruppert) to: 1) Amend the FY 00/01 Short Range Transit for the City
of Banning to secure additional funding to conduct a telephone survey of residents
living in the Pass Area as an addition to the transit study being conducted; 2) Allocate
$ 12,093 in Local Transportation Funds to the City of Banning; and, 3) Forward to the
Commission for final action.
Plans and Programs Minutes
January 22, 2001
Page 4
13. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the
meeting was adjourned at 12.20 p.m. The next meeting will be held at 12:00 p.m., Monday,
February 26, 2001 at the RCTC offices.
Respectfully submitted,
Naty opebhaver
Clerk of the Board
•
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 5
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISS/ON
DATE:
February 26, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
2000 Discretionary STIP Funding Recommendations
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
•
•
1) Earmark the RCTC SR60 Widening Project for full funding ($3,261,000)
through the 2002 Discretionary STIP;
2) Earmark the Riverside County Newport Road project (in partnership with
the cities of Hemet and San Jacinto) for $6,000,000 (75% of requested
funding of $8,000,000) through the 2002 Discretionary STIP;
3) Support the 2000 Discretionary STIP funding recommendations as
presented in the Attachment; and
4) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On November 20, 2000 the Commission released a Call for Projects to program $11.8
million of 2000 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)/Regional
Improvement Program (RIP) funds available under the Commission's Discretionary
program. Project applications were due on January 31, 2001.
A total of 36 projects were submitted from 22 local agencies with requests totaling
$62.7 million in STIP funds. On February 12th the Commission's Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) convened to evaluate the project applications. We had tremendous
representation from our TAC members, with the County and every city participating
in the evaluation. We started our day by reviewing the Commission approved criteria
and confirming the scoring process to be used. The TAC had previously devoted an
earlier Committee meeting to reviewing the process used for prior calls for projects,
discussing how to improve the process to ensure fair evaluation of all projects, and
providing clarity regarding the information needed to evaluate the applications. The
TAC agreed to assign a zero, low, medium, and high point structure (0,1,2 or 3 points
per criteria), as was done in the past. Additionally, all applicants had been required to
00)
identify their project priorities if multiple applications were submitted. All project
sponsors were invited to attend the project evaluation meeting and requested to
provide a brief overview of their project and answer questions from the Evaluation
Committee.
The TAC began the process of evaluating each agency's number one priority project.
This was done as it was clear that there were insufficient funds available through this
project call to meet all requests. At the end of the all day evaluation, there were five -
projects with a score of 16 or above, with funding requests totaling $7.323M. As had
been previously discussed, Commission staff requested that the SR 60 Widening
Project be removed from funding consideration under this call for projects and
earmarked for funding under the 2002 STIP Discretionary Cycle. As you will recall,
at their December 2000 meeting, the California Transportation Commission
programmed $9.785M of Interregional Transportation Improvement Program funds for
the SR60 HOV and Widening project from Valley Way to 1-15 (coupled with the $25M
from the Governor's Traffic Congestion Relief Program-TCRP) on the condition that the
RCTC commit the balance of funds needed to complete this project, $3,261,000. Due
to the limited amount of funds available through this discretionary STIP cycle, it was
understood that projects not funded in this cycle would remain eligible for
consideration in the 2002 STIP.
With the RCTC project removed from funding consideration, the remaining top four
projects totaled $4.062 M, leaving a balance of $7.738 M available for programming.
There were six projects which received a score of 15 points with their funding
requests totaling $ 19.347M. After much deliberation on how to spread $7.738M and
ensure viable projects, it was the unanimous vote of the TAC to recommend the
following:
► The joint application from the County of Riverside, Hemet and San Jacinto to
reconstruct and widen Newport Road between Menifee and Briggs Road
requested $8M in STIP funds. The timing for the other phases on this project
are such that a slight delay in receipt of these construction funds would not be
detrimental to the project. As such, it was recommended that this project
receive an earmark under the 2002 STIP Discretionary cycle (which is expected
in Summer 2001) for 75% of the project cost, or $6M. This reduced amount
is suggested in order to maximize the amount of funds available for
programming of new projects in the 2002 STIP while ensuring sufficient funds
to move the Newport Road project forward.
► The remaining five projects which received a score of 15 points are
recommended for funding at 68% of their STIP request, which totals $7.715M.
The representatives from the affected agencies (Corona, CVAG, Indian Wells,
Riverside County, and Temecula) all agreed that additional matching funds or
slight project modifications could be done to allow the projects to be completed
with the revised STIP allocations.
•
•
•
000002
•
•
•
At the end of the day there were some concerns raised that geographic balance may
not have adequately been addressed since of the $11.8M available, 55% or
$6,577,800 is being recommended for allocation to the Coachella Valley. When taking
into consideration the recommendations for future earmarks totaling an additional
$9,261,000 for Western County projects (total of $14,461,160 for W.C.), the
percentage changes to 31 % for the Coachella Valley and 69% for the Western
County.
000003
•
2000 Discreti onary STIP Projects TAC Funding Recomme ndati ons
Page 1
Summary Inform ation:
Number of Projects Submitted 36
Number of Agencies Submitting Proj ects: 22
Projected Av ailable STIP F unds: $11 .8 million
Total STIP Funds Request ed: $62 .7 million
T otal Project Costs: $155.6 million
F or joint pr ojects, the le ad submitting agency is
listed first. Partners ar e listed next.
Submitting
Agency
RCTC
La Qu anta
Palm Springs
Pe rris
Rancho M irage/Riv Co unty
Coro na
CVAG /Riv Co unty/in dlo
Indian Wells
RIv Co unty
Riv County/Hemet/San Ja cinto
Temecula
Banfling.?W,.a,
Cathedral, Citli/Rancho Mirage
Mdteno Valley ; .<
Norco;,.; '.
Riverside/Rill County
Riverside County/Riverside.
San Jacinto'!;
Palm Desert
Riverside County
Moreno Valley/Perris
Desert Ho t Springs
Hemet
Blythe
Lake Elsino re
Corona
Coro na
Corona -
Project
Title
SR 60 Widening - HOV & Mixed Flow from 1-15 to Valley Way Rd
Jefferso n St Bridge Improvement, Spanning the Whitewater River
Gene Autry Trail Railroad Bridge and Roadway Widening
Nuevo Rd & Wilson Ave Traffic Signal Installation and Interconnect
Ramon Road - Widen to 6 lan es from DaVall Dr. to Los Alamos Rd.
Linc oln Phase 1,2 - Widen Lin col n, P omona, Sixth & Traffic Sig. Mod
Miles Ave and Clint on St Wid ening/Bridge Construction Project
Miles Avenue 4 -Lane Bridge Construction Project
Reco nstruct/Widen Valley Way/Armstr ong Road - SR 60 to Sierra Ave
Reconstruct/Widen Newport Road between Menifee & Briggs Rds
Bu tterfield Stage Road 4 -Lane Arterial Ext ension Beltway Project
Wilson St Rehabilitation from Highland Springs Ave to Omar St
East Palm Canyon Drive and Hwy 111
Perris Blvd Extenslon/Realignment
Phase 1 Improvements, 1-215 at Clinton Keith Road IC
Install Left Tum Phase at Sixth Street and Sierra Av e
La Sierra Ave Widening
Var, Buren Blvd Raised M edian Constructio n Project
Esplanade Ave and Santa Fe Ave Traffic Signal InstalUlnterconnect
Cook Street Improvements
Scctt Road Reconstruction
Peris Blvd Widening - Phase I
Pierson Blvd Pavement Rehabilitation
State Route 74 Realignment a nd Improvemen t Pro ject
Hobsonway/Intake Blvd (US 95) Signalization Project
Design of Railroad Canyon Road/I-15 IC Pro ject
M agnolia Ave at Rimpau Ave Intersection Circulation Improvements
Railroad Street Pavement Rehabilitation Impro vements
New Traffic Signals at the Top 7 Congested Intersections
STIP
Funds
Requested
STIP
Funds
Rec ommend
STIP Funds
Accum
Total
Original
Match
Amount
rctc
h,er side County
►an spo rtatlon Co►n n►is slon
Orig
Match
T otal
Project
Cost
Total
Score
(points
$ 3,261,000
$ 963,000
$ 1,842,000
$ 245,000
$ 1,012,000
$ 987,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 1,060,000
$ 2,300,000
$ 8,000,000
$ 4,000,000
$ 410,000
$ 1,635,250
$ 2,125,000
$ 416,000
$ 59,250
$ 2,068,000
$ 1,205,000
$ 182,000
$ 857,000
$ 4,400,000
$ 2,856,000
$ 318,000
$ 1,950,000
$ 220,000
$ 1,050,000
$ 332,500
$ 1,207,500
$ 843,500
$ 963,000
$ 1,842,000
$ 245,000
$ 1,012,000
$ 671,160
$ 2,040,000
$ 720,800
$ 1,564,000
$'
$ 2,720,000
$
$ 963,000
$ 2,805,000
$ 3,050,000
$ 4,062,000
$ 4,733,160'
$ 6,773,160
$ 7,493,960
$ 9,057,960
$ 9,057,960
$ 11,777,960
$ 34,785,000
$ 6,142,000
$ 789,000
$ 105,000
$ 689,000
$ 423,000
$ 4,000,000
$ 9,540,000
$ 1,085,000
$ 4,310,000
$ 12,970,000
$ 410,000
S 434,700
$ 1,225,000
$ . 178,000
$ 15,750
$ 887,000
$ 520,000
$ 78,000
$ 367,000
$ 2,000,000
$ 1,574,000
$ 136,000
$ 250,000
$
$ 120,000
$ 142,500
$ 517,500
$ 361,500
91%
86%
30%
30 %
41 %
$ 38,046,000
$ 7,105,000
$ 2,631,000
$ 350,000
$ 1,701,000
$ 1,410,000
$ 7,000,000
$ 10,600,000
$ 3,385,000
$ 12,310,000
$ 16,970,000
$ 820,000
$ 2,070,000
$ 3,350,000
$ 594,000
$ 75,000
$ 2,955,000
$ 1,725,000
$ 260,000
$ 1,224,000
$ 6,400,000
$ 4,430,000
$ 454,000
$ 2,200,000
$ 220,000
$ 1,170,000
$ 475,000
$ 1,725,000
$ 1,205,000
30%
57%
90%
32%
35%
76%
50%
21%
37%
30%
21%
30%
30%
30 %
30%
31%
36%
30%
11%
0%
10 %
30%
30%
30%
18
17
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
13
13
12
11
10
6
5
NE
NE
NE
1
Agency
Corona
Project Title
Lincoln Ave/Westbound Exit Ramp and Eastbound Ramps
STIP Req
$ 714,700
Rec ommend
Accum Tot
Match
$ 306,300
%
30%
Project C ost
Score
$ 1,021,000
NE
Corona
Sampson Ave Pavement Rehabilitation Improvements
$ 339,000
$ 145,500
30%
$ 485,000
NE
Munrieta
Ultimate 1-215 at Los Alamos Rd IC, Widen OC, Improve Diamond IC
$ 4,776,000
$ 2,047,000
30%
$ 6,823,000
NE
MurHeta _
Ultimate Geometry, 1-215 at Clinton Keith Road IC
$ 490,000
$ 210,000
30%
$ 700,000
NE
Norco ." , .
Install Second Left Turn Lane at Second Street and Hammer Ave
$ 250,000
$ -
0%
$ 250,000
NE
Rhierslde County `
Reconstruction and Widening of Lim onite
$ ,. 2,800,000
$ 1,690,000
38%
$ 4,490,000
NE
Tehtecrll p,. '..:. ..,4,e4.11,444,..;
1-1h /SR79,South Ultitnate.Interchang e Improvemen' Program .
$ . 4,500,000
$ ' 4,500,000
50%
.
$ ' 9,000,000
NE
,
Total STIP Funds Requested: $ 62,674,700
Total Project Costs: $ 155,629,000
Notes: TAC Funding Re commen dations:
1. RCTC's pro jec t will be remo ved frorr funding consideratio n fro m the 2000 Discretionary STIP c all for projects . It is recommended that RCTC's SR60 Widening pr oject be earmarked for full funding
($3,261,000) through the 2002 Discretionary STIP.
2. La Quinta, Palm Springs, Perris and Rancho Mirage projects are recommended to receive full funding as they received scores of "17" and "16"s. These f our projects total $4,062,000.
3. Six projects received a sco re of "15". These six projects include Corona, CVAG, Indian Wells, Riversid e County (2 projects), and Temec ula. The remaining $7,773,800 is r ecommended to be split as
follows:
A. Riverside Co unty's project (Constructio n of Newport Ro ad): Defer to the 2002 Discre tio nary STIP cycle with a gu arantee of 75% of the req uest ed STIP funding of $8,000,000. This results in a
$6,000,000 earmark for Rive rside County's Newpo rt Road project in the 2002 STIP Discretionary cycle.
B. The remaining five projects would receive 68% of their requested STIP fundin g amount and are listed below . The five projects total $7,715,000 .
- Corona : Lincoln Ave Phase I and Phase 2 Improve ments - $671,000.
- CVAG: Miles/Clinton Ave Projec t - $2,040,000.
- In dian Wells: Miles Ave Bridge -5720,000.
- Riverside County: Construction of Va lley Way/Armstrong Road - $1,564,000.
- Temecula: Butterfield Stage Road Extension Beltway Project - $2,720,000.
4. The reco mmended earmarks to the 2002 Discretionary STIP for RCTC (SR 60 Widening) and Riverside County (Newport Road) total $9,261,000 .
5. A "NE" listed in the Total Score column indicates the project was no t evaluated.
1
• •
•
AGENDA ITEM 6
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 26, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Refined RCTC Alameda Corridor -East Trade Corridor Grade
Crossing Priority List
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval of the following:
a) Scenario 1 which weights equally the factors of delay, accident
reduction, adjacent grade separations, local ranking, emissions reduction,
and residential noise impact;
OR
b) Scenario 2 which emphasizes the factors of delay and accident reduction;
AND
c) Approve the City of Banning's request to change their local ranking of
Hargrave Street to 2"d and Sunset Ave to 1st ; and
d) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
As a result of RCTC's involvement in the development of the Corridor Plan for the
Alameda Corridor East(ACE)-Trade Corridor Steering Committee, a prioritized list of
grade crossing improvements along the three main lines (UP Los Angeles subdivision,
UP Yuma Main subdivision, and BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision) was developed with
the involvement of the affected jurisdictions: Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa,
Coachella, Corona, Indio, and Riverside, and the County of Riverside.
At its December 13th meeting, the Commission approved the preliminary prioritization
of rail crossing improvements (Attachment A), and directed staff to refine the
prioritization to incorporate consideration of emission reduction and noise reduction
(train whistles) into the prioritization of improvements.
000Q06
The evaluation of additional factors is now completed. Prioritization of grade
separation needs in Riverside County is now based on the following seven factors:
• Existing Vehicle Delay (1999)
• Future Vehicle Delay (2020)
• Accident Reduction
• Distance from other grade separations
• Local ranking
• Emission reduction
• Noise reduction (impact on nearby residential areas)
From the evaluation of these factors, the 59 rail crossings have been separated into
five groups to indicate their relative priority for improvement. Those included in
Group#1 and Group #2 are considered to be the high priority crossings for near -term
improvement. In the original evaluation presented in December, a total of 19 crossings
qualified for either the #1 or #2 priority group.
Priority List Scenarios
In the updated evaluation, two optional priority listings have been prepared. Scenario
1 presents the priority based on equal weighting of all seven evaluation factors.
Scenario 2 puts greater weight on the first three factors (existing delay, future delay,
and accident reduction).
The accompanying table (Attachment B) shows the priority of each crossing in the
original evaluation , Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. (For the sake of simplicity, this table
lists only those crossings which achieve either Group 1 or Group 2 priority in any of
the three scenarios. Once the Commission approves a scenario, the entire list of 59
crossings will be updated to reflect new priority listing.)
Request from the City of Banning
As part of the local ranking criteria, each affected jurisdiction was asked to prioritize
grade crossing improvements in their area. Attachment C is the City of Banning's
original submission. Since the December approval of the prioritization list, the City of
Banning has requested a change to their local priority ranking (Attachment D).
If the City of Banning's request is approved (to switch local priorities between Sunset
and Hargrave), it would have the following effects on priority:
• Scenario #1, Sunset moves from Priority 3 to Priority 2 and Hargrave
moves from Priority 2 to Priority 3;
• Scenario #2, Sunset remains Priority 2 and Hargrave remains Priority 3.
JD Douglas of Parsons Brinckerhoff will be available to present to the Committee the
methodology used to calculate the two scenarios. Once the revised priority list is
approved by the Commission, it will be forwarded to the ACE Steering Committee for
inclusion in the Corridor Plan that will be used to support a federal earmark in the re-
authorization of TEA -21.
000007
ATTACHMENT A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ALAMEDA CORRIDOR EAST -TRADE CORRIDOR
GRADE CROSSING IMPROVEMENT PRIORITY LIST
Approved 12/13/00
Rail
Line
Cross
Street
Jurisdiction
Recommended
Improvement
2020
Priority
Group
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 50
Coachella
Grade Separation
1
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 48/ Dillon Rd
Coachella/Indio
Grade Separation
1
BNSF (SB SUB)
McKinley St
Corona
Grade Separation
1
BNSF & UP (SB SUB:
3rd St
Riverside
Grade Separation
1
BNSF & UP (SB SUB'
Chicago Av
q
Riverside
Grade Separation
1
BNSF & UP (SB SUB
Columbia Av
Riverside
Grade Separation
1
BNSF & UP (SB SUB;
Iowa Av
Riverside
Grade Separation
1
BNSF (SB SUB)
Mary St
Riverside
Grade Separation
1
UP (LA SUB)
Riverside Av
Riverside
Grade Separation
1
BNSF (SB SUB)
Magnolia Av
Riverside County
Grade Separation
1
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Hargrave St
Banning
Grade Separation
2
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Sunset Av
Banning
Grade Separation
2
BNSF (SB SUB)
Auto Center Dr
Corona
Grade Separation
2
UP (LA SUB)
Brockton Av
Riverside
Grade Separation
2
UP (LA SUB)
Magnolia Av
Riverside
Grade Separation
2
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Spruce St
Riverside
Grade Separation
2
UP (LA SUB)
Streeter Av
Riverside
Grade Separation
2
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Center St
Riverside County
Grade Separation
2
UP (LA SUB)
Jurupa Rd
Riverside County
Grade Separation
2
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Califomia Av
Beaumont
Grade Separation
3
UP (YUMA MAIN)
San Timoteo Canyon Rd
Calimesa
Grade Separation
3
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 52
Coachella
Roadway Improvement
3
PNSF /SR SI IR%
c...:u w..
.._
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF & UP (RIV)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (LA SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (LA SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (YUMA MAIN) •
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Adams St
Cridge St
Kansas Av
Madison St
Palm Av
Tyler St
Washington St
Broadway
Rutile St
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside County
Riverside County
Fade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Roadway Improvement
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (LA SUB)
UP (LA SUB)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB
UP (YUMA MAIN)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
22nd St
San Gorgonio Av
Viele Av
Cota St
Joy St
Railroad St
Buchanan St
Jefferson St
Pierce St
Airport Road
Bellgrave Av
Clay St
Main St
Banning
Banning
Beaumont
Corona
Corona
Corona
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside County
Riverside County
Riverside County
Riverside County
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Safety Upgrade
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
BNSF (SB SUB)
UP (LA SUB)
BNSF & UP (SB SUB
UP (LA SUB)
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Pennsylvania Av
Avenue 54
Radio Rd
Sheridan St
7th St
Gibson St
Harrison St
Jackson St
Jane St
Mountain View Av
Palmyrita Av
Panorama Rd
Apache Trail
Beaumont
Coachella
Corona
Corona
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside
Riverside County
Grade Separation
Safety Upgrade
Safety Upgrade
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Roadway Improvement
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
Safety Upgrade
Grade Separation
Grade Separation
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 66
Riverside County
Safety Upgrade
Grade Separation
5
5
000008
ATTACHMENT B
PRIORITY GROUPINGS
(crossings with Priority #1 or #2)
Rail
Line
Cross
Street
Jurisdiction
Original
Priority
Group
(Equal
Weigting)
Scenario
1
(Delay &
Accid.)
Scenario
2
BNSF (SB SUB)
McKinley St
Corona
1
1
1
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 50
Coachella
1
1
1
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 48/ Dillon Rd
Indio/Coachella
1
1
1
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
3rd St
Riverside
1
1 .
1
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Chicago Av
Riverside
1
1
1
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Columbia Av
Riverside
1
2
2
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Iowa Av
Riverside
1
1
1
BNSF (SB SUB)
Mary St
Riverside
1
1
1
UP (LA SUB)
Riverside Av
Riverside
1
2
1
2
1
_
BNSF (SB SUB)
Magnolia Av
Riverside County
1
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Hargrave St
Banning
2
2
3
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Sunset Av
Banning
2
3
2
BNSF (SB SUB)
Auto Center Dr
Corona
2
2
2
UP (LA SUB)
Brockton Av
Riverside
2
2
3
UP (LA SUB)
Magnolia Av
Riverside
2
1
1
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Spruce St
Riverside
2
2
1
UP (LA SUB)
Streeter Av
Riverside
2
1
2
BNSF & UP (SB SUB)
Center St
Riverside County
2
3
3
UP (LA SUB)
BNSF & UP P (SB SUB)
Jurupa Rd
Riverside County
2
2
2
Kansas Ave
Riverside
3
2
3
BNSF (SB SUB)
Washington Ave
Riverside
3
2
2
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Avenue 52
Coachella
3
2
2
UP (YUMA MAIN)
Cridge Street
Riverside
3
3
2
000009
RCTC priority2.xls;Summary;2/21/01
:r•= m'" Riverside Count
1VransPortation Commission
•
•
Chi
ATTACHMENT C
052458
0524 5a
3560 University Avenue Suite 100 • Riverside. California 92501
phone: (909)787-7141 • fax.• (909)787-7920 • uninu.rcrc.ory
GRADE CROSSING PRIORITIZATION FORM
CITY OF BANNING
Overall Rankin • of Grade Crossin • Im • rovements
RANK (1 = highest -
4 = lowest)
CROSS STREET
WRCOG CTP LONG-TERM
RECOMMENDATION*
List Kev Factors Used in
Ranking**.
Rail Line: UP (Yuma Main)
2
Sunset Avenue
Grade Separation
a, b , c , f , g , i , j
3
22nd Street
Grade Separation
a, b , c , f , i , j
`'
San Gorgonio Ave
Grade Separation
a, b , c , i , j
1
Hargrave Street
Grade Separation
a , b , c , e , f , g , h , i , j
ss ng Analysis for ad onal detai
**Factors Used in Ranking:
a.
c.
e.
9•
k.
reduced accidents
improve emergency access
cost-effectiveness
impact on adjacent land uses
emission reductions
other
b.
d.
f.
h.
J.
reduced traffic delay
capital cost
economic benefits to surrounding area
fuel savings
ranked on CPUC Priority List ('00 - '01)
Additional Comments: See attached comments.
Contact Information
Name
Phone
E-mail c-i tyhanninoPhotmai 1 .com
Kahono 0ei
(9U9) y22-3130
Submitted By Kahono 0 e i
Title
Assistant City Engineer
Fax (909) 922-3141
Signature
Please submit form to Stephanie Wiggins at RCTC by Thu
Date 10-26-00
y, November 9, 2000.
000010
2/21/01
RCTC GRADE SEPARATION PRIORITIES
Pri oritization Meth odol ogy
Fact ors Used in Pri oritizati on
1999 Average Daily Vehicle Delay
2020 Average Daily Vehicle Delay
Overall Accident Score (combination of frequency and severity)
Adjacent Grade Separations
Local Ranking
Methodol ogy f or Measuring
1999 Average Daily Vehicle Delay: 1999 Average Daily Traffic volume and gate down time (through trains only)
2020 Average Daily Vehicle Delay: 2020 A verage Daily Traffic v olume and gate down time (through trains only)
Overall Accident Sc ore: Accident frequency multiplied by severity (train -involved accidents).
Adjacent Grade Separations: Distance to nearest grade separation.
Local Ranking: local agency ranking of priority.
•
Rating Points
1999 Average
Daily Vehicle
Delay
5 > 30 veh hrs/day
4 > 20 veh hrs/day
3 > 15 veh hrs/day
2 > 10 veh hrs/day
1 > 5 veh hrs/day
0 < 5 veh hrs/day
2020 Average
Daily Vehicle
Delay
>100 veh hrs/day
> 75 veh hrs/day
> 50 veh hrs/day
> 25 veh hrs/day
> 10 veh hrs/day
< 10 veh hrs/day
Overall
Accident Score
> 0.20
> 0.15
> 0 .10
> 0.05
> 0 .00
0
Adjacent Grade
Separations
> 1 mile
> 1/2 mil e
> 1/4 mile
< 1/4 mile
Rating points for lo cal ranking score were determined using the inverse of the local agency's ranking,
factored up so that the highest priority project received 25 poi nts.
Weighting Points
Weighting points were applied to each evaluation facto r so that each factor is weighted equally, with a maximum possible
score of 500 points. The maximum possible to tal score is 2,500 points (500 for each factor) .
Priority Groupings
The grade crossings were grouped into five priority groupings based on their overall score.
Delay Emissions Inputs
1999 Average Daily Vehicle Delay
2020 Average Daily Vehicle Delay
Land use category and corresponding auto/truck mode split (SCAG 1984)
State of California Total Vehicles by Classification Forecast for 2001 (Caltrans 1997)
Idling Vehicle Emissions (EPA 1998)
Delay Emission sco res were based on sum of one fifth percentiles for each mobile source emission category scaled to 100 point scor e.
Residential Noise In trusion
Residential noise intrusion score is based of judgment of intrusion of noise from 100dB horn at 100 feet from source into
residential areas surrounding rail crossing. Scores are a product of the proportion of residential landuses impacted by
unacceptable noise levels, and the number of trains using each 'ng. Scores are based on one fifth percentiles f or noise
intrusion scaled to 100 points. RCTC priority2 .xls;Method o ;2/21 /01
a a u. J u 0
u u
a 1 L.
W U
K� L1
neeri
G L.
F
•
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
January 31, 2001
ATTACHMENT D
CITY of BANNING
99 E. Ramsey St. • P.O. Box 998 - Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (909) 922-3130 • Fax (909) 922-3141
Ms. Stephanie Wiggins, Program Manager
Riverside County Transportation Commission
3560 University Avenue, Suite 100
Riverside, California 92501
SUBJECT: Railroad Grade Crossing Priority List
Dear Ms. Wiggins:
Per our conversation yesterday, the City of Banning would like to request a change to the
prionty list for the Railroad Grade Crossing, which was submitted to your office in
October 2000.
The original priority list ranked Hargrave Street Grade Crossing as the first priority.
However, in its place, the City would like to change the first priority to Sunset Avenue
Grade Crossing.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (909)
922-3130.
Sincerely
Kahono Oei,
Assistant City Engineer
K.O:vep
Copy: Paul Toor, Public Works Director
File
The City of Banning is divided by I-10 and the railroad. The north side consists of
a majority of commercial and residential zone areas, whereas the south side
consists of industrial and residential zone areas.
Hargrave Street is the main access road for the Industrial Park Area, City park,
Animal Shelter, Wastewater Treatment Facility, Riverside County Road Camp,
and the City Airport. Due to the increased railroad activity and future development
in the vicinity, Hargrave Street/I-10, is experiencing increased traffic delays
impacting the emergency services and economic benefits to the surrounding areas,
and more traffic delays are anticipated in the future at the Hargrave Street Railroad
Crossing.
Currently, 8th Street (also known as Highway 243) is the only primary accessible
road from the north to the south of the highway and railroad. In the event that an
emergency occurs and the railroad crossings are occupied on Hargrave Street, San
Gorgonio Avenue, 22nd Street and Sunset Avenue, the emergency services can only
utilize 8`h Street as a viable access. Moreover, motorists invariably utilize 8th Street
as a primary access increasing the congestion on 8th Street when all the crossings
are experiencing traffic delays, and seriously impacting the emergency services to
the residential, commercial zone areas, and high school.
Hargrave Street Crossing would serve as an essential emergency access and
additional benefit for the residential and commercial zone areas. Hence, reducing
traffic delays and ensuring improved emergency access to the surrounding areas.
Railroad Data Information:
Federal ID No.: 7606955
PUC ID No.: 3568.8
099013
•
AGENDA ITEM 7
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 26, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
First Quarter/FY 00/01 Transit Operators' Report
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the First Quarter FY 00/01
Transit Operators' Report as an informational item and forward to the Commission for
final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This report presents county -wide public transportation ridership, operating and financial
information for the first quarter of FY 00/01, July 1 through September 30, 2000. An
overview of the County's fixed -route and dial -a -ride ridership, operational, and financial
data from FY 98/99 together with projected performance as outlined in each operators
Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) for FY 00/01.
As part of the last Triennial Performance Audit, a Transit Operator Performance
Improvement Program (PIP) was developed. As a result, eight performance indicators
were established:
1) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour - should increase no more than CPI
2) Farebox Recovery Ratio - per RCTC policy and PUC requirements
3) Subsidy per Passenger - should increase no more than CPI
4) Subsidy per Passenger Mile - should increase no more than CPI
5) Subsidy per Revenue Hour - should increase no more than CPI
6) Subsidy per Revenue Mile - should increase no more than CPI
7) Passengers per Revenue Hour - % increase consistent with population
growth or national average, whichever is greater
8) Passengers per Revenue Mile - % increase consistent with population
growth or national average, whichever is greater.
The first two performance indicators: Operating Cost per Revenue Hour and Farebox
Recovery Ratio are mandatory per the Public Utilities Commission. For FY 01/02,
transit operators will be instructed to prepare their SRTP's to meet a minimum of
three of the remaining six performance indicators. This will assist staff with
000014
monitoring performance.
Attachment 1 provides data and performance statistics for all eight of the public
operators. It should be noted that not all of the operators are tracking all of the
performance indicators since per the PIP, operators have the option of selecting three
of the six indicators to track performance. Items not tracked are indicated with an "-";
items that don't apply or where information was not available are indicated by "N/A".
It is anticipated that ridership reports will be presented to the Commission a minimum
of twice a year. Information contained in the ridership report will assist staff in
evaluating each operators' SRTP. Future operating reports will allow staff to compare
one quarter against another to determine ridership levels, costs, etc. Staff recognizes
that this report, to be effective, needs further development. Staff will work with the
consultant conducting the current triennial performance audit to further develop some
criteria to compare operating costs against the performance indicators listed above.
Ridership and Operating Costs
The total number of public transportation trips provided by the County's fixed route,
dial -a -ride and SCRRA's Riverside Line and Inland Empire -Orange County Line
Operators during the first quarter of FY 00/01 was 3,064,111. Of the 3,064,111
trips, 2,911,680 were fixed route (95%) and 152,431 were paratransit trips (5%).
The operating cost per revenue hour for the fixed route services (excluding rail) ranged
from $31.71 to $94.50. The average cost was $63.28. Operating costs for rail
service, for this quarter, are not included as information was not available from
SCRRA. It is anticipated that rail's operating costs will be included in the next quarter
report.
The operating cost per revenue hour for the paratransit services ranged from $14.76
to $48.46. The average cost was $32.09.
The increased cost of fuels may have had a significant impact on operating costs. In
addition, due to a shortage of drivers, some operators had to pay overtime to keep
services operating. Through discussions with operators, staff was informed that the
first quarter reports are not always a true picture of costs as some operators don't
incur major costs until the second or third quarter of operation.
Staff from the transit operators will be encouraged to attend the Plans and Programs'
Committee meeting to answer any questions.
•
0Q9O15
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATI ON COM MISSION
TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT
Summary of First Quarter Inf ormation: July 1, 2000 Through September 30, 2000
Agency Name
Fixed Route Op erating
C osts Per Revenue Hour
Paratransit Operating
C osts Per Revenue Hour
City of Banning
$51.50
$30.40
City of Beaumont
$31 .71
$31.68
City of Corona
N/A
$32.87
City of Riverside - Special Svs. N/A
$22.87
Palo Verde Valley Transit
N/A
$14.76
Riverside Transit Agency
$75 .41
$43 .59
SunLine Transit Agency
$94.50
$48.46 _
Rail Service
--
N/A
Total
$253. 12
$224.63
Average
$63.28
$32 .09
Note: " --" indicates information was not available from Metrolink . It is anticipated that informati on
will be available for the second quarter.
2/16/01 1:11 PM
S ummary Page
VERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION
ANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT
98/99 Compared to FY 00/01 - First Quarter
TRANSIT PROVIDER: CITY OF BANNING
TRANSIT PROVIDER: CITY OF
BANNING
FIXED ROUTE
DATA ELEM ENTS - SYSTEM WIDE TOTAL
Unlinked Passenger Trips
Passenger M iles
Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Total Actual VehicleMiles__
Collisions
Total Revenue Ve hicle System Failures
Total Valid Passenger Complaints
Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled
Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips
To tal Operating Expenses
Total Passenger Fare Revenue s
Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS - SYSTEM
WIDE
O perating Cost Per Revenue Hour
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy per Passenger Mile
Subsidy per Revenue Hour
Subsidy per Revenue Mile
Passengers per Revenue Hour
Passengers per Revenue M iles
Revenue Miles Between Collisions
% Trips On -Time
Complaints per 1,000 Passengers
Total M iles Between Roadcalls
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
FY UU/U1
FY 99/00 1st
SRTP FY 00/01 Quarter
Plan SRTP Plan Actual
243,769 257,150 257,408 56,689
N/A N/A N/A N/A
10,793 10,710 11,406 2,602
183,422 183,141 170,374 37,726
188,460 186,680 175,287 38,9.66
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 4
29 0 0 5
N/A -- -- 22,819
N/A
$472,380 $482,000 $515,944 $134,004
$103,994 $107,629 $110,907 $26,152
$368,386 $374,371 $405,037 $107,852
$43.77
22.0%
$1.51
N/A
$34.13
$2.01
22.59
1.33
N/A
N/A
0.00012
188,460
$45. 00
22. 3%
$1. 46
N/A
$34.96
$2.04
24.01
1.40
183,141
0. 00000
183,141
$45.23
21.5%
$1.57
N/A
$35.51
$2.38
22. 57
1.51
170,374
0.00000
170,374
Note: "--" no table in SRTP to note projected performance levels for the categories.
•
$51 .50
19.5 %
$1.90
N/A
$41.45
$2.86
2.1.79
1.50
37,726
0.00009
9,742
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
8,407
N/A
1,629
25,033
26,550
0
N/A
N/A
$76,925
$5,528
$71,397
PARATRANSIT
11,000
N/A
2,200
33,000
34,949
0
$95,339
$6,710
$88,629
$47.22
7.2%
$8 .49
- N/A
$43.83
$2 .85
5 .16
0.34
N/A
N/A
0.00036
26,550
$43.34
7.0%
$8 .06
N/A
$40 .29
$2 .69
5 .00
0.33
33,000
0.00000
33,000
FY 00/01
SRTP
Plan
9,100
N/A
2,200
29,500
31,373
0
0
- - 0
$86,508
$5,642
$80,866
$39.32
6.5%
$8 .89
N/A
$36.76
$2 .74
4.14
0.31
29,500
0 .00000
29,500
2,206
N/A
587
7,854
8,278
0
0
1
2,005
1,943
$17,843
$1,347
$16,496
$30.40
7 .5%
$7 .48
N/A
$28.10
$2.10
3 .76
0.28
7,854
96.7%
0 .00045
8,278
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
252,176
N/A
12,422
208,455
215,010
1
1
32
N/A
N/A
$549,305
$109,522
$439,783
SYSTEM WIDE
FY 99/00
SRTP Plan
268,150
N/A
12,910
216,141
221,62.9
0
0
- 0
577,339
114,339
$463,000
FY 00/01 1st
FY 00/01 Quarter
SRTP Plan Actual
266,508
N/A
13,606
199,874
206,660
0
0
0
$602,452
$116,549
$485,903
58,895
N/A
3,189
_ 45,580
47,244
0
4
4
24,824
1,943
$151,847
$27,499
$124,348
$44.22 $44 .72 $44.28 $47.62
19.9 % 19.8% 19 .3% 18.1%
$1.74 $1 .73 $1.82 $2 .11
N/A N/A N/A N/A
$35.40 $35.86 $35.71 $38 .99
$2 .11 $2.14 $2.43 $2.73
20.30 20.77 19.59 18 .47
1.21 - 1.24 1.33 1 .29
N/A 216,141 199,874 45,580
N/A -- -- 96 .7%
0.00013 0.00000 0.00000 0.00010
215,010 216,141 199,874 11,811
•
2/16101 1:07 PM
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION C OMMISSION
TRANSIT OPERAT OR RIDERSHIP REPORT
FY 98/99 Compared to FY 00/01 - First Quart er
TRANSIT PROVIDER: CITY OF BEAUMONT
DATA ELEMENTS - SYSTEM WIDE TOTAL
FIXED ROUTE
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
FY 99/00
SRTP
Plan
FY 00/01
SRTP
Plan
Unlinked Passenger Trips
Passenger Miles
Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours _
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles
iles
Total Actual Vehicle Miles
Collisions
Total Revenue Vehicle System Failures
Total Valid Passenger Complaints
Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled
Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips
Total Operating Expenses
Total Passenger Fare Revenues
Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS - SYSTEM
WIDE
Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy per Passenger Mile _
Subsidy per Revenue Hour
Subsidy per Revenue Mile
Passengers per Revenue Hour
Passengers per Revenue Miles
Revenue Miles Between Collisions
% Trips On -Time
Complaints per 1,000 Passengers
Total Miles Between Roadcalls
50,800
N/A
5,200
71,500
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$275,000
$20,000
$255,000
50,800
N/A
5,200
71,500
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$275,000
$20,000
$255,000
65,000
N/A
9,500
120,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$395,000
$39,500
$355,500
1st
Quarter
Actual
13,108
N/A
1,278
17,955
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$40,511
$5,988
$34,524
$52.88
7.3%
$5.02
$49. 04
$3.57
9.77
0.71
N/A
N/A
0.0.0000
N/A
$52.88
7.3%
$5. 02
$49. 04
$3. 57
9.77
0. 71
N/A
N/A
0. 00000
N/A
$41.58
1.0. 00%
$5.47
$37.42
$2.96
6. 84
0. 54
N/A
N/A
0. 0.0000
N/A
$31 .71
14.8%
$2.63
$27.02
$1.92
10.26
0.73
N/A
N/A
0. 0.0000
N/A
TRANSIT PROVIDER: CITY OF
BEAUMONT
PAR ATRANSIT
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
30,200
N/A
5,800
73,500
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
$285,000
$31,500
$253,500
FY 99/00
SRTP
Plan
30,200
N/A
5,800
5,800
73,500
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
$285,000
$31,500
$253,500
FY 00/01
SRTP
Plan
25,000
N/A
4,700
60,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$220,000
$22,000
$198,000
FY UU/U1
1st
Quarter
Actual
7,140
N/A
1,628
18,996
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$51,576
$7,165
$44,410
$49.14
11.1%
$8 .39
$43.71
$3.45
5.21
0.41
N/A
N/A
0. 00000
N/A
$49.14
11.1 %
$8 .39
$43.71
$3.45
5.21
0.41
N/A
N/A
0.00000
N/A
$46 .81
10.0%
$7.92
$42.13
$3.30
5 .32
0.42
N/A
N/A
0 .00000
N/A
$31 .68
13.9%
$6.22
$27 .28
$2.34
4.39
0.38
N/A
N/A
0 .00000
N/A
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
FY 99/00
SRTP
Plan
FY 00/01
SRTP
Plan
SYSTEM WIDE
1st
Quarter
Actual
20,248
N/A
2,906
36,951
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$92,087
$13,153
$78,934
81,000
N/A
11,000
145,000
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
$560,000
$51,500
$508,500
81,000
N/A
11,000
11,000
145,000
N/A
0
' N/A
0
N/A
N/A
560,000
51,500
$508,500
90,000
N/A
14,200
1.8.0,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
615,000
61,500
$553,500
$5.0.91
9 .2 %
$6.28
$46 .23
$3 .51
7 .36
0.56
N/A
N/A
0.00000
N/A
$50.91
9.2%
$6.28
$46 .23
$3.51
7 .36
0.56
N/A
N/A
0 .00000
N/A
$43.31
10 .0%
$6 .15
$38.98
$3.08
6 .34
0 .50
N/A
N/A
0 .0.0000
N/A
$31 .69
14.3%
$3.90
$27.16
$2.14
6.97
0.55
N/A
N/A
0.00000
N/A
O
O
F-+
00
2/16/01 1:07 PM
IVEKSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION
=TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT
0
CC) Y 98/99 Co mpared to FY 00/01 - First Quarter
TRANSIT PROVIDER: CITY OF
C ORONA
TRA NSIT PROVIDER: CITY OF CORON A
DATA ELEMENTS - SYSTEM WIDE TOTAL
Unlinked Passenger Trips
Passenger Miles
Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours
To tal Actual Vehicle Revenue M iles
Total Actual Vehicle M iles
Collision s
Total Revenue Vehicle System Failures
Total Valid Passenger Complaints
Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled
Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips
Total Operating Expenses
To tal Passenger Fa re Revenues
Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)
WIDE
Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy per Passenger Mile
Subsidy per Revenue Hour
Subsidy pe r Rev enue Mile
Passengers per Revenue Hour
Passengers per Revenue Miles
Revenue Miles Between Co llisio ns
% Trips On -Time
Complaints Complaints per 1,000 Passengers
Total Miles Between Roadcalls
FIXED ROUTE
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
FY 99/00
SRTP
Plan
FY 00/01
SRTP
Plan
1st
Quarter
Actual
Not Applicable. The City of Corona
d oes not have fixed route service for
this rep orting period .
1 1 1
Not Applicable. The City of
Co ro na does not have fixed
route service for this repo rtin g
period.
No te: Total Passenger Fa re Revenue s excludes Metrolink subsidies.
P AR ATRANSIT
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
82,628
429,425
19,867
292,104
321,350
3
44
82,628
78,249
$530,616
$59,690
$470,926
$26 .71
11.2%
$5.70
$1.10
$23 .70
$1.61
4.16
0.28
0. 00053
FY 99/00
SRTP
Plan
104,000
434,000
20,800
344,000
416,000
104,000
$651,000
$119,000
$532,000
$31.30
18 .3%
$5.12
$1 .23
$25 .58
$1.55
5.00
0.30
0.00000
FY 00/01
SRTP
Plan
96,916
519,605
24,229
360,970
387,691
$792,150
$122,755
$669,395
$32 .69
15.5 %
$6 .91
$1.29
$27.63
$1 .85
4 .00
0.27
0 .00000
1st
Quarter
Actual
21 •,586
91,388
5,208
78,402
84,546
__-2
9
6
22,479
20,264
$171,209
$41,784
$129,425
$32 .87
24.4%
$6.00
$1.42
$24 .85
$1 .65
4 .14
0 .28
39201
95%
0.00028
10,354
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
82,628
429,425
19,867
292,104
321,350
$530,616
$59,690
$470,926
$26.71
11.2 %
$5 .70
$23 .70
$1.61
4.16
0.28
0 .00000
SYSTE M WIDE
FY 99/00
SRTP Plan
104,000
434,000
20,800
344,000
416,000
$651,000
$119,000
$532,000
$31.30
18.3%
$5.12
$25.58
$1.55
5.00
0 .30
0 .00000
FY 00/01
SRTP Plan
96,916
519,605
24,229
360,970
387,691
$792,150
$122,755
$669,395
$32 .69
15.5%
$6 .91
$27.63
$1.85
4.00
0.27
0.00000
1st
Quarter
Actual
21,586
91,388
5,208
78,402
84,546
---- 2
9
6
22,479
20,264
$171,209
$41,784
$129,425
$32.87
24 .4%
$6.00
$24.85
$1.65
4.14
0.28
0.00028
10,354
• •
2/46 1:07 PM
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT
FY 98/99 Compared to FY 00/01 - First Quarter
TRANSIT PROVIDER: CITY OF RIVERSIDE
DATA ELEMENTS - SYSTEM WIDE TOTAL
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
FIXED ROUTE
FY 99/00
SRTP
Plan
FY 00/01
SRTP
Plan
1st
Quarter
Actual
Unlinked Passenger Trips
Passenger Mile s
Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Total Actual Vehicle Miles
Collisions
Total Revenue Vehicle System Failure s
Total Valid Passenger Complaints
Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled
To tal Actual On -Time Revenue Ve hicle Trips
Total Oper ating Expenses
Total Passenger Fare Revenues
Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)
Not Appli cable. The City of
Riverside - Sp ecial Services
does not have fixed route
s ervic e.
PERFO RMANCE STATISTICS - SYSTEM
WIDE
Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy per Passenger Mile
Subsidy per Revenue Ho ur
Subsidy per Revenue Mile
Passengers per Revenue Hour
Passengers per Revenue Miles
Revenue M iles Between Co llisions
% Trips On -Time
Complaints per 1,000 Passengers
Total Miles Between Roadcalls
No t Applicable. The City of
Riverside - Spec ial Services
does not have fixed route
serv ice.
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
141,222
580,000
33,000
564,000
579,000
4
12
9
141,222
141,222
$1,009,164
$90,082
$919,082
PAR ATRANSIT
FY 99/00
SRTP Plan
146,870
603,200
33,000
564,000
579,000
6
12
12
146,870
146,870
$1,355,200
$120,000
$1,235,200
FY 00/01
SRTP Plan
148,488
588,556
33,887
544,874
588,556
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$1,409,408
$144,000
$1,265,408
TRANSIT PROVIDER: CITY OF
RIVERSIDE - SPECIAL SERVICES
1st
Quart er
Actual
34,783
147,157
8,138
147,157
139,132
0
13
15
34,783
34,779
$186,137
$31,025
$155,112
$30.58
8.9%
$6 .51
$1 .58
$27 .85
$1 .63
4 .28
0.25
141,000
100%
0.00006
21,692
$41 .07
8.9 %
$8.41
$2 .05
$37 .43
$2.19
4.45
0.26
94,000
100%
0 .00008
27,966
$41.59
10.2%
$8 .52
$2.15
$37 .34
$2.32
4.38
0 .27
N/A
N/A
0 .00000
$22.87
16.7%
$4 .46
$1 .p5
$19.06
$1.05
4.27
0.24
147,157
100%
0 .00043
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
1st
Quarter
Actual
141,222
580,000
33,000
564,000
579,000
4
12
9
141,222
141,222
$1,009,164
$90,082
$919,082
SYSTEM WIDE
FY 99/00
SRTP Plan
146,870
603,200
33,000
564,000
579,000
6
i 12
12
146,870
146,870
$1,355,200
$120,000
$1,235,200
FY 00/01
SRTP Plan
148,488
588,556
33,887
544,874
588,556
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$1,409,408
$144,000
$1,265,408
34,783
147,157
8,138
147,157
139,132
0
13
15
34,783
34,779
$186,137
$31,025
$155,112
$30 .58
8.9%
$6 .51
$1.58
$27.85
$1.63
4.28
0.25
141,000
100 %
0 .00006
21,692
$41 .07
8.9 %
$8 .41
$2.05
$37.43
$2.19
4.45
0.26
94,000
100%
0 .00008
27,966
$41.59
10.2%
$8.52
$2.15
$37.34
$2 .32
4 .38
0 .27
N/A
N/A
0.00000
$22 .87
16.7%
$4 .46
$1 .05
$19.06
$1 .05
4.27
0.24
147,157
100%
0.00043
2/16/01 1:07 PM
Q
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM MISSION
TRANSIT OPERAT OR RIDERSHIP REPORT
iV -
I-'fY 98/99 Compared to FY 00/01 - First Quarter
TRANSIT PROVIDER: PALO VERDE
VA LLEY TRANSIT
DATA ELEMENTS - SYSTEM WIDE TOTAL
Unlinked Passenger Trips
Passenger M iles
Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Total Actual Vehicle M iles
Collisions
Total Revenue Ve hicle System Failures
Total Valid Passenger Complaints
Total Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled
Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips
Total Operating Expenses
Total Passenger Fare Revenues
Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)
PERFORMANCE STA TISTICS - SYSTEM
WIDE
Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy per Passenger M ile
Subsidy per Revenue Hour
Subsidy per Revenue Mile
Passengers per Revenue Hour
Passengers per Revenue M iles
Revenue Miles Between Collisions
% Trips On -Time
Complaints per 1,000 Passengers
Total Miles Between Roadcalls
FIXED ROUTE
FY 98/99
Annual
Actua I
FY 99/00
SRTP
Plan
FY 00/01
SRTP
Plan
1st
Quarter
Actual
Palo Verde Valley does not
hav e fixed route service .
III
Palo Verde Valley does not
have fixed route service
TR ANSIT PROVIDER: PALO
VERDE V ALLEY TRANSIT
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
18,900
48,900
6,200
48,900
48,900
0
0
18,900
18,900
$126,600
$21,600
$105,000
$20 .42
17.1 %
$5.56
$2.15
$16 .94
$2.15
3.05
0.39
100%
0. 00000
PARATR ANSIT
FY 99/00
SRTP
Plan
20,400
51,000
6,400
51,000
51,000
0
0
0
20,400
20,400
$142,100
$23,200
$118,900
$22 .20
16 .3 %
$5.83
$2 .33
$18.58
$2 .33
3.19
0.40
100%
0.00000
FY 00/01
SRTP
Plan
21,300
63,000
8,100
63,000
63,000
$169,600
$24,200
$145,400
$20.94
14.3%
$6 .83
$2.31
$17.95
FY 00/01 1st
Quarter
Actual
5,584
2,176
17,363
0
0
0
$32,125
$5,774
$26,351
$14.76
$2.31
2.63
0 .34
0.00000
18.0 %
$4 .72
$12 .11
2 .57
0 .00000
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
18,900
48,900
6,200
48,900
48,900
0
0
0
18,900
18,900
$126,600
$21,600
$105,000
$20 .42
17 .1%
$5.56
$2.15
$16 .94
$2 .15
3 .05
0.39
100%
0 .00000
SYSTEM WIDE
FY 99/00
SRTP
Plan
20,400
51,000
6,400
51,000
51,000
0
20,400
20,400
$142,100
$23,200
$118,900
$22 .20
16.3%
$5 .83
$2.33
$18 .58
$2.33
3.19
0.40
100%
0 .00000
FY 00/01
SRTP
Plan
21,300
6.3,000
8,100
63,000
63,000
0
0
0
0
0
$169,600
$24,200
$145,400
$20.94
14.3%
$6.83
$2.31
$17.95
$2.31
2.63
0.34
0.00000
1st
Quarter
Actual
5,584
2,176
17,363
0
0
0
0
0
$32,125
$5,774
$26,351
$14.76
18.0%
$4.72
$12.11
2.57
0 .00000
•
•
2/16/01 1 07 PM
•
•
IA v cRJILJC uUUIN 1 T I NMN JHU K I AI ON COM MISSION
TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT
FY 98/99 Compared to FY 00/01 - First Quarter
TRANSIT PROVIDER: RTA
•
FIXED ROUTE
DATA ELEMENTS - SYSTEM WIDE
TOTAL
Unlinked Passe nger Trips
Passenger Miles
Total Actual V ehicles Revenue Ho urs
Total Actual Vehicle Reve nue Miles
Total Actual Vehicle M iles
Collisions
Total Revenue Ve hicle System Failures
Total Valid Pa sse nger C omplaints
Total Reven ue Vehicle Trips Scheduled
Total Actua l On -Time Revenue VehicleTrips
Total Ope rating Expenses
Total Passenger Fare Re venues
Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)
PERFORMANCE STATISTICS -
SYSTEM WIDE
Operating Co st Per Reve nue Hour
Farebo x Recovery Ratio
Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy per Passenger Mile
Subsidy per Revenue Hour
Subsidy per Revenue Mile
Passengers per Reven ue Hour
Passengers per Re venue M iles
Revenue M ile s Between Collisions
% Trips On -Time
Complaints Complaints per 1,000 Passen gers
Total Miles Between Roadca lls
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
FY 99/00
SRTP Plan
6,960,491
45 ,585,024
275,098
4,409,633
4,956,759
42
886
575
256,599
241,203
$18,970,514
$3,834,562
$15,135,952
$68.96
20. 2%
$2.17
$0. 33
$55.02
$3.43
25. 30
1.58
104,991
94. 0%
0.0.0008
N/A
FY 00/01
SRTP Plan
8,405,583 7,716,071
55,528,817 4.4,830,373
441,280 310,834
6,592,897 • 5,411,755
7,033,044 5,942,107
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
$25,766,501 $22,924,016
$4,964,564 $5,422,755
$20,801,937 $17,501,261
$58. 39
19.3%
$2. 47
$0. 37
$47. 14
$3. 16
1.9.05
1. 27
N/A
N/A
0. 0.0000
N/A
$73.75
23.7%
$2.27
$0.39
$56. 30
$3.23
24.82
1. 43
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1st Qu arter
Actual
1,581,083
10,403,006
87,960
1,314,296
1,417,480
7
147
381
57,651
54,192
$6,633,170
$1,350,709
$5,282,461
$75 .41
20 .4%
$3.34
$0.51
$60.06
$4.02
17.98
1.20
187,757
94. 0%
0. 00.024
N/A
Note: Demand Res.o nse actual on -time re ve nue vehicle tri.s will be tracked durin. next .uarter.
DEMAND RESPONSE
TRANSIT PROVIDER: RIVERSIDE
TRANSIT AGENCY
172,860
1,187,549
64,189
913,722
913,702
_- - 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$1,803,933
$113,451
$1,690,482
$28 .10
6.3%
$9.78
$1 .42
$26 .34
$1.85
2.69
0.19
3.04,574
N/A
0.00000
N/A
FY 99/00
SRTP Plan
157,527
1,173,576
49,680
723,407
723,407
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/ A
$1,614;384
$113,763
$1,500,621
$32 .50
7 .0%
$9 .53
$1.28
$30.21
$2.07
3.17
0 .22
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
121,987
902,098
46,018
504,326
504,326
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/ A
$2,098,827
$151,359
$1,947,468
$45.61
7.2%
$15 .96
$2.16
$42 .32
$3.86
2 .65
0.24
N/A
N/ A
N/ A
N/A
54,080
371,530
23,937
381,433
381,433
13
58
27
30,712
N/A
$1,043,504
$40,020
$1,003,484
$43 .59
3 .8%
$18.56
N/A
$41 .92
$2 .63
2.26
0 .14
N/A
N/A
0.00050
N/A
7,133,351
46,772,573
339,287
5,323,355
5,870,461
45
886
575
256,599
241,203
$20,774,447
$3,948,013
$16,826,434
$61.23
19 .0%
$2.36
$0.36
$49.59
$3:16
21.02
1.34
118,297
N/A
0 .0.0008
N/A
SYSTEM WIDE
FY 99/00
SRTP Plan
8,563,110
56,702,393
490,960
7,316,304
7,756,451
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
, N/A
N/A
$27,380,885
$5,078,327
$22,302,558
$55 .77
18.5 %
$2.60
$0.39
$45.43
$3 .05
17.44
1.17
N/A
N/A
0.00000
N/A
FY 00/01
SRTP Plan
7,838,058
45,732,471
356,852
5,916,081
6,4.46,433
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$25,022,843
$5,574,114
$19,448,729
$70.12
22.3%
$2 .48
$0.43
$54.50
$3.29
2.1 .96
1.32
N/A
N/A
0.00000
N/A
1st Quarter
Actual
1,635,163
10,774,536
111,897
1,695,729
1,798,913
20
205
408
88,363
54,192
$7,676,674
$1,390,729
$6,285,945
68 .60
18.1%
$3 .84
$0.58
$56 .18
$3.71
14.61
0 .96
N/A
N/A
0 .00025
N/A
2/16/01 1:07 PM
C>31IVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION
CISRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REP ORT
C,ZY 98/99 Compared to FY 00/01 - First Quarter
TRA NSIT PROVIDER: SUNLINE
TRANSIT PROVIDER: SUNLINE
TRANSIT AGENCY
DATA ELEMENTS - SYSTEM WIDE
TOTAL
Unlinked Passenger Trips
Passenger M iles
Total Actual Vehicles Revenue Hours
To tal A ctual Vehicle Revenue M iles
Total Actual Vehicle M iles
Collisions
To tal Revenue Vehicle System Failures
To tal Valid Passenger Complaints
To tal Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled
Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips
To tal Operating Expenses
Total Passenger Fare Revenues
Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)
PERFORM ANCE STATISTICS -
SYSTEM WIDE
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
3,682,003
23,519,470
115,658
1,844,061
1,924,522
2
115
554
128,532
121,334
$9,773,876
$2,132,004
$7,641,872
FIXED ROUTE
FY 99/00
SRTP Plan
3,747,576
25,371,921
132,997
2,206,254
2,272,442
4
126
700
137,202
129,519
$10,598,540
$2,214,590
$8,383,950
Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy per Passenger Mile
Subsidy per Revenue Hour
Subsidy per Revenue Mile
Passengers per Revenue Hour
Passengers per Re venue Miles
Revenue M iles Between Collisions
% Trips On -Time
Complaints per 1,000 Passengers
Total M iles Between Roadcalls
$84.51
21. 8%
$2.08
$0.32
$66. 07
$4. 14
31. 84
2. 00
922,031
94.40%
0.00015
$79. 69
20. 9%
$2.24
$0.33
$63.04
$3.80
28. 18
1. 70
551,564
94.40%
0.00019
FY 00/01
SRTP Plan
3,901,063
25,416,618
147,789
2,308,503
2,545,553
6
126
594
143,060
135,907
$11,295,709
$2,721,869
$8,573,840
$76.43
24.10%
$2.20
$0.34
$58.01
$3. 71
26. 40
1.69
384,751
95.00%
0. 00015
20,203
FY 00/01
1st Quarter
Actual
835,225
5,683,825
32,501
516,242
540,769
4
55
129
36,399
35,078
$3,071,466
$499,039
$2,572,427
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
78,537
1,005,763
27,928
538,437
633,384
2
64
96
68,095
63,533
$1,405,861
$147,671
$1,258,190
PARATRANSIT SYSTE M WIDE
87,454
1,545,110
29,358
568,055
659,055
6
72
120
76,272
71,162
$1,556,460
$144,214
$1,412,246
FY 00/01
SRTP Plan
106,160
2,310,832
41,992
1,048,4721
1,112,104
6
72
134
106,239
99,067
$2,691,292
$219,131
$2,472,161
$94.50 $50.34 $53.02 $64 .09
16 .2% 10.5 % 9.3 % 8 .1%
$3 .08 $16 .02 $16.15 $23 .29
$0.45 $1 .25 $0.91 $1.07
$79.15 $45 .05 $48.10 $58 .87
$4.98 $2 .34 $2.49 $2.36
25.70 2 .81 2.98 2 .53
1.62 0 .15 0.15 0 .10
129,061 269,219 94,676 174,745
96.37% 93.30% 93 .30% 93 .25%
0.00015 0.00.122 0.00137 0 .00126
9,632 20,370 15,445
27,052
606,059
10,376
284,171
311,100
2
32
47
22,509
20,972
$502,872
$50,439
$452,433
$48 .46
10.0%
$16 .72
$0 .75
$43.60
$1 .59
2 .61
0.10
142,086
93.17 %
0.00174
9,722
FY 98/99
Annual
Actual
3,760,540
24,525,233
143,586
2,382,498
2,557,906
4
179
650
196,627
184,867
$11,179,737
$2,279,675
$8,900,062
3,835,030
26,917,031
162,355
2,774,309
2,931,497
10
198
820
213,474
200,681
$12,155,000
$2,358,804
$9,796,196
4,007,223
27,727,450
189,781
3,356,975
3,657,657
1
1982
728
249,299
234,974
$13,987,001
$2,941,000
$11,046,001
$77.86 $74.87 $73.70
20.4% 19 .4% 21.0%
$2 .37 $2.55 $2.76
$0 .36 $0.36 $0 .40
$61 .98 $60 .34 $58 .20
$3.74 $3.53 $3 .29
26 .19 23.62 21.11
1.58 1.38 1.19
595,625 277,431 279,748
94 .02 % 94.01 % 94.25%
0.00017 0.00021 0.00018
FY 00/01
1st Quarter
Actual
862,277
6,289,884
42,877
800,413
851,869
6
87
__176
58,908
56,050
$3,574,338
$549,478
$3,024,860
$83 .36
15.4 %
$3.51
$0 .48
$70.55
$3.78
20.11
1.08
133,40_2
95.15%
0 .00020
2/16/01 1:07 PM
•
•
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CO MMISSION
TRANSIT OPERATOR RIDERSHIP REPORT
FY 98/99 Compared to FY 00/01 - First Quarter
TRA NSIT PROVIDER: RCTC COMMUTER RAIL 1
DA TA ELEMENTS - SYSTEM WIDE TOTAL
Unlinked Passenge r Trips
Passenger Miles
Total Actual Vehicles Reven ue Ho urs
Tota l Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Total Actual Vehicle Miles
Co llisions
Total Revenue Vehicle System Failures
Total Valid Passenger Complaints
To tal Revenue Vehicle Trips Scheduled
Total Actual On -Time Revenue Vehicle Trips
Total Ope rating Expenses
Total Passenger Fare Revenues w/ M OU'
Net Operating Expense s (Subsidies)
PERFO RMA NCE STATISTICS - SYSTEM WIDE
TOTAL
Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour
Farebox Recovery Ratio
Subsidy per Passenger
Subsidy per Passenger Mile
Subsidy per Revenue Hour
Subsidy per Rev enue Mile
Passengers per Reve nue Hour
Passengers per Revenue Miles
Revenue Miles Between Collisions
% Trips On -Time
Complaints per 1,000 Passengers
To tal Miles Between Roadcalls
RIVERSIDE LINE
FY 98/99 FY 00/01 1st FY 98/99
Annual FY 99/00 FY 00/01 Quarter Annual
Actual SRTP Plan SRTP Plan Actual Actual
928,670 1,042,867 1,172,146 264,208 404,321
36,067,000 40,149,000 45,479,000 10,351,000 14,230,000
N/A _ N/A N/A N/A WA
206,293 N/A 231,555 4.7,50.9,000 15.4,136
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A _ N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A
$9,740,000 $10,025,000 $10,765,000 • $6,224,000
$4,953,000 $4,942,000 $5,780,0001 $1,326,000 $2,453,000
$4,787,000 $5,083,000 $4,985,000 -$1,326,000 $3,771,000
50. 9%
$5.15
N/A
$23.20
N/A
4.50
0.00000
49. 3%
$4.87
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0. 00000
53.69 %
$4.25
N/A
$21. 53
N/A
5. 06
0.00000
• MOU: Maintenance of Way Revenue
"Expenditure information pending - should receive from SCRRA by next reporting period.
//VALUE!
-$5 .02
N/A
40.03
N/A
0 .01
0.00000
39.4%
$9.33
N/A
$24 .47
N/A
2.62
0 .00000
IEOC LINE
FY 99/00
SRTP Plan
505,050
13,636,000
N/A
174,462
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$6,505,000
$2,625,000
$3,880,000
40 .4%
$7 .68
FY 00/01
SRTP Pl an
477,509
16,808,000
N/A
191,375
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$7,033,000
$2,610,000
$4,423,000
N/A N/A
$22.24 $23 .11
N/A N/A
2.89 2.50
0.00000
0 .00000
1st
Quarter
Actual
161,367
5,286,000
N/A
45,266
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$738,000
#VALUE!
$0 .00
N/A
$0.00
N/A
3.56
0.00000
TRANSIT PR OVIDER: RCTC -
COMMUTER RAIL
RIVERSIDE - SYSTEM WIDE
FY 98/99
Annual FY 99/00
Actual SRTP Plan
1,332,991
50,297,000
N/A
360,429
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$15,964,000
$7,406,000
$8,558,000
46.4%
$6 .42
N/A
$23 .74
• N/A
3 .70
0.00000
1,547,917
53,785,000
N/A
174,462
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
, N/A
N/A
$16,530,000
$7,567,000
$8,963,000
45 .8%
$5 .79
N/A
$51 .38
N/A
8.87
0 .00000
FY 00/01
SRTP Plan
FY 00/01
1st Quart er
Actual
1,649,655 425,575
62,287,000 15,637,000
N/A N/A
422,930 47,554,266
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
17,798,000 '•
8,390,000 $2,064,000
$9,408,000 -X2,064,000
47.1%
$5.70
N/A
$22.24
N/A
3 .90
0.00000
#VALUEI
-$4 .85
WA
40.04
N/A
0.01
0 .00000
2/16/01 1 07 PM
•
AGENDA ITEM 8
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 26, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Shirley Medina, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
2001 Regional Transportation Plan - Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to forward comments on the 2001 Regional
Transportation Plan and coordinate such comments with the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments (CVAG) and the Western Riverside Council of
Governments (WRCOG).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This is a placeholder as pertinent information regarding key issues with the Draft 2001
Regional Transportation Plan will be discussed at meetings scheduled over the next
couple of weeks. The issues will be presented at the Plans and Programs Committee
meeting on February 26, 2001.
Key issues relating to the Draft 2001 RTP include:
• Aviation
• Maglev
• Growth Forecast
• Financial Forecast/Funding Strategy
• MTA Program of Projects
000025
•
AGENDA ITEM 9
•
•
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 26, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
THROUGH:
Hideo Sugita, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT:
CETAP Update
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to receive and file the CETAP Update as an
information item and forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Internal Corridors: The draft environmental process is underway for the two intra-
county CETAP corridors (Banning/Beaumont to Temecula -Winchester to Temecula
study area, and Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore). The NEPA/404 documents were
submitted to the federal resource agencies for their review and we have received
comments and requests for additional information to assist them in their evaluation of
our Purpose and Need statements, Evaluation Criteria and Initial Alternatives. This has
been quite a complex process since we are requesting that the resource agencies
change from their "usual" way of reviewing and commenting on the documents, which
can take many months or years to render concurrence, to a much streamlined
approach which we hope will allow a finding of concurrence on our documents by April
2001. We have had tremendous support from our local Caltrans office and the Federal
Highway Administration through their participation in many meetings with the Fish and
Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corp of Engineers.
The current schedule has the draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement completed
by the end of July 2001, with the "preferred alternative" selected for each corridor by
December 2001. After the preferred alternative is determined, final EIR/EIS documents
must be prepared and local hearings held prior to the rendering of a Record of Decision.
Inter -County Corridors: Work on the Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County corridor
is moving along very well. Through the assistance of the Bi-County Policy Committee
and the Bi-County Technical Advisory Committee, eight alternatives are currently
recommended for further examination. These alternatives include:
• Reche Canyon Rd. widening to Perris Blvd. (controlled access arterial only)
• Reche Vista/Perris Blvd to California/SR30 (tunnel)
Reche Canyon to California/SR30 (tunnel)
Pigeon Pass to Reche Canyon (controlled access arterial only)
• Pigeon Pass to Center Street or Main Street (controlled access arterial)
000026
► 1-215/SR60 Interchange (Box Springs area) to California/SR30 (tunnel)
► 1-215/SR60 widening/frontage roads
► Transit options
We are in the process of scheduling public scoping meetings to receive comments on
the various transportation alternatives being considered for improved access along this
corridor. We expect the public process will be similar to what was done for the two
internal corridors with a workshop format followed to obtain many comments on the
pros and cons for each alternative. The workshops will be held in early April; one in
Moreno Valley and one in San Bernardino County. After this process is complete, the
list of alternatives for further study will be refined and the Commission will be asked
for their approval on which alternatives to include in the environmental process.
The Orange County Transportation Authority has contracted with Spinner -Lamar and
Associates to conduct a review of their transportation needs. They want to have
public workshops in Orange County to obtain comments from their residents on
transportation priorities. We have had preliminary discussions with their consultant
and are working on scheduling a meeting to make sure the process moves forward in
a coordinated fashion. Additionally, a Resource Management Plan is being developed
for the Cleveland National Forest. We are working with the District Ranger to make
sure they are aware of our study efforts. In order to keep our options open for a
possible future new or improved corridor through the Cleveland Nation Forest, we will
be required to make a formal submission of possible routes by July 2001.
000027
•
•
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 10
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 26, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
Amendment to the City of Corona's FY 00/01 Short Range
Transit Plan and Allocation of LTF Funds for Fixed Route Service
and CNG Refueling Station
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Amend the City of Corona's FY 00/01 Short Range Transit Plan to
provide funds to cover the start-up costs of fixed route service and local
match funding for a CNG refueling station;
•
•
2) Allocate $166,111 in Local Transportation Funds ($98,835 for fixed
route and $67,276 for CNG refueling station); and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Implementation of Fixed Route Service
During FY 99/00, the City of Corona completed a study to determine the feasibility of
initiating a fixed -route community circulator and feeder transit system to supplement
the City's Dial -a -Ride service and provide a link to services provided by the Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA) and Metrolink.
While the approved FY 00/01 Corona Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) included
discussion of the proposed service, the final decision to implement the service was
adopted by the City Council after the normal RCTC approval process of the SRTP and
the City's adoption of its annual budget. As a result, the City's Public Works
Department has been unduly burdened with the start-up costs of this system.
Attachment 1 identifies, by line item, the costs associated with the start-up of the
fixed route service. The City is requesting reimbursement of $98,835 in Local
Transportation Funds (LTF). The City did include operating costs in its FY 00/01
SRTP.
000028
•
The fixed route service, known as the "Corona Cruiser" started February 5, 2001, and
after one week of service has shown an enthusiastic ridership. It is hoped that the
service will attract new commuters that are currently driving alone, thereby having a
positive impact on reducing the City's traffic congestion.
Providing fixed route service, should alleviate the strain on the City's general public
Dial -a -Ride system as ambulatory riders can begin using the fixed route system. It is
anticipated that there will be a shift of riders who can access fixed route, from the
demand/response mode, creating space on the Dial -a -Ride for those who truly need
curb to curb service.
Installation of CNG Refueling Station
The City of Corona was successful in securing an MSRC grant in the amount of
$166,176 to construct a public access CNG refueling station. The total cost of the
CNG station is anticipated to be $332,353. The City budgeted a little over $98,900
as its' share of the station costs and is requesting $67,276 in LTF funds to cover the
balance of the construction costs. Attachment 2 provides a breakdown of costs
associated with construction. The station will be available 24 hours a day/7 days a
week and will be located at the City's Corporate Yard.
All five vehicles for the "Corona Cruiser" are CNG. In addition, the City has
approximately 30 other CNG fleet vehicles that will use this station. Lastly, it is
anticipated that the RTA will also use this station as an additional fueling site.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: N
Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $166,111
Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: N - funds held at
County
C-'
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Date: 2/26/01
000029
•
•
•
FIXED ROUTE IMPLEIATION 'CORONA CRUISER'
•
ESTIMATED
REVENUES
UNIT COST
QUANTITY
EXPENDITURES
FUND SOURCE
Signs 4 -color
$19.95/each
120/units
$ 2,483.25
Contingency Signs
$145.00/each
4
$ 580.50
Poles & rivets
$28.00/each
.. 100/units
$ 3,174.32
Bus Graphics & Painting
$2,500/each
5 buses
$ 12,560.00
Bike Racks (includes installation)
$596 .00/each
5 buses
$ 3,620.00
(A -Z will provide free)
3 contingencies
Installation from Corona Fleet
5
$ 1,464.71
Destination Signs
$400.00/each
5 buses
$ 1,840 .48
Installation
$395.00/each
$ 2,123 .13
Printing of Destination Signs
$ 521.56
Literature Racks for brochures
$150.00/each
5 buses
$ 750 .00
+ 3 contingencies
$ 450.00
Benches
$500.00/each (approx)
18
$ 9,000.00
STA funds c/o $15,000
remainder
$ 6,000.00
#57739230 42020
Kiosks
Bus
$95.00/each
117
$ 11,115 .00
Shelters
$8,070
3
$ 24,210 .00
Newspaper Ads
$ 1,350.00
Direct Mail
$.34 x 38,485 households
$ 13,085 .00
Tickets
10,000/qty
$ 2,000.00
Bus Schedules
10,000/qty
$ 3,800 .00
Ribbon -Cutting Ceremony
$700 .00
Radio Announcements
$ 4,000 .00
Cable TV Video
$ 5,000.00
Design Services (funded)
$ 4,475 .00
Transit Study Balance Fund #668
Design Services (unfunded)
$ 4,000 .00
Contractor's Costs:
$6,863
Public Works: Total Costs:
$98,835
r
ATTACHMENT 2
CORONA PUBLIC FOSS CNG FUELING STATION
PROJECT BUDGET
Budget Component
MSRC Funds
City Funds
Design
$16,151*
$65,500
Site Acquisition -value
Canopy
$15,000
$17,250*
Underground Utilities
Construction
$50,000
Fast fill dispenser
$34,000
$34,000
Card Reader, Fuel
Mgmt
Terminal
$11,000
Construct CNG
Storage
$32,353
$17,647
Contingency & Tax
$8,823
$15,629
Mechanic Training
$15,000
Total Costs
$166,176
$166,177
Items with asterisk are city funded
•
410
•
P2001-09 Page 5 of 9
000031
•
AGENDA ITEM 11
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 26, 2001
TO:
Plans and Programs Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming
SUBJECT:
FY 00/01 Section 5310 Measure A Specialized Transit Match
Funds
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is to seek Committee approval to:
1) Provide $21,200 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds as local match
to Transportation Specialists, Inc. for the purchase of one modified van
and one medium bus through the Section 5310 grant process;
2) Provide $13,000 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds as local match
to Anza Valley Community Services, for the purchase of one 24
passenger bus through the Section 5310 grant process; and
3) Forward to the Commission for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Transportation Specialists, Inc. (TSI) was recently notified by Caltrans that they were
approved for $84,400 in funding under the FTA Section 5310 program. Funding was
approved to purchase one modified van and one medium bus at a total cost of
$106,000.
Anza Valley Community Services (Anza) was also notified by Caltrans that they were
approved for $65,000 in funding under the FTA Section 5310 program to purchase
one 24 -passenger bus.
The Section 5310 program provides 80% of the cost of the capital project. TSI and
Anza are requesting that the required 20% match ($21,200 for TSI and $13,000 for
Anza) be funded from Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in the western
Riverside County. TSI provides inter -city transportation services from the South
county to cities north and to the Hemet/San Jacinto area. Anza provides services in
00.0,03,2
the Anza, Aguanga, Hemet and Temecula areas. Senior citizens, persons with
disabilities, veterans and the truly needy benefit from the transportation that is
provided.
Financial Information
In Fiscal Year Budget: Y
Year: FY 2000-01 Amount: $ 34.200
Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: N
Fiscal Procedures Approved:
Date: 2/26/01
000033
•
AGENDA ITEM 12
•
•
•
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 26, 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
January averaged 4,572, an increase of 5% from the month of December, due in large
part to the holiday season. The Line has averaged an increase of 5% from a year ago,
January 2000.
Saturday Patronage: The on -time performance for the Saturday service fell from 100%
during the month of December to 62.5% for the month of January. Poor operating
times, on -time performance, and lack of awareness have affected the ridership on this
new service (high = 456 trips, low = 133 trips) over the last seven months. On
February 10th, the operating times substantially changed and the long-awaited
downtown Pomona station opened on the Riverside Line. Metrolink is launching an
awareness campaign by including newspaper ads starting March 2nd which are
projected to reach over 200,000 households. Riverside County papers include the
Press -Enterprise, The Californian, and La Prensa. RCTC will assist in the promotion of
the Weekend Service locally by performing outreach to community groups and
integrating promotions in conjunction with the upcoming Beach Train Service. RCTC
staff is also exploring the use of city utility stuffers as a means of advertising the
service.
Inland Empire - Orange County Line
Weekday Patronage: Ridership on Metrolink's Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC)
Line for the month of January averaged 2,862, a 6% increase from the month of
December, due in large part to the holiday season. However, this Line continues to
grow averaging a 49% increase from January '00 to January '01 . 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.
000'0'31
New Feeder Service: The increase in ridership on the IE0C Line has resulted in an
increased demand for parking spaces at our stations. Additional feeder service to the
stations offers a more immediate relief to the current parking capacity issues. A
ribbon -cutting ceremony will be held on Tuesday, February 27`h at 1 1 a.m. at Corona
City Hall to officially launch a new fixed route service which began earlier this month.
The new shuttles provide frequent service to the West Corona Station as well as
serving additional areas of the City.
Special Trains
/EOC Midday Train: The January 2001 average weekday •trips of 2,862 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 2 months in order
for the Midday service to be included in the regular Metrolink budget for FY2001/02.
00.00,3
•
February 2001
iverside County
ransportation Commission
Inside this Issue
1
2
•
3
4
More Ways to Get to
Your Station
Do You Transfer at
Orange? Fill Out
Survey Inside
What is RCTC Doing
About the La Sierra
Parking Crunch?
La Sierra Station
Frequently Asked
Questions
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
3560 University Ave, Suite 100
Riverside, CA 92501
(909) 787-7141/fax(909) 787-7920
illirww.rctc.org
Passenger Update
Riverside & Inland Empire -Orange County Lines
Passenger Update
New Services Make Transit Stations
More Accessible
Riding a comfortable Metrolink train is only one component of
your commute. Getting to work or returning home still requires
you to travel to and from train stations. The Riverside County
Transportation Commission (RCTC) is placing a high priority on
improving transportation services to our local train stations and
the Commission has good news to share with you as we begin
2001.
RTA Route 15 to Serve La Sierra Station
Parking at the Riverside -La Sierra station continues to get
tighter as many more people turn to Metrolink as their primary
way of commuting to Orange County. Only a year ago, parking
at La Sierra was easy. However in just one short year, Metrolink
ridership has soared by more than 50 percent. Thanks to that
growth, finding a space later in the morning can be a challenge.
The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) is addressing the challenge
by re-routing its existing Route 15 to serve the train station in the
morning and the evening. The best news is that 10 -trip ticket
and monthly pass holders ride for FREE. If you live in the La
Sierra area or near the Galleria at Tyler, this will put your mind at
ease. Call RTA now for more information at 1-800-800-7821 or
log onto their website at www.rta.com for schedule information.
RCTC is currently working with RTA to offer express shuttle
service to the La Sierra Station which is anticipated to begin
within the next couple of months.
SunLink Adds Service from Downtown Riverside
Station to Cabazon
Last year, SunLine Transit added SunLink Express Service
between the Downtown Riverside Station and Palm Desert. The
unique and comfortable superbuses enable Coachella Valley
residents to use Metrolink and also provide a convenient way to
travel to the desert from Riverside.
Due to the success of the service, SunLink has added stops in
Cabazon, and in Palm Springs. For more information, please
call 1-800-347-8628 or visit the unique SunLink Superbus when
it arrives at the Downtown station.
00003r
Measure A
In 1988, Riverside Conn
voters approved .Measure A -by
an overwhelming margin to` '
invest more than a billion
dollars over a 20 -year period 20
improve transportation
throughout the county. Voter
approval of Measure A has
enabled RCTC to fund many
transportation improvements
along freeways, local streets
and roads, and commuter rail.
Approximately $100 million in
Measure A funds have been
invested in rail service for
Riverside County which
includes Metrolink service and
many station and rail line
improvements.
RCTC Rideshare
Services
Advantage Rideshare, Club
Ride, Inland Empire Commuter
Services and the Commuter
Exchange are all ways RCTC
provides commuter assistance
to Riverside County residents
and employers. Programs
include incentives for new
ridesharers including Metrolink
users, carpoolers, vanpoolers,
walkers, and bicyclists.
Incentives are also available for
long-term ridesharers. For
more information, please call
RCTC's Commuter Assistance
Program at (909) 341-9230. -
0OOO 7
verside County
ransportation Commission. -.
Passenger Update
Corona Adds Additional Shuttles to West Corona
Station
Many of you who live in Corona and pick up the train at the West
Corona station already know about the city's Dial -A -Ride Shuttle
service. The city has announced plans to begin new fixed route
service this month. The new bus service will serve additional
areas of the city and is a great alternative to driving to the
station on the 91 Freeway or on nearby streets and roads. For
more information, contact Anne Palatino at (909)736-2235.
Overcrossings Near Completion
The wait is almost over at the La Sierra and West Corona train
stations. The pedestrian overcrossing structures at the two
stations have been up for months and they are about ready to
open. While the main structures were completed rapidly to
avoid conflicts between the construction crews and trains, the
interior work has been quite complex. Electrical and elevator
work as well as the need to pass numerous local requirements
has slowed work somewhat, but the good news is that both
overcrossings will open in the next few months.
The pedestrian overcrossings are being built to enhance safety
and rail operations through the area.
New Service - New Stations
RCTC is planning to expand service in 2002 with the addition of
a new line between Riverside and Los Angeles that would travel
to Union Station through the City of Fullerton. That would allow
riders to commute to Los Angeles, Fullerton, Norwalk, and
Commerce from La Sierra, West Corona, and the new stations
in Downtown Corona and Van Buren Boulevard. Currently, the
only way to take the train to Los Angeles from Corona or La
Sierra is to travel to Orange and transfer to a northbound
Orange County line train.
Already, there are plenty of Riverside County residents who are
making that trip with the inconvenient transfer. While service to
Los Angeles through Fullerton has been in Metrolink's long-term
plans for many years, it still requires the financial backing and
support of Riverside's transit agency partners in Orange and Los
Angeles Counties. If you are currently making the transfer at
Orange and heading north, or are otherwise interested in the
service, we want to hear from you. Enclosed is a survey for
commuters who transfer at Orange. Please complete the survey
and return it to RCTC. Your support of this service is important
in convincing our neighboring agencies to move forward.
La Sierra Parking Crunch a Top Priority for 2001
•Thanks to record ridership
growth, finding a parking
spot at the La Sierra
Metrolink Station can
remind one of a shopping
mall parking lot during the
holiday season. Many of
the new riders are using the
La Sierra station.
Late last year, the Riverside
County Transportation
Commission moved into
action to try to plan
improvements to address
the La Sierra Station
parking problem. The first
thing the Commission
needed was information,
and almost 300 of you
responded by completing a
survey.
�J nfortunately, some
obvious solutions to the
problem are impossible to
pursue. While there are
vacant dirt lots next to the
station, the land is not
owned by RCTC. The
nearby property is owned by
the Riverside Community
College District (RCCD),
and the District is currently
in the planning process to
develop it. Even the actual
station land is leased from
the College District. More
importantly, RCCD has not
expressed any interest in a
long-term lease or purchase
of the nearby property. As
a result, expanding the
parking lot is impossible.
The good news is that RTA
has revised its existing
Route 15 to serve La Sierra.
The buses are timed to
meet most incoming trains
in the morning and evening
and if you live by the
station, this is the best way
to start and end your
commute. For more
information, please call 1-
800-800-7821.
Another service that will
begin in a few weeks is a
preferred parking program
for Metrolink users who
carpool to the station.
RCTC will be establishing a
program which will include a
special parking placard and
reserved parking spaces for
regular pass holders and
10/18/00 La Sierra Survey Results
10 -trip ticket holders who
use the train frequently. For
those of you who already
carpool to the station, sign
up today by calling
Stephanie Wiggins at
(909)787-7141.
Finally, we urge every
Metrolink user that currently
uses the La Sierra station to
consider the Downtown
Riverside station. We found
in the survey that there are
many current riders at the
La Sierra station who
actually live closer to
Downtown Riverside. There
are plenty of advantages to
using the Downtown
Riverside Station. It's in the
same fare zone, so it
doesn't cost more to use it.
Also, RCTC uses the same
security company it uses at
La Sierra to patrol the
parking lot Downtown. And,
if you are worried about
finding a seat on the train,
getting on the train just a
few minutes earlier at the
Downtown station will make
it easier to find the spot that
you want.
Heaviest Used A.M. Train:
#807, 6:36am
Heaviest Used P.M. Train:
#804, 5:03p
Choice of Travel to
Station:
Drive alone
83%
Dropped Off
10%
Carpool
6%
Walk
2%
Would you consider
using:
II
A free shuttle bus
near home?
Carpool?
Valet
Parking?
43% Yes
Stacked
Parking?
36% Yes
74% Yes Ed
59% Yes r
25% No
41% No
57% No rA
64% No r4
Passenger Update
FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) Regarding La Sierra Station
Why has the parking problem deteriorated
so • uickly?
The short answer is the success of Metrolink.
In just one year, Metrolink ridership has
jumped by more than 50 percent. For more
than four years, there was a surplus of
parking at the La Sierra station. When the
station first opened some even questioned
why so much parking was provided. Now,
there is a need for more spaces.
Whoeowns the La Sierra Station?
All of the Metrolink stations in Riverside
County are operated by the Riverside County
Transportation Commission. In the case of
La Sierra, the station is located on land
leased from the Riverside Community College
District (RCCD). The surrounding land is also
owned by the College — not the Riverside
County Transportation Commission.
Wh can't the parkin • lot be expanded?
The surrounding land is owned by the RCCD.
The District has shown no interest in leasing
additional land to the Riverside County
Transportation Commission and is currently
working on plans to build a mixed use
development on the adjoining land.
Are there other Metrolink stations with
arkin • problems?
Metrolink is gaining in popularity everywhere,
which is causing parking problems in other
areas too. Parking is scarce in Rancho
Cucamonga, San Juan Capistrano, and
Irvine. In Irvine, cars are stack parked by a
valet, and in San Juan Capistrano commuters
have to pay to park.
Is there any way to bring a catering -truck
or some other flood service to La Sierra
Station?
RCTC's lease with RCCD specifically
prohibits any type of food service on the
property.
What can be done to improve the parking
problems at La Sierra?
First, we added a guard last November to
monitor the parking lot at La Sierra to prevent
people from using it as a park and ride given
that two lots are located just a few minutes
away at La Sierra University and the Tyler
Mall. As a result of adding the additional
guard, we have freed up 23 parking spaces
for train commuters. Metrolink riders who
carpool to the train station to use Metrolink
are welcomed. We will continue to direct
non-Metrolink carpoolers use the designated
park and ride lots.
Next month, the Riverside County
Transportation Commission will be launching
a number of efforts to temporarily alleviate the
situation. First off, 35 parking spaces at the
train station will be set aside for a new
preferential carpool parking program for
Metrolink riders. A survey of La Sierra station
users indicated that few people carpool to the
station; however many more are interested in
doing so. Guaranteeing parking spaces for
people who do carpool will serve as a reward
and incentive to share a ride to the station.
Also, RCTC is currently working with RTA to
offer express shuttle service to the La Sierra
Station which is anticipated to begin within
the next couple of months. We continue to
appreciate your patience as we attempt to try
several solutions to alleviate the parking
problem.
OOOO4)