Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
07 July 18, 2005 Transit Policy
RECORDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 1:00 p.m. DATE: Monday, July 18, 2005 MEETING CONFERENCE ROOM — FIFTH FLOOR LOCATION: County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor, Riverside VIDEO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, FOURTH DISTRICT OFFICE CONFERENCE 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert SITES: CITY OF BLYTHE, CITY HALL 235 North Broadway Street, Blythe *** COMMITTEE MEMBERS *** Ameal Moore, City of Riverside, Chairman Vacant, Vice -Chairman Roger Berg, City of Beaumont Jeff Miller, City of Corona Terry Henderson, City of La Quinta Frank West, City of. Moreno Valley Frank Hall, City of Norco Dick Kelly, City of Palm Desert Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside *** STAFF *** Cathy Bechtel, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy Development Tanya Love, Program Manager *** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY *** Review items and make recommendations to the Commission on the following: • Policy directions to prepare for transit vision and to bring regional perspective to transit • Monitor transit implementation • Performance of transit operators and its services The Committee welcomes comments. If you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Testimony Card to the Clerk of the Board. 72827 11.36.39 . RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1:OO.p.m. Monday, July 18, 2005 5T" FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM County of Riverside. Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside VIDEO CONFERENCE SITES COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4TH DISTRICT OFFICE CITY OF BL YTHE CITY HALL 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert 235 North Broadway Street, Blythe In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government. Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. if there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Transit Policy Committee Agenda July 18, 2005 Page 2 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Overview This item is for the Committee to elect a Chair and Vice Chair for Fiscal Year 2005-06. 7. RIDERSHIP, OPERATING COST, FAREBOX, AND CAPITAL PROJECT ANALYSIS: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATORS Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive the Ridership, Operating Cost, Farebox, and Capital Project Analysis for Riverside County Transit Operators, as an informational item; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final review. ADJOURNMENT, - The next meeting is scheduled August 15, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. to be held on AGENDA ITEM 4 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE March 21, 2005 Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ameal Moore called the meeting to order at 1:16 p.m., on Monday, March 21, 2005 in Riverside County Transportation Commission's Conference Room "A", 3'd Floor, Riverside. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Terry Henderson Dick Kelly Anneal Moore Roy Wilson Percy Byrd Jeff Miller Frank West Frank Hall John Tavaglione Self introductions of Committee members and attendees followed. Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board, informed the Chair that a quorum was not present: At this time, Chair Moore called the meeting as meeting of the the "Committee as a Whole". 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There 'were 'no public comments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes will be presented to the next meeting for approval when there is a quorum present. Transit Policy Committee Minutes March 21, 2005 Page 2 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS A revised memorandum on Agenda Item No. 6, "Productivity Improvement Program', was distributed to the Committee members. 6. PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Tanya Love; Program Manager, provided background information on the Commission's responsibilities as it relates to the Short Range Transit Plan process and the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP), which was approved by the Commission in 1998. The PIP was set up for transit operators to use as a tool in reviewing their services to make certain that they are in compliance with the State -mandated fare, box recovery ratio while providing cost effective transit services. She iterated that PIP established criteria and tasks were to monitor the performance of transit operators but not all of the criteria were fully implemented. Since the criteria and tasks were established a few years ago, staff met with the transit operators to determine if the program is still applicable. It was a consensus by the transit operators that the program still applies but needed minor adjustments. The PIP criteria and changes are presented to the Committee for review and reaffirmation. Once they are approved, the elements of the PIP will be implemented and the outcome will be presented to the Commission at least annually. Tanya Love continued and reviewed the PIP Process, including the three tasks: 1) Issuance of SRTP Instructions; 2) Review and Approval of SRTPs; and, 3) Quarterly Collection of Performance Information from Transit .Operators. She proceeded to review the eight performance indicators and the method for establishing performance targets that the transit operators use in developing SRTP services and their financial plan: 1) Operating cost per revenue hour increases no more than the CPI; 2) Fare box recovery ratio per ROTC policy and PUC requirements; 3) Subsidy per passenger — increases no more than the CPI; 4) Subsidy per passenger mile — increases no more than a CPI; 5) Subsidy per revenue hour — increases no more than the CPI; 6) Subsidy pee revenue mile — increases no more than the CPI; 7), Passengers per revenue hour — percentage increase consistent with population growth or national average,. whichever is greater; and, 8) Passengers per revenue mile — percentage increase consistent with population growth or national average, whichever is greater. Jon Winningham, RTA Board Member, indicated that the RTA has met with RCTC staff to review the Productivity Improvement Program and the proposed revisions. Transit Policy Committee Minutes March 21, 2005 Page 3 *M/S/C (HENDERSON/KELLY) that the Commission: 1) Review and reaffirm the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP); and, 2) Revise the PIP to include Ridership and Passenger Miles per Revenue Car Mile as performance indicators for the Commuter Rail Program. *Note: The recommendation will be forwarded to the Commission as a recommendation for the `Committee as a Whole' ADJOURNMENT There being no other items to be discussed by the Transit Policy Committee, Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 2:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE: COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE January 6, 2005 Minutes 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ameal Moore called the meeting to order at 11:16 a.m., on Thursday, -January 6, 2005 at the County of Riverside Administrative Center,. 5th Floor Conference Room, Riverside and at the video conference site at the County of Riverside District 4 Office, 73-710 Fred Waring Drive,` Suite 222, Palm Desert:' ROLL CALL Members Present Member Absent: Percy Byrd* Frank Hall Terry' Henderson Dick Kelly Roger Berg Jeff Miller Ameal Moore John Tavaglione Frank West Roy Wilson* Self introductions of Committee members and attendees followed. *Video conference site. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 4.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (West/Hall) to approve the minutes of the October 18, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Byrd abstained. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS A revision to Agenda Item No. 7, Reserve Policy for Local Transportation Funds, were provided to the Committee and those present. Transit Policy Committee Minutes January 6, 2005 Page 2 6. STATUS REPORT ON TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS Tanya Love, Program. Manager, -provided an overview on the creation of the Transit Policy Committee and also provided a status report of the Committee's accomplishments and remaining tasks. She stated that a performance audit is required of the Riverside County Transportation Commission every three years. The result of the last performance audit recommended to: ' 1) Create a vision of transit service for Riverside County; and, 2) Establish a transit subcommittee to provide policy direction. The recommendations were presented to the Commission at their meeting on May 6, 2004 and they determined to form a Transit Policy Committee. The Committee was directed to: 1) Monitor transit implementation; 2) Review performance of operators; 3) Bring regional perspective to transit; and, 4) Guide the preparation of a transit vision. Recommendations of the Committee were to be presented the Commission for action. At the May 6, 2004 Commission meeting, staff presented policy issues that need to be addressed. She identified the policy issues and informed the Committee on the status of each of the issues to date: 1) Route Productivity — Staff and transit operators have met and discussed whether the program adopted in 1999 was .still effective or are there other ways to approach productivity. All agreed that this was: the bestapproach to take; however, one key element that was not implemented was to look at cost effectiveness to be tied to cost price . index. Staff and the transit. operators are currently looking at this and it is expected that this item .will be presented to the Committee at their next meeting. 2) Reserves - This item looks at what the transit operators have to do in those times when they need additional revenues. Would they be able to access general fund revenues, force to cut services .or the Commission loan from street and road funds? Discussions with transit operators are currently in the process. 3) Funds Allocated, Unclaimed — This item; relates to funds that were not spent by the transit operators. The Committee determined that from a go forward basis that any funds that remain on the books will be used towards next year's operating cost. 4) State Mandated Farebox Recovery Ratio — Thepolicyhas been developed. It is being used by the auditors and the transit operators have indicated that it is a helpful tool. r Transit Policy Committee Minutes January 6, 2005 Page 3 5► Accrual of Interest on Allocated, Unclaimed Funds — This has been resolved as funds allocated to and are used by the transit operators would hopefully result in no growing balance on hand, it was determined that the accrued interest will be placed in the main pot of funds to be available to all transit operators, and not just be available to a single operator. Commissioner Percy Byrd asked the process in which the funds would be distributed and Tanya Love said that for this fiscal year, it was projected that about $64 million TDA funds would be available. Funds for audits, administration, planning and programming, SCAG and SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Program are taken off the top. The, remaining funds are distributed to the three apportionment areas - Western Riverside (78% transit operator, 22% commuter rail), Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley. Using as an example, if $12.5 million is available for the Coachella Valley area and SunLine Transit Agency submits a Short Range Transit Plan that only requires $12 million, the remaining funds would stay on the books for Coachella Valley. If another operator is in place in Coachella Valley, they could apply for the funds. 6) Timeliness of Spending Allocated Capital Funds - Several of the funds have a shelf life of four years (year of allocation plus three years). If they are not used, 'there is the danger of losing the funds. At a previous Committee meeting, the transit operators provided a timeline of capital funds allocated to them would be used. It was determined that operators provide a status report to the Commission on a quarterly basis. Through the TEA process, this would be monitored. In addition, staff is working with Federal Transit Administration staff to develop and "go forward" policy which is modeled after the AB 1012 "use it or lose it" policy. Staff expects to have the policy submitted to the Committee by the end of the fiscal year. 7) Allocation of 2009 Measure "A" Funds: Western Riverside — This policy issue has not yet been addressed. Eric Haley, Executive Director, suggested that this policy be addressed two years prior to the revenues come in. It will take several months to develop a staff generated scenario and negotiate what the proper balance might be and he proposed starting the process within 18 months. Tanya Love continued and said that the Short Range Transit Plan kick off meeting is scheduled for January 21, 2005. Two topics that will be discussed are route productivity and timeliness of spending capital funds. M/S/C (Miller/Tavaglione) to receive and file the status report on Transit Policy Committee's accomplishments. Transit Policy Committee Minutes January 6, 2005 Page 4 7. RESERVE POLICY FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Tanya Love stated that meetings were held with the local transit operators and a consensus was reached that: a) Ten (10%) percent reserve should be established for unforeseen cost increases; b) Reserves should be restricted to maintaining .current service levels in the event of a revenue shortfall or unforeseen emergency; c) Reserves should not be for service enhancement; and, d) Each operator should have its own reserve fund. Commissioner Terry Henderson expressed her appreciation for the amount of time and effort by Commission and transit operator staff, and the cooperation by all in developing the policy. M/S/C (Tavaglione/Henderson) to: 11 Establish a transit operators' reserve policy of 10% for Coachella Valley and Palo Verde VaOey apportionment areas; 2) Establish a transit operators' reserve policy of 10% for each of the transit operators (public bus and commuter rail) in the Western Riverside County apportionment area; 3) Revise the Funding Disbursement Policy so that 100% of the operating funds are allocated and disbursed with two -tenths of the disbursed over the next 11 months; and, 41 Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. • ADJOURNMENT There being no other items to be discussed by the Transit Policy, Committee, Chair Moore adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Naty Kopenhaver Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 6 • " R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N C O M M I S S I O N D A T E : J u l y 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 T O : T r a n s i t P o l i c y C o m m i t t e e F R O M : N a t y K o p e n h a v e r , C l e r k o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n S U B J E C T : E l e c t i o n o f O f f i c e r s S T A F F R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : T h i s i t e m i s f o r t h e T r a n s i t P o l i c y C o m m i t t e e t o h o l d a n e l e c t i o n o f o f f i c e r s C h a i r a n d V i c e C h a i r w i t h t h e t e r m o f o f f i c e f r o m J u l y 2 0 0 5 t h r o u g h J u n e 2 0 0 6 . B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N : T h e e l e c t i o n o f o f f i c e r s f o r t h e f u l l C o m m i s s i o n a n d i t s C o m m i t t e e s a r e h e l d o n a n a n n u a l b a s i s . C o m m i s s i o n e r s A m e a l M o o r e a n d P e r c y B y r d w e r e e l e c t e d a s t h e C o m m i t t e e ' s o f f i c e r s l a s t J u l y . A s e v e r y o n e i s a w a r e , V i c e C h a i r P e r c y B y r d h a s d e c i d e d t o m o v e o u t o f t h e a r e a a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , h a s g i v e n u p h i s s e a t a s a m e m b e r o f t h e I n d i a n W e l l s C i t y C o u n c i l a n d a s t h e C i t y ' s r e g u l a r m e m b e r t o t h e R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n . C h a i r R o b i n L o w e h a s a p p o i n t e d C o m m i s s i o n e r J e f f S t o n e t o r e p l a c e C o m m i s s i o n e r B y r d . T h i s i t e m i s t o r e q u e s t t h a t t h e C o m m i t t e e e l e c t i t s C h a i r a n d V i c e C h a i r f o r F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 f i s c a l y e a r . A g e n d a I t e m 6 1 AGENDA ITEM. 7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: July 18, 2005 TO: Transit Policy Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Cathy Bechtel, Division Head, Planning SUBJECT: Ridership, Operating Cost, Farebox, and Capital Project Analysis: Riverside County Transit Operators STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive the Ridership, Operating Cost, Farebox, and Capital Project Analysis for Riverside County Transit Operators as an informational item; and, 2) Forward to the Commission for final review. BACKGROUNDINFORMATION: At the June 27," 2005 Plans and Programs Committee meeting; staff provided' an overview of FY 2000-01 through FY 2005-06 ridership trends (Attachment 1) together with a request for FY 2005-06 allocation of operating and capital funds for transit services in Riverside County. As a result of that meeting, staff was directed to prioritize analysis and discussion of the disparity between ridership and operating costs at the July 18, 2005 Transit Policy Committee (TPC) for further discussion. Since that time, Commission staff has been working closely with the transit operators in reviewing the various data elements presented in this staff report. It should be noted that the data presented was provided to RCTC through the quarterly transit operators' ridership reports, Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) as well as the transit operators' financial audits. What is significant about the analysis is that the data from the various sources covering six fiscal' years has been . compiled .for analysis. As the Transportation Planning Agency (TPA), the Commission is responsible for allocation of transit funds, and by statute; is required to annually identify and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators through the SRTP process. As previously reported in the Commission's Triennial Performance Audit, operating costs for transit services increased between 26% and 110% Agenda Item 7 2 during FY 2000-01 through FY 2002-03. The audit further identified that several operators are not meeting the state mandated:farebox recovery ratio. As shown on Attachment 1, the increase in operating costs continuedto escalate in FY 2003-04 and is projected to continue to increase through FY 2005-06. The Commission as well as the transit operators will undergo another Triennial Performance Audit in FY 2006-07 covering FY 2003-04 through FY 2005-06. At that time, a full analysis of operating costs and farebox recovery ratios can be undertaken using audited financial information. Operating Costs and, Ridership Analysis Attachment 2 provides a summary overview of ridership, operating expenses and passenger fare subsidies comparing FY 2000/01 (actual) through FY 2003/04 (actual). Attachment 4A through 11 A provides the ridership, operating expenses and passenger fare subsidy data for each of the eight transit operators (public bus and commuter rail) for the same period. The following chart provides 'a summary, by agency, of ridership and operating costs comparing FY 2000-01 (actual) with FY 2003-04 (actual): Transk Operator City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Corona City of Riverside Riverside Transit Agency FY 2000/01 FY 2003/04 FY 2000/01 FY 2003/04 (Actual) (Actual) MetedSe ` (Actual)_ (Actual).. (Decrease),;% Change TOW -Total in • .In Operating Operating Ridership Ridership Riderr§hlp %Ridership Expenses Expenses 240,318 222,764 (17,554)', -7.30% $ 691,016- $ 831,351 83,866 113,6133 29,817 35.55% $ 481,787 $ 768,511. 88,142 210,200 122,058 -I 138.48% $ 810,366 141,497 157,828 16,331 11.54% $ 1,428,965 6,827,695 7,588,864 76/.169 11.15% $ 28,234,006 SunLine Transit Agency-3,852,899 3,561,765 (29.1,134)- Palo Verde Valley Transit Age 21,814-36,046 14,2321. RCTC's Commuter Rail 1,862,239 2,458,920 596,681.'. -7.56% $ 15,030,641. 65.24% $ 187,537 3204% $ 17,799,900 Increase (Decrease)' %Increase:. Operating Operating.:; Costs Cggta $ 140,335 • •2(194 $ 286,724 .60%. $ 1,313,187 $ 502,821 $ 1,810,464 $ 381,499 •::27% $ 36,986,995 $ 8,752,989 31% $ 16,521,253 $ 1,490,612 • `,10%A $ 714,333 $ 526,796 381%n• $ 20,868,500 $ 3,068,600 17% As detailed on the above 'chart, when comparing FY 2000-01 and FY 2003-04, ridership decreased/increased between -7.56% and 138.48%. In comparison, - costs for the same time period increased between 10% and 281 %. Attachment 3 provides a summary overview of ridership, • operating, expenses and passenger fare subsidies comparing FY 2003/04 (actual) through FY 2005/06 (projected). Attachment 4B through 1 1 B provides the ridership, operating expenses and passenger fare subsidy data for each of the eight transit operators (public bus and commuter rail) for the same period. Agenda Item 7 3 " T h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r t p r o v i d e s a s u m m a r y , b y a g e n c y , o f r i d e r s h i p a n d o p e r a t i n g c o s t s c o m p a r i n g F Y 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 ( a c t u a l s ) w i t h F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 ( p r o j e c t e d ) : F Y 2 0 0 3 / 0 4 F Y 2 0 0 5 1 0 6 F Y 2 0 0 3 / 0 4 F Y 2 0 0 5 / 0 6 I n c r e a s e ( A c t u a l ) ( P r o j e c t e d ) I n c r e a s e ` ( A c t u a l ) ( A c t u a l ) ( D e c r e a s e ) % M e m - t p e c r e a s e j - ! % C h a n g e - T o t a l T o t a l i n i n ` i n O p e r a t i n g O p e r a t i n g O p e r a t i n g O p e r a t n g T r a n s i t O p e r a t o r R i d e r s h i p R i d e r s h i p : R i l e r s h t p i . R i d e r s h i p . E x p e n s e s . E x p e n s e s C o s t s G o a t s , C i t y o f B a n n i n g 2 2 2 , 7 6 4 2 1 8 , 1 8 1 - . ( 4 , 5 8 3 ) - . . - 2 . 0 6 % $ 8 3 4 , 3 5 1 $ . 1 , 1 0 1 , 4 7 6 $ 2 7 0 , 1 2 5 3 2 . 4 9 % . C i t y o f B e a u m o n t 1 1 3 , 6 8 3 1 2 5 , 0 0 0 ' 1 1 , 3 1 7 9 . 9 5 % $ 7 6 8 , 5 1 1 - $ 1 , 0 5 7 , 0 0 0 $ 2 8 8 , 4 8 9 3 7 . 5 4 , 0 �� C i t y o f C o r o n a - 2 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 6 1 , 3 0 0 . 5 1 , 1 0 0 ' 2 4 . 3 1 % $ 1 , 3 1 3 , 1 8 7 $ 1 , 6 0 5 , 0 0 0 5 2 9 1 , 8 1 3 2 2 . 2 2 % - I C i t y o f R i v e r s i d e - 1 5 7 , 8 2 8 ' 1 7 2 , 6 8 0 1 4 , 6 5 2 ' , . 9 . 4 1 % $ ' 1 , 8 1 0 , 4 6 4 $ ' 2 , 7 2 6 , 0 0 9 ' 5 9 1 5 , 5 4 5 5 0 . 5 7 % ' R i v e r s i d e T r a n s i t A g e n c y 7 , 5 8 8 , 8 6 4 7 , 9 2 2 , 9 3 5 ' ' 3 3 4 , 0 7 1 4 . 4 0 % $ 3 6 , 9 8 6 , 9 9 5 4 2 , 0 7 3 , 0 8 9 $ 5 , 0 8 6 , 0 9 4 1 3 . 7 5 % : S u n L i n e T r a n s i t A g e n c y 3 , 5 6 1 , 7 6 5 3 , 5 2 5 , 7 3 0 . . ( 3 8 , 0 3 5 ) - 1 . 0 1 % $ 1 6 , 5 2 1 , 2 5 3 $ 1 7 , 9 3 0 , 0 5 2 - $ 1 , 4 0 8 , 7 9 9 ' : 8 . 5 3 % P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y T r a n s i t A g e n c y 3 6 , 0 4 6 5 5 , 4 0 4 1 9 , 3 5 8 5 3 . 7 0 % $ 7 1 4 , 3 3 3 ' $ . 7 5 7 , 9 0 0 $ 4 3 , 5 6 7 6 . 1 0 % ' R C T C ' s C o m m u t e r R a i l 2 , 4 5 8 , 9 2 0 2 , 7 6 5 , 4 1 8 ' 3 0 6 4 9 8 ; : 1 2 . 4 6 % . - $ 2 0 , 8 6 8 , 5 0 0 $ 2 3 , 9 5 8 , 9 3 3 $ 3 , 0 9 0 , 4 3 3 1 4 8 1 % - . - I n t h i s s c e n a r i o , w h e n c o m p a r i n g F Y 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 a n d F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 , r i d e r s h i p i s p r o j e c t e d t o d e c r e a s e / i n c r e a s e b e t w e e n - 1 . 0 1 % a n d 5 3 . 7 0 % . I n c o m p a r i s o n , c o s t s f o r t h e s a m e t i m e p e r i o d , i s , p r o j e c t e d t o i n c r e a s e , : b e t w e e n 6 . 1 0 % a n d 5 0 . 5 7 % . A l l t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s h a v e b e e n e n c o u r a g e d t o a t t e n d t h e T P C m e e t i n g t o d i s c u s s c o s t s a n d r i d e r s h i p , t r e n d s s p e c i f i c t o t h e i r a g e n c y . W h i l e s o m e c o s t s , s u c h a s f u e l a n d i n s u r a n c e ; m a y b e b e y o n d : a n o p e r a t o r s ' c o n t r o l , s t a f f i s c o n c e r n e d t h a t r e q u e s t s f o r o p e r a t i n g a n d c a p i t a l a l l o c a t i o n s a r e e x c e e d i n g a v a i l a b l e p r o j e c t e d r e v e n u e . R e v e n u e C o m p a r e d t o O p e r a t i n g C o s t s I n F Y 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 , , p u b l i c b u s o p e r a t o r s r e q u e s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 , 6 4 0 , 0 0 0 ( 4 % ) i n f u n d i n g o v e r t h e $ 4 4 , 0 0 5 , 9 0 8 i n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t A c t ( T D A ) f u n d s p r o j e c t e d t o b e a v a i l a b l e . T h e 4 % o v e r a g e w a s a l l o c a t e d f r o m p r i o r y e a r u n a l l o c a t e d c a r r y o v e r f u n d s . A s s h o w n o n t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r t , f o r F Y 2 0 0 5 - 0 6 , b o t h t h e ; W e s t e r n C o u n t y a n d C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y b u s o p e r a t o r s a r e r e q u e s t i n g m o r e T D A f u n d s : t h a n , p r o j e c t e d t o b e a v a i l a b l e : T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t A c t F u n d s W e s t e r n C o u n t y C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y B u s R a i l L o c a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F u n d s $ 3 2 , 2 9 9 , 0 3 4 $ 9 , 1 0 9 , 9 8 4 $ 1 1 , 0 5 2 , 0 9 6 $ 8 6 9 , 8 9 8 S t a t e T r a n s i t A s s i s t a n c e 2 , 0 4 1 , 7 1 3 5 7 5 , 8 6 8 6 9 8 , 4 7 1 5 4 , 9 4 7 ( S T A ) F u n d s ( 9 9 3 1 3 ) S T A F u n d s ( 9 9 3 1 4 ) 1 6 8 , 9 1 1 1 8 3 , 9 8 9 1 6 6 , 8 2 9 9 7 6 T o t a l : F Y 2 0 0 5 / 0 6 T D A 3 4 , 5 0 9 , 6 5 8 9 , 8 6 9 , 8 4 1 1 1 , 9 1 7 , 3 9 6 9 2 5 , 8 2 1 F u n d s P r o j e c t e d t o b e A v a i l a b l e : T o t a l : T D A F u n d s 3 5 , 7 3 8 , 2 8 4 7 , 1 1 7 , 8 5 0 ' 1 6 , 0 7 6 , 0 5 8 8 1 7 , 2 6 5 R e q u e s t e d : D i f f e r e n c e : $ ( 1 , 2 2 8 , 6 2 6 ) $ 2 , 7 5 1 , 9 9 1 $ ( 4 , 1 5 8 , 6 6 2 ) $ 1 0 8 , 5 5 6 A g e n d a I t e m 7 4 As in FY 2004-05, the overage was allocated from prior year carryover funds. Historically, there have been excess TDA funds available at year-end. However, with escalating operating costs, staff continues to be concerned that eventually, the positive year-end fund balances will be spent. Additionally, if the economy should take a down -ward turn, the situation may be accelerated. The Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the transit operators are utilizing funds efficiently and effectively. Public Utilities Code (PUC)Section 99244 requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators through the SRTP process. This process requires the transit operators to address recommendations made through the Triennial Performance Audit process as well as compliance with' State PUC requirements for farebox recovery compliance and cost efficiency. Due to continued escalatingoperatingcosts; Commission staff has been working on revising the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) which was adopted in 1998 to assist with compliance requirements. It is anticipated that staff will seek reaffirmation of the PIP at the September 2005 Commission -meeting. The PIP, once fully implemented, will establish objective criteria for assessing productivity improvement opportunities including cost efficiencies: Farebox Compliance As previously reported, several of our transit operators are not meeting the State- mandated farebox recovery ratios. Staff continues to monitor farebox ratios and will provide a status report at the TPC meeting on actual farebox recovery ratios compared to state -mandated targets. Capital Projects As previously reported; ` transit operators have capital projects that have been funded;' however, many of the capital line items have unspent fund balances. The following chart is provided as an overview, by agency, of open capital projects for FY 1996-1997 through FY 2002-2003 (as of September 2004). Agenda Item 7 " F Y 1 9 9 6 - 1 9 9 7 t h r o u g h F Y 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 3 A p p o r t i o n m e n t A r e a / A g e n c y N o . o f O p e n P r o j e c t s F u n d s A l l o c a t e d f o r I d e n t i f i e d C a p i t a l P r o j e c t s B a l a n c e o f U n s p e n t F u n d s W e s t e r n R i v e r s i d e B a n n i n g 3 - $ 6 1 7 , 0 0 0 $ 6 0 , 0 3 1 B e a u m o n t 9 $ 6 4 2 , 0 0 0 $ 1 4 3 , 2 1 6 C o r o n a 3 $ 1 , 0 6 9 , 7 0 0 $ 7 . 7 5 , 4 4 5 R i v e r s i d e 2 $ 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 $ 2 2 , 6 9 9 R T A 3 2 $ 1 9 , 7 1 3 , 0 2 9 $ 5 , 5 9 1 3 , 4 7 0 R C T C ' s C o m m u t e r R a i l 1 1 $ 7 6 , 3 0 9 , 0 1 2 $ 1 8 , 2 3 7 , 2 1 5 S u b t o t a l : W R C 6 0 $ 9 9 , 0 5 0 , 7 4 1 $ 2 4 , 8 3 7 , 0 7 6 C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y S u n L i n e T r a n s i t A g e n c y 2 1 $ 6 , 8 0 4 , 3 1 0 - $ 4 , 0 2 1 , 7 9 5 S u b t o t a l : C V 2 1 $ 6 , 8 0 4 , 3 . 1 0 $ 4 , 0 2 1 , 7 9 5 P a l o V e r d e V a l l e y P V V T A 0 $ 0 $ 0 S u b t o t a l : P V V 0 $ 0 $ 0 T O T A L : 8 1 $ 1 0 5 , 8 5 , 5 , 0 5 1 $ 2 8 , 8 5 8 . , 8 7 1 T r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s h a v e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s t h a t w e r e f u n d e d b e t w e e n F Y 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 a n d F Y 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 w i l l b e ; c o m p l e t e d n o l a t e r t h a n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 6 1 . A n y c h a n g e i n p r o j e c t c o m p l e t i o n d a t e s , e x t e n d i n g t h e p r o j e c t ' s t i m e l i n e , t h a t m a y n e g a t i v e l y i m p a c t t h e g r a n t f u n d i n g , w i l l b e s u b m i t t e d t o t h e T P C a n d / o r C o m m i s s i o n f o r f u r t h e r r e v i e w a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A t t h i s t i m e , C o m m i s s i o n s t a f f b e l i e v e s t h e t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s a r e o n t a r g e t t o c o m p l e t e t h e c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s b y t h e D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 6 d a t e a s n o r e q u e s t f o r t i m e e x t e n s i o n s h a v e b e e n r e c e i v e d . H o w e v e r , a s p a r t o f t h e a n a l y s i s , C o m m i s s i o n s t a f f r e v i e w e d t h e t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s ' f i n a n c i a l a u d i t r e p o r t s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e a m o u n t o f f u n d s c l a i m e d c o m p a r e d t o f u n d a l l o c a t i o n . A l l o c a t i o n s a r e m a d e b a s e d o n t h e o p e r a t o r ' s S R T P a n d C o m m i s s i o n p o l i c y i s t h a t t h e t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r w i l l s p e n d c a p i t a l f u n d s s o o n a f t e r r e c e i p t . A s t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r t i n d i c a t e s , f u n d s a l l o c a t e d a r e n o t b e i n g s p e n t i n a t i m e l y m a n n e r : 3 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 S u m m a r y o f F e d e r a l F u n d i n g A p p o r t i o m e n t s , A l l o c a t i o n s a n d D o l l a r s C l a i m e d ; 2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ; 1 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 ��1 r F Y 1 9 9 9 / 2 0 0 0 F Y 2 0 0 0 / 0 1 ( A c t u a l ) F Y 2 0 0 1 / 0 2 ( A c t u a l ) F Y 2 0 0 2 / 0 3 ( A c t u a l ) F Y 2 0 0 3 / 0 4 ( A c t u a l ) F Y 2 0 0 4 / 0 5 ( P r o j e c t e d ) F Y 2 0 0 5 / 0 6 ( P r o j e c t e d ) � A p p o r t i o n e d $ 1 2 , 2 0 6 , 3 6 1 $ 1 2 , 6 9 1 , 9 2 2 $ 1 3 , 6 5 6 , 7 4 5 $ 1 6 , 8 9 8 , 2 4 8 $ 2 2 , 1 3 7 , 2 4 5 $ 2 0 , 0 2 3 , 6 2 7 $ 1 8 , 6 6 2 , 8 8 7 i t A l l o c a t i o n $ 1 2 , 8 0 8 , 9 4 6 $ 1 3 , 2 1 6 , 5 7 6 $ 1 8 , 4 8 6 , 7 3 2 $ 1 6 , 0 7 4 , 7 4 1 $ 2 7 2 3 2 7 4 9 $ 2 2 , 9 1 9 , 4 3 6 $ 1 6 , 0 7 5 , 9 7 8 C I C l a i m e d $ 7 , 1 1 1 , 7 6 1 $ 8 , 1 6 6 , 3 3 4 $ 1 6 , 7 3 6 , 2 5 0 $ 2 2 , 5 3 5 , 6 4 6 $ 1 2 , 3 4 0 , 0 4 0 $ - $ - � A p p o r t i o n e d i s A l l o c a t i o n Q' C l a i m e d ' T h e C i t i e s o f B a n n i n g a n d B e a u m o n t d o n o t r e c e i v e f e d e r a l f u n d i n g . C a p i t a l p r o j e c t s w e r e f u n d e d f r o m T D A a n d / o r l o c a l f u n d s . A g e n d a I t e m 7 Claiming allocated funds in a timely manner will became even more critical should we experience a downward trend in transit revenue. In prior years, Riverside County hada surplus of federal, funding; however, funding requests for FY, 2005 06 have zeroed out all of the federal funding balances with the exception of the Western Riverside apportionment area.: That area has a projected fund ending balance of $407,529 (for public bus) and $12,705,273 (for commuter rail): It 'is anticipated that the commuter rail program will .fully utilize its federal funding with the expansion of the Perris Valley Line which is scheduled to open in 2008. Staff will continue to monitor capital grant expenditures and will provide periodic .: status reports utilizing transit operators' quarterlygrant reports and audited financial statements. Attachments: 1) Summary: FY 2000/01 (Actual) to FY 2005/06 (Projected) Data 2) Summary: FY 2000/01 (Actual) to FY 2003/04 (Actual) Data 3) Summary FY 2003/04 (Actual) to FY 2005/06 (Projected) Data 4A-11A) FY 2000/01 (Actual) to FY 2003/04 (Actual) Data for each operator 4B-11 B) FY 2003/04 (Actual) to FY 2005/06 (Projected) Data for each operator_ Agenda Item 7 7 Attachment 1 Summary Riverside County Systemwide Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000/014ctual to FY 2005/06 Projected) 90, 000, 000 80,000,000 — 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 — a — FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual FY 2004 05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) ®Ridership (Actual) 13,118,470 13,497,981 13,628,071 14,350,070 14,834,180 15,046,648 "'Ridership (Projected) 14,537,421 14,012,950 14,772,688 14,955,199 - - ❑Total Operating Expenses $64,664,218 $68,528,817 $74,283,099 $79,814,594 $86,694,285 $91,209,459 ❑Passenger Fares $16,801,860 $17,715,747 $20,015,834 $21,415,373 $22,630,826 $25,211,675 ®Ridership (Actual) "'Ridership (Projected) ❑Total Operating Expenses ❑Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: Transit Operators' Quarterly Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 2 90,000,000 80,000,000 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 Summary Riverside County Systemwide Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000/01- FY 2003/04 Actual) r1 ▪ Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares FY 2000/01 (Actual) 13,118,470 14,537,421 $64,664,218 $16,801,860 FY 2001/02 (Actual) 13,497,981 14,012,950 $68,528,817 $17,715,747 FY 2002/03 (Actual) 13,628,071 14,772,688 $74,283,099 $20,015,834 FY 2003/04 (Actual) 14,350,070 14,955,199 $79,814,594 $21,415,373 ▪ Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑ Total Operating Expenses Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: Transit Operators' Quarterly Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 3 Summary Riverside County Systemwide Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2003/04 Actual to FY 2005/06 Projected) 100,000,000 90,000,000 80,000,000 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 0 FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) ® Ridership (Actual) 14,350,070 14,834,180 15,046,648 Hit Ridership (Projected) 14,955,199 - - OTotal Operating Expenses $79,814,594 $86,694,285 $91,209,459 0 Passenger Fares $21,415,373 $22,630,826 $25,211,675 ® Ridership (Actual) ® Ridership (Projected) O Total Operating Expenses 0 Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: Transit Operators' Quarterly Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 4A 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 MI Ridership (Actual) I■ Ridership (Projected) ❑ Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares City of Banning Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000/01- FY 2003/04 Actual) 274,522 261,000 257,352 257,352 $691,016 $734,590 $758,241 $831,351 $112,158 $103,868 $104,361 $97,930 ® Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑ Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: City of Banning's Quarterly Transit Operators' Report and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 4B 1,200,000 City of Banning Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2003/04 Actual to FY 2005/06 Projected) 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 a FY 2003/04 0 i i (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) ®Ridership (Actual) 222,764 235,949 218,181 II Ridership (Projected) 257,352 - ❑Total Operating Expenses $831,351 $975,842 $1,101,476 ❑ Passenger Fares $97,930 $110,648 $143,031 Ridership (Actual) ® Ridership (Projected) ❑Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: City of Banning's Quarterly Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 5A 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 ® Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares City of Beaumont Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000/01- FY 2003/04 Actual) FY 2000/01 (Actual) 83,866 90,000 $481,787 $51,437 FY 2001/02 (Actual) 91,704 88,000 $585,994 $52,518 FY 2002/03 (Actual) 97,690 95,500 $712,601 $51,465 FY 2003/04 (Actual) 113,683 125,000 $768,511 $59,175 ES Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑ Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: City of Beaumont's Quarterly Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Tansit Plans Attachment 5B 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 FY 2003/04 (Actual) City of Beaumont Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2003/04 Actual to FY 2005/06 Projected) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) ® Ridership (Actual) 113,683 121,000 125,000 ■ Ridership (Projected) 125,000 OTotal Operating Expenses $768,511 $845,000 $1,057,000 Passenger Fares $59,175 $84,500 $105,700 ® Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) O Total Operating Expenses C Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 City of Beaumont's Quarterly Transit Operators' Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 6A City of Corona Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000/01-FY 2003/04 Actual) 1,400,000 -- 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) ❑Ridership (Actual) 88,142 109,243 170,156 210,200 ■ Ridership (Projected) 96,916 124,000 161,650 201,420 ❑Total Operating Expenses $810,366 $992,387 $1,154,922 $1,313,187 ❑ Passenger Fares $109,756 $108,627 $142,322 $185,083 Ridership (Actual) Ridership (Projected) ❑Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: City of Corona's Quarterly Transit Operators' Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 6B 1,800,000 City of Corona Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2003/04 Actual to FY 2005/06 Projected) 'I,euu,uuu 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 1 i 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 g ;qua 'a FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) ® Ridership (Actual) 210,200 244,500 261,300 ■ Ridership (Projected) 201,420 - - OTotal Operating Expenses $1,313,187 $1,550,000 $1,605,000 0 Passenger Fares $185,083 $210,500 $223,800 ▪ Ridership (Actual) ® Ridership (Projected) OTotal Operating Expenses O Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: City of Corona's Quarterly Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Transit Plans TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE - JULY 18, 2005 REVISION TO AGENDA ITEM 7 Additions noted by Bold Italics Deletions noted by Strikethrough Second Chart, Page 4 Local Transportation Funds State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds (99313) STA Funds (99314) Total: FY 2005/06 TDA Funds Projected to be Available: Total: TDA Funds Requested: Difference: Transportation Development Act Funds Western County Coachella Valley Palo Verde Valley Bus Rail $ 32,299,034 $ 9,109,984 $ 11,052,096 $ 869,898 2,041,713 575,868 698,471 54,947 168,911 34,509,658 35,738,281 36, 710,584* 183,989 9,869,841 166,829 976 11,917,396 925,821 7,117,850 16,076,058 817,265 $ (1,228,626) $ 2,751,991 (2,299,926) $ (4,158,662) $ 108,556 *Revision made to include $972,300 in TDA funding for City of Beaumont pending completion of FY 2003/04 financial audit. Second Chart, Page 6 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 FY 1999/2000 Summary of Federal Funding Apportioments, Allocations and Dollars Claimed FY 2000/01 FY 2001 /02 (Actual) (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) ■ Apportioned $12,206,361 $12,691,922 $13,656,745 $16,898,248 $22,137,245 $20,023,627 $18,662,887 ■ Allocation ❑ Claimed $12,808,946 $7,111,761 $13,216,576 $18,486,732 $16,074,741 $27,232,749 $8,166,334 $1-6;7-36,250 $22,535,646 $12,340,040 $16,7I5,250 $22,565,646 $12,466,041) $22,919,436 $- $16,075,978 $- ▪ Apportioned ® Allocation ❑ Claimed Revision due to correction to City of Corona's amounts based on audited financial statements. ABOUT METROLINK In 1991, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties formed the Southern California Regional Rail Authority to develop Metrolink, a regional commuter train system. Today, Metrolink trains serve 54 stations in Southern California, carrying thousands of long-distance commuters to centers of employment such as Burbank, Glendale, Irvine and Downtown Los Angeles. Trains are also popular with group travelers, taking students on field trips and families to recreational destinations throughout the region. For more information about Metrolink and the Rail 2 Rail SAN BERNARDINO Line Trains run from San Bemardino to Los Angeles, paralleling the San Bernardino Freeway (1-10). The 57-mile trip takes 1 hour and 25 minutes. • SAN BERNARDINO 1204 W. 3rd Street • RIALTO 261 S. Palm Avenue • FONTANA 16777 Orange Way • RANCHO CUCAMONGA 11208 Azusa Court • UPLAND 300 East A Street • MONTCLAIR 5091 Richton Street • CLAREMONT 200 W. 1st Street • POMONA (NORTH) 205 Santa Fe Street • COVINA 600 N. Citrus Avenue • BALDWIN PARK 3825 Downing Avenue • EL MONTE 10925 Railroad Street • CAL STATE L.A. 5150 State University Drive *L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street ANTELOPE VALLEY Line Trains run from Lancaster to Los Angeles, paralleling the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14) and Golden State Freeway (1-5). The 76-mile trip takes 1 hour and 40 minutes. • LANCASTER 44812 N. Sierra Highway • PALMDALE 39000 Clock Tower Plaza Drive (Sierra Hwy. S. 6th st.) • VINCENT GRADE/ACTON 730 W. Sierra Highway • VIA PRINCESSA 19201 Via Princessa • SANTA CLARITA 22122 Soledad Canyon Road • NEWHALL 24300 Railroad Ave • SYLMAR/ SAN FERNANDO 12219 Frank Modugno Drive • SUN VALLEY 8360 San Fernando Road • DOWNTOWN BURBANK 201 N. Front Street * GLENDALE 400 W. Cerritos Avenue * L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street RIVERSIDE Line Trains run from Riverside to Los Angeles, paralleling the Pomona Freeway (60). The 59-mile trip takes 1 hour and 15 minutes. • RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN 4066 Vine Street • PEDLEY 6001 Pedley Road • EAST ONTARIO • MONTEBELLO/ 3330 E. Francis Street COMMERCE • DOWNTOWN POMONA 2000 Flotilla Street 101 W. 1st Street *L.A. UNION STATION • INDUSTRY 800 N. Alameda Street 600 S. Brea Canyon Road Fullerton. • Downtown Trains run from Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton, paralleling the Riverside Freeway (91) and the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). The 60-mile trip takes 1 hour and 30 minutes. • RIVERSIDE - • WEST CORONA • COMMERCE DOWNTOWN 155 S. Auto Center 6433 26th Street 4066 Vine Street Drive * L.A. UNION STATION • RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA * FULLERTON 800 N. Alameda Street 10901 Indiana Avenue 120 E. Santa Fe Avenue • NORTH MAIN CORONA • NORWALK/ 250 E. Blaine SANTA FE SPRINGS 12700 Imperial Highway ABOUT RAIL 2 RAIL The Rail 2 Rail program is a partnership between Metrolink and Amtrak, providing many rail passengers more train service between Oceanside and Oxnard at no additional cost. Metrolink Monthly Pass holders may ride any Amtrak Pacific Surfliner train or bus within the origin and destination of their pass for no additional cost. * Metrolink/Amtrak Rail 2 Rail joint stations are indicated by a star on the system map and on the station list below. program, visit metrolinktrains.com or call 800-371-LINK. Trains run from Oxnard to Los Angeles, paralleling the Ventura Freeway (101) and the Simi Valley Freeway (118). The 66-mile trip takes 1 hour and 30 minutes. • MONTALVO 6175 Ventura Boulevard * OXNARD 201 East 4th Street * CAMARILLO 30 Lewis Road * MOORPARK 300 High Street * SIMI VALLEY 5050 Los Angeles Avenue * CHATSWORTH 10046 Old Depot Plaza Road • NORTHRIDGE 8775 Wilbur Avenue * VAN NUYS 7720 Van Nuys Boulevard * BURBANK AIRPORT 3750 Empire Avenue • DOWNTOWN BURBANK 201 N. Front Street * GLENDALE 400 W. Cerritos Avenue * L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street Trains run from Oceanside to Los Angeles, paralleling the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5). The 87-mile trip takes 1 hour and 45 minutes. * OCEANSIDE 235 S. Tremont Street • SAN CLEMENTE 1850 Avenida Estacion * SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 26701 Verdugo Street • LAGUNA NIGUEL/ MISSION VIEJO 28200 Forbes Road * IRVINE 15215 Barranca Parkway • TUSTIN 2975 Edinger Avenue * SANTA ANA 1000 E. Santa Ana Boulevard • ORANGE 194 N. Atchison Street * ANAHEIM 2150 E. Katella Avenue * FULLERTON 120 E. Santa Fe Avenue • NORWALK/ SANTA FE SPRINGS 12700 Imperial Highway • COMMERCE 6433 26th Street * L.A. UNION STATION 800 N. Alameda Street INLAND EMPIRE - ORANGE COUNTY Line Trains run from San Bernardino to San Juan Capistrano, paralleling the Riverside Freeway (91), the Costa Mesa Freeway (55) and the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5). The 59-mile trip takes 1 hour and 35 minutes. • SAN BERNARDINO 1204 W. 3rd Street • RIVERSIDE - DOWNTOWN 4066 Vine Street • RIVERSIDE - LA SIERRA 10901 Indiana Avenue • NORTH MAIN CORONA 250 E. Blaine • WEST CORONA 155 S. Auto Center Drive • ANAHEIM CANYON 1039 Pacificenter Drive • ORANGE 194 N. Atchison Street * SANTA ANA 1000 E. Santa Ana Boulevard • TUSTIN 2975 Edinger Avenue * IRVINE 15215 Barranca Parkway • LAGUNA NIGUEL/ MISSION VIEJO 28200 Forbes Road *SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 26701 Verdugo Street • SAN CLEMENTE 1850 Avenida Estacion * OCEANSIDE 235 S. Tremont Street 800-371-LINK(5465) > metrolinktrains.com 800-698-4TDD for speech S. hearing impaired MET 212.05 06 o(oz altos o; you dew o ��N °N\ �\).,2> o °�,e )1NI1 e u NNE 1131fIWW0) S,VINNOJI1V) NI13HiflOS )INflo2113w worsulen luFulaw �(1!aoy;nd Ilea leuo!6aa epnopiej watmo5 (I1e2i 1116!1) aun p109 ()ABA ---� (1!ea 11-16n) aun uaaa9 oalaA (11e l 1116!1) aun an18 o4aA oa}ady (lenngnS) aun pad oa}aA oalalnl Aq paleaado uo!rels aan�n3 aopuao9 l!ed Z a tte m Apo aau!11anS Dved lealuad cue (y7 uMojumoa • uo iallnd • apisaan0 aun 16 IMMO aun Aluno9 a6ueao-aa!dw3 puelul aun Aluno9 a6ueao Immo aun ap!saanN aun ou!paeuaae ueS aun Aellen ado!aluy i aun Aluno9 eanluan suoi-ekS lu!of ne11 Z I!p2J >leguadplu!1oalaA SOW 'SZ 19dv 91 3,943 d y`' Ck.44 oe Ja a-42,9 i 0( e� e e}alo9 DodwownS ypeaeaanoa9 ods!go sins ueS O Line Profile Riverside Line 40% 20% 0% ETHNICITY 37% 37% 31 27% 24 0 14% 0 20/ 5% African Asian-Pac. Caucasian Hispanic Other American Isl. ■ Riverside Line Riders ® Employed residents in RS Line Corridor 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% O% <$20K$20K- $30K- $40K- $50K- $60K- $75K-$100K$150K- > $30K $40K $50K $60K $75K $100K $150K$200K $200K HOUSEHOLD INCOME In RS ® System Metrolink 2004 EMPLOYED RIDERS WITH EMPLOYER SUBSIDY AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH (MILES) 40 30 7, i 37.0 37.5 WEEKDAY PEAK MIDDAY 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% CHOICE RIDERS (CAR AVAILABLE FOR TRIP) 89.1 % YES NO .e. METROLINK© 11/2004 Note: Weekday data reflects total line ridership, incl. interlined trips. Sources: Metrolink Onboard Survey 2002 Metrolink conductor ridership counts Metrolink ambassador parking space counts (3/04) SCAG Socio-economic statistics Line Profile Riverside Line el•e Metrolink Riverside line Travel Shed MlIR011lt it .2* • N • e .• • 4' ` - ,_ - • . • ' 'A • �`� • • , •C ArvFR40E°OWITOW1 s• ••�!•• • • • • • • • %les • • li,...., p Legend o m.o.... e Metro. R rend. Line — cue Mao. neer OC k rant Nee t• 2001 Survey Respond.. Homes 5,000 2,500 0 AVERAGE WEEKDAY RIDERSHIP rn m LL u. itt u_ cn LL u_ in rn u. LL 0 >- u_ LL 8 LL e 0 } LL M 0 u_ 8 LL 4,000 S. H 3,500 S 3,000 vli 2,500 — Y 2,000 — 3a 1,500 — I 1,000 — rs 500 — RIVERSIDE LINE LOAD PROFILE 0 i line segment Metrolink 2004 CORRIDOR STATISTICS Total Population: Total Households: 2,472,631 773,502 Ethnicity of Workers 16 and Older: White 37.0% Hispanic 36.9% Asian 13.8% Black 7.8% Other 4.7% Source: U.S. Census 2000 Number of Employers Total # of Jobs Source: SCAG 96,262 1110,713 Trains per Weekday: 12 MAJOR STATION PAIRS Riverside Line: 1. Industry — L.A. 2. Riverside — L.A. 3. E. Ontario — L.A. 4. Pedley — L.A. STATION PARKING CAPACITY Riverside County Line Capacity Avg. Empty Daily Spaces Avg. Daily Occupancy East Ontario Industry Montebello - Commerce Pedley Pomona/Downtown Riverside 655 748 255 283 300 870 397 0 160 104 186 0 39% 100% 37% 63% 38% 100% Line Profile set Metrolink Inland Empire -Orange County Line Travel Shed kli A 0 SWV 061NMON�. 161 �! • �effr 11111.4.841 �FI .e , 8 0fe,ARA 1 .. A4AH.4.-re ,V •N i V w,� e. l..,~ ,_I , !i Ir ��� , a. , t.. , , a��r.7� • SAN,APNA n y. ;, ;� v ar L din \ • O rM6Inland E pie OmM11 SooMS Or. I /0 r , OCetchomentAgea ' `1. 2001 Suna y Respondent. Homes i ® e . p . tj�+ ^„p,AN CMISiRANO O 7 e 8 •I]• 1 o . � Ne• 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 average weekday trips 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 IEOC LINE LOAD PROFILE co G 0 J c � G P O J� O OG 5P gP �Q k COP OQ ,\G Q• 4 SP line segment Note: North Main Corona was not open at time of 2002 Surrey. Metrolink 2004 IEOC Line CORRIDOR STATISTICS Total Population: Total Households: 3,459,298 1,111,429 Ethnicity of Workers 16 and Older: White 44.0% Hispanic 37.1% Asian 8.5% Black 5.3% Other 5.1 % Source: 2000 U.S. Census Number of Employers Total # of Jobs Source: SCAG 135,286 914,475 Trains per Weekday: 12 MAJOR STATION PAIRS IEOC Line: 1. N. M. Corona - Orange 2. N. M. Corona — Irvine 3. La Sierra — Irvine 4. La Sierra — Santa Ana 5. La Sierra - Orange STATION PARKING CAPACITY Avg. Avg. Daily Daily Occupancy IEOC Line Capacity Empty Space San Bemardino 340 0 100% Riverside Downtown 870 0 100% Riverside -La Sierra 1030 91 91 % North main Corona 450 75 83 % West Corona 545 283 48 % Anaheim Canyon 62 19 69% Orange 221 50 77% Santa Ana 725 20 97% Tustin 304 20 93% Irvine 522 98 10% Laguna Niguel 281 45 84% San Juan Capistrano 172 40 77% Line Profile 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% MONTHLY PASS FARE MEDIA 10-TRIP ROUND TRIP ONE WAY 800A 60% 40% 20% 0% ETHNICITY African Asian-Pac. Caucasian Hispanic American Isl. Other ■ IEOC ® Employed residents in RS Line Corridor 100% -9 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% PERCENT OF WORK TRIPS Peak Reverse Mid -Day Weekday HOUSEHOLD INCOME <$20K$20K- $30K- $40K- $50K- $60K- $75K-$100K-$150K- > $30K $40K $50K $60K $75K $100K $150K$200K $200K Metrolink 2004 IEOC Line 60% 40% 20% 0% EMPLOYED RIDERS WITH EMPLOYER SUBSIDY 54.7° IEOC SYSTEM 50 40 30 20 10 0 AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH (MILES) �c a d 1110101 1111 peak reverse direction direction mid day weekday 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% CHOICE RIDERS (CAR AVAILABLE FOR TRIP) 89.2% YES NO METROLINK © 11/2004 Note: Weekday data reflects total line ridership, incl. interlined trips. Sources: Metrolink Onboard Survey 2002 Metrolink conductor ridership counts Metrolink ambassador parking space counts (3/04) SCAG Socio-economic statistics Line Profile 'er Metrolink 91 Line Travel Shed �IPdK N w r 4►90'..- ' a sko* �g �.a.+l� �� ball*F-ft11 _ • 1t se r ■■ Id f M► 1) Fg•�, / i .1 147 �� ��i./i�, a• • *.����f r .+t� • �� iE mufas�c ooJe�roxM -•. .r .� R '"`-irA{ *N3 i �c Sit)'� rartre >T. a r� fsT. L qj 1 hair- 1 i �+�P�t. ail�iLla� 'WEST �er EWERS USES; �1 ;kno7;* "'�! ss'• ,G• !�►i® - nk 9l .. om, ...... AO Svrvay FespanEsms Homec ' . . 8:. 01 • 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 avenge weekday trips 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 91 LINE LOAD PROFILE I Ots �S� QJ 6- G line segment Note: North Main Corona was not open at Limo of 2002 Survey. �G co Metrolink 2004 91 Line CORRIDOR STATISTICS Total Population: 3,232,680 Total Households: 1,014,428 Ethnicity of Workers 16 and Older: White 40.7% Hispanic 37.2% Asian 11.1 % Black 5.7% Other 5.3% Source: 2000 U_S_ Census Number of Employers Total # of Jobs Source: SCAG 121,502 1,392,689 Trains per Weekday: 9 MAJOR STATION PAIRS Peak Direction: 1. Fullerton — L.A. 2. Norwalk — L.A. 3. N. M. Corona — L.A. Reverse Peak Direction: 1. L.A. - Fullerton 2. L.A, - Norwalk STATION PARKING CAPACITY 91 Line Avg. Daily Empty Spaces Capacity Avg. Daily Occupancy Riverside Downtown La Sierra North Main - Corona West Corona Fullerton Norwalk 870 too 450 545 587 358 90 91 75 283 0 0 90 % 91% 83% 48% 100% 100% Line Profile 91 Line 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% FARE MEDIA 59.1 % 18.7% 12.5% 8.7% MONTHLY PASS 10-TRIP ROUND TRIP ONE WAY 60% 40% 20% 0% ETHNICITY African Asian-Pac. Caucasian Hispanic American Isl. Other ■ 91 Line ® Employed residents in RS Line Condor 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% PERCENT OF WORK TRIPS Peak Reverse Mid -Day Weekday 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% HOUSEHOLD INCOME ■ 91 ine t1 System <$20K$20K- $30K- $40K- $50K- $60K- $75K-$100K$150K- > $30K $40K $50K $60K $75K $100K$150K$200K$200K Metrolink 2004 EMPLOYED RIDERS WITH EMPLOYER SUBSIDY AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH (MILES) 60 48.1 50 40 30 30.5WIN ■ 20, ■ ■ • ' 10' ■ ■ • ' 0 ■ ■ peak reverse mid day weekday direction direction 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% CHOICE RIDERS (CAR AVAILABLE FOR TRIP) 85.3% 14.7% YES NO °e ° METROLINK O 11/2004 Note: Weekday data reflects total line ridership, incl. interlined trips. Sources: Metrolink Onboard Survey 2002 Metrolink conductor ridership counts Metrolink ambassador parking space counts (3/04) SCAG Socio-economic statistics Attachment 7A City of Riverside Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000/01 - FY 2003/04 Actual) 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) • Ridership (Actual) 141,497 156,306 160,472 157,828 ■ Ridership (Projected) 148,458 144,697 159,652 160,472 ❑Total Operating Expenses $1,428,965 $1,519,326 $1,815,492 $1,810,464 ❑ Passenger Fares $135,639 $115,969 $169,964 $185,332 • Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑ Total Operating Expenses Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: City of Riverside's Quarterly Transit Operator's Report and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 7B 3,000,000 City of Riverside Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2003/04 Actual to FY 2005/06 Projected) 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) II Ridership (Actual) 157,828 166,038 172,680 ■ Ridership (Projected) 160,472 - - OTotal Operating Expenses $1,810,464 $2,229,161 $2,726,009 0 Passenger Fares $185,332 $222,916 $272,600 ® Ridership (Actual) ® Ridership (Projected) O Total Operating Expenses 0 Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: City of Riverside's Quarterly Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 8A 40,000,000 35, 000, 000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20, 000, 000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 Riverside Transit Agency Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000/01- FY 2003/04 Actual) FY 2000/01 (Actual) Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares 6,827,695 8,249,347 $28,234,006 $5,383,456 FY 2001/02 (Actual) 7,102,762 7,290,188 $30,182,422 $5,495,127 FY 2002/03 (Actual) 7,146,680 7,647,658 $32,307,935 $5,368,812 FY 2003/04 (Actual) 7,588,864 8,045,994 $36,986,995 $5,957,774 ▪ Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: RTA's Quarterly Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 8B 45,000,000 40,000,000 35,000,000 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 FY 2003/04 (Actual) Riverside Transit Agency Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2003/04 Actual to FY 2005/06 Projected) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) ■ Ridership (Actual) 7,588,864 7,862,914 7,922,935 ■ Ridership (Projected) 8,045,994 GTotal Operating Expenses $36,986,995 $39,583,863 $42,073,089 G Passenger Fares $5,957,774 $6,081,464 $7,875,823 ■ Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) O Total Operating Expenses 0 Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: RTA's Quarterly Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 9A 18,000,000 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10, 000, 000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 ® Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) SunLine Transit Agency Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000/01- FY 2003/04 Actual) 3,852,899 4,007,223 3,830,120 4,087,367 552,536 4,235,832 FY 2003/04 (Actual) 3,561,765 3,730,999 ❑Total Operating Expenses $15,030,641 $15,365,327 $16,492,559 $16,521,253 ❑ Passenger Fares $2,466,804 $2,610,791 $2,850,624 $2,768,697 ▪ Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: SunLine's Quarterly Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 9B 20,000,000 SunLine Transit Agency Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2003/04 Actual to FY 2005/06 Projected) 16,000,000 14,000,000 12,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 v.d e, s, ( FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) ® Ridership (Actual) 3,561,765 3,643,827 3,525,730 ■ Ridership (Projected) 3,730,999 - - OTotal Operating Expenses $16,521,253 $17,518,073 $17,930,052 0 Passenger Fares $2,768,697 $2,787,903 $2,743,446 IN Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) O Total Operating Expenses O Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: SunLine's Quarterly Transit Operators' Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 10A Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000-01- FY 2003/04 Actual) 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 d <;a FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001 /02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) ®Ridership (Actual) 21,814 27,337 30,085 36,046 MI Ridership (Projected) 21,300 22,100 22,044 44,970 ❑Total Operating Expenses $187,537 $290,671 $345,749 $714,333 ❑ Passenger Fares $27,339 $37,936 $33,998 $56,652 Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑Total Operating Expenses Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: PWTA's Quarterly Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 10B 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 Palo Verde Valley Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2003/04 Actual to FY 2005/06 Projected) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) ■ Ridership (Actual) 36,046 45,000 55,404 ■ Ridership (Projected) 44,970 Motel Operating Expenses $714,333 $842,446 $757,900 O Passenger Fares $56,652 $51,495 $78,875 ■ Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) O Total Operating Expenses 0 Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: PVVTA's Quarterly Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Attachment 11A RCTC's Commuter Rail Program Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000/01 - FY 2003/04 Actual) El Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) ❑ Total Operating Expenses ❑ Passenger Fares O Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) FY 2000/01 (Actual) 1,649,655 1,995,598 2,193,000 FY 2003/04 (Actual) 2,458,920 2,388,992 ❑ Total Operating Expenses $17,799,900 $18,858,100 $20,695,600 $20,868,500 ❑ Passenger Fares $8,515,271 $9,190,911 $11,294,288 $12,104,730 7/14/2005 Informatin Source: Commuter Rail's Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Transit Plans I Attachment 11 B RCTC's Commuter Rail Program Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2003/04 Actual to FY 2005/06 Projected) 30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 v 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projeded) I! Ridership (Actual) 2,458,920 2,514,952 2,765,418 ■ Ridership (Projected) 2,388,992 - - OTotal Operating Expenses $20,868,500 $23,149,900 $23,958,933 O Passenger Fares $12,104,730 $13,081,400 $13,768,400 ® Ridership (Actual) ■ Ridership (Projected) O Total Operating Expenses O Passenger Fares 7/14/2005 Information Source: RCTC's Quarterly Transit Operator's Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Ridership, Operating Costs, Farebox and Capital Project Analysis: Riverside County Transit Operators July 18, 2005 Summary Riverside County Systemwide Ridership, Operating Expenses & Passenger Fares (FY 2000/01 - FY 2003/04 Actual) 0 10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000 60,000,000 70,000,000 80,000,000 90,000,000 Ridership (Actual)13,118,470 13,497,981 13,628,071 14,350,070 Ridership (Projected)14,537,421 14,012,950 14,772,688 14,955,199 Total Operating Expenses $64,664,218 $68,528,817 $74,283,099 $79,814,594 Passenger Fares $16,801,860 $17,715,747 $20,015,834 $21,415,373 FY 2000/01 (Actual)FY 2001/02 (Actual)FY 2002/03 (Actual)FY 2003/04 (Actual) Information Source: Transit Operators’ Quarterly Ridership Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Comparison: FY 2000/01 (Actual) to FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) Transit Operator % Change in Ridership Total Operating Expenses Total Operating Expenses City of Banning 240,318 222,764 (17,554)-7.30%691,016$ 831,351$ 140,335$ 20% City of Beaumont 83,866 113,683 29,817 35.55%481,787$ 768,511$ 286,724$ 60% City of Corona 88,142 210,200 122,058 138.48%810,366$ 1,313,187$ 502,821$ 62% City of Riverside 141,497 157,828 16,331 11.54%1,428,965$ 1,810,464$ 381,499$ 27% Riverside Transit Agency 6,827,695 7,588,864 761,169 11.15%28,234,006$ 36,986,995$ 8,752,989$ 31% SunLine Transit Agency 3,852,899 3,561,765 (291,134)-7.56%15,030,641$ 16,521,253$ 1,490,612$ 10% Palo Verde Valley Transit Age 21,814 36,046 14,232 65.24%187,537$ 714,333$ 526,796$ 281% RCTC's Commuter Rail 1,862,239 2,458,920 596,681 32.04%17,799,900$ 20,868,500$ 3,068,600$ 17% % Increase in Operating Costs Increase (Decrease) in Ridership Increase (Decrease) in Operating Costs FY 2000/01 (Actual) Ridership FY 2003/04 (Actual) Ridership Information Source: Transit Operators’ Quarterly Ridership Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Comparison: FY 2003/04 (Actual) to FY 2005/06 (Projected) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2005/06 (Projected) Transit Operator % Change in Ridership Total Operating Expenses Total Operating Expenses City of Banning 222,764 218,181 (4,583)-2.06%831,351$ 1,101,476$ 270,125$ 32.49% City of Beaumont 113,683 125,000 11,317 9.95%768,511$ 1,057,000$ 288,489$ 37.54% City of Corona 210,200 261,300 51,100 24.31%1,313,187$ 1,605,000$ 291,813$ 22.22% City of Riverside 157,828 172,680 14,852 9.41%1,810,464$ 2,726,009$ 915,545$ 50.57% Riverside Transit Agency 7,588,864 7,922,935 334,071 4.40%36,986,995$ 42,073,089 5,086,094$ 13.75%$ SunLine Transit Agency 3,561,765 3,525,730 (36,035)-1.01%16,521,253$ 17,930,052$ 1,408,799$ 8.53%$ Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 36,046 55,404 19,358 53.70%714,333$ 757,900$ 43,567$ 6.10% RCTC's Commuter Rail 2,458,920 2,765,418 306,498 12.46%20,868,500$ 23,958,933$ 3,090,433$ 14.81% Increase (Decrease) in Ridership % Increase in Operating Costs FY 2003/04 (Actual) Ridership FY 2005/06 (Projected) Ridership Increase (Decrease) in Ridership Information Source: Transit Operators’ Quarterly Ridership Reports and Short Range Transit Plans Apportionments: Federal, TDA (LTF & STA) and Measure "A" funding Total Revenues: Apportionments plus farebox and miscellaneous revenue Riverside County Apportionments, Total Revenues & Costs $- $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 Apportionments $54,241,015 $62,749,805 $64,655,730 $68,928,028 $79,207,792 $86,374,947 $85,026,271 Total Revenues $70,500,787 $80,842,751 $82,470,135 $89,055,067 $102,458,057 $111,932,925 $111,214,533 Costs $57,549,997 $63,619,293 $79,577,232 $95,850,138 $86,079,331 $87,366,904 $95,481,223 FY 1999/2000 (Actual) FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) State- Mandated Target FY 2000/01 FY 2001/02 FY 2002/03 FY 2003/04 % Change in Ridership (FY 2000/01 - FY 2003/04) % Increase in Operating Costs (FY 2000/01 to FY 2003/04) Banning 10%17.00%14.20%14.10%11.80%-7.30%20% Beaumont (1)10%18.70%10.50%7.30%- 35.55%60% Corona 20%26.20%23.70%19.40%25.10%138.48%62% Riverside 10%9.70%7.70%9.20%10.10%11.54%27% RTA (2)10%-20%19.66%18.40%16.73%18.02%11.15%31% SunLine (2)10%-20%18.90%18.62%17.12%19.18%-7.56%10% PVVTA 10%12.80%13.10%10.00%7.80%65.24%281% Rail (3)20%48.00%50.00%52.00%58.00%32.04%17% (1) Beaumont's FY 2003/04 farebox calculation not available pending completion of financial audit. (2) RTA & SunLine serve both urbanized and non-urbanized areas of Riverside County. As a result, their minimum fare revenue to operating expense ratio required by State law falls somewhere between the 10% requirement for non-urbanized and 20% for urbanized area services. (3) Farebox for commuter rail is based on three Riverside lines (not systemwide). Source: Audited Financial Statements and Short Range Transit Plans Comparison of Farebox, Ridership and Operating Costs Apportionments: Federal, TDA (LTF & STA) and Measure "A" funding Total Revenues: Apportionments plus farebox and miscellaneous revenue Public Bus: Western County Apportionments, Total Revenues & Costs $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 Apportionments $30,581,409 35,824,482 36,679,981 39,958,075 46,014,786 49,470,295 48,169,381 Total Revenues $36,822,034 42,644,577 42,419,030 45,698,113 51,454,141 59,034,324 57,417,335 Costs $33,742,782 38,653,593 53,235,200 46,926,692 51,399,166 56,967,277 59,248,801 FY 1999/2000 (Actual) FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) Commuter Rail: Western Riverside Apportionments, Total Revenues & Costs $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 Apportionments $10,283,996 $12,218,213 $12,817,068 $13,347,694 $15,070,048 $16,796,020 $16,446,904 Total Revenues $17,315,696 $20,733,481 $22,007,976 $24,679,249 $27,174,776 $29,877,420 $29,834,016 Costs $8,484,958 $7,269,992 $8,382,102 $29,345,902 $13,016,707 $6,622,305 $9,314,871 FY 1999/2000 (Actual) FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) Apportionments: Federal, TDA (LTF & STA) and Measure "A" funding Total Revenues: Apportionments plus farebox and miscellaneous revenue Coachella Valley Apportionments, Total Revenues & Costs $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 Apportionments $12,656,066 $13,852,129 $14,299,953 $15,250,247 $17,233,882 $19,075,918 $19,387,510 Total Revenues $15,594,474 $16,579,973 $17,144,499 $18,271,451 $22,892,370 $21,913,821 $22,271,756 Costs $15,138,998 $17,481,910 $17,550,800 $19,199,358 $20,419,505 $22,898,646 $25,436,411 FY 1999/2000 (Actual) FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) Apportionments: Federal, TDA (LTF & STA) and Measure "A" funding Total Revenues: Apportionments plus farebox and miscellaneous revenue Apportionments: Federal, TDA (LTF & STA) and Measure "A" funding Total Revenues: Apportionments plus farebox and miscellaneous revenue Palo Verde Valley Apportionments, Total Revenues & Costs $- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 Apportionments $719,544 $854,981 $858,728 $372,012 $889,076 $1,032,714 $1,022,476 Total Revenues $768,583 $884,720 $898,630 $406,254 $936,770 $1,107,360 $1,691,426 Costs $183,259 $213,798 $409,130 $378,186 $1,243,953 $878,676 $1,481,140 FY 1999/2000 (Actual) FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) Summary of Federal Funding Apportioments, Allocations and Dollars Claimed $- $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 Apportioned $12,206,361 $12,691,922 $13,656,745 $16,898,248 $22,137,245 $20,023,627 $18,662,887 Allocation $12,808,946 $13,216,576 $18,486,732 $16,074,741 $27,232,749 $22,919,436 $16,075,978 Claimed $7,111,761 $8,166,334 $16,775,250 $22,565,646 $12,468,040 $- $- FY 1999/2000 (Actual) FY 2000/01 (Actual) FY 2001/02 (Actual) FY 2002/03 (Actual) FY 2003/04 (Actual) FY 2004/05 (Projected) FY 2005/06 (Projected) Information Source: Transit Operators’ Audited Financial Statements RCTC’s Transit Role Planning (AB 1246 –PUC 13030c) Funding (PUC 130250 –130306) Operator Oversight/Fiduciary Responsibility 1.Annual Fiscal Audit 2.Triennial Performance Audit 3.Annually review transit operators’ activities….and: recommend potential productivity improvements to lower operating costs (PUC 99244) Staff Recommendation Receive the Ridership, Operating Costs, Farebox and capital Project Analysis for Riverside County Transit Operators as an informational item, and Forward to the Commission for final review.