Loading...
05 May 18, 2006 Transit PolicyRECORDS RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TIME: 10:00 a.m. DATE: Thursday, May 18, 2006 LOCATION: Conference Room A, 3rd Floor Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside County Regional Complex 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside *** COMMITTEE MEMBERS *** Terry Henderson, City of La Quinta, Chairman Frank West, City of Moreno Valley, Vice -Chairman Roger Berg, City of Beaumont John Chlebnik, City of Calimesa Frank Hall, City of Norco Daryl Busch, City of Perris Steve Adams, City of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Roy Wilson, County of Riverside *** STAFF *** Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director 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. 76760 11.36.39 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE www.retc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 10:00 a.m. Thursday, May 18, 2006 CONFERENCE ROOM A Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3'd Floor, Riverside 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 Board 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 (Items not listed on the agenda) 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 23, 2006 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 requiresa unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Transit Policy Committee Agenda May 18, 2006 Page 2 6. PRESENTATION: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS' TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Overview Page 1 This item is for the Committee to receive and file a presentation on the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG): Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Demonstration Project. 7. PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 PERFORMANCE TARGETS Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 2 1) Approve Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) FY 2006/07 performance targets for the farebox recovery ratio and discretionary indicators; 2) Approve an increase in the PIP FY 2006/07 performance targets for the operating cost per revenue hour for the Banning Municipal Transit Agency, City of Corona, Riverside Transit Agency and RCTC's Commuter Rail Program; and 3) Forward to the Plans and Programs Committee for review and approval 8. CONCEPTUAL PLANS: PROPOSED TRANSIT OPERATING AND CAPITAL NEEDS UTILIZING MEASURE A AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 7 1) Approve the proposed conceptual plan template for identifying operating and capital requests for four program areas in western Riverside County, transit in Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley; 2) Direct Commission staff to work with transit operators and program staff to develop conceptual plans for Measure A and Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding; and 3) Submit the draft conceptual plans for discussion at the next meeting of the Transit Policy Committee. • • Transit Policy Committee Agenda May 18, 2006 Page 3 9. ADJOURNMENT The next Transit Policy Committee meeting is scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 20, 2006, Conference Room A, Riverside County Transportation Commission, 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor, Riverside. TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET May 18, 2006 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS %/0NN4 .11/ CNLEa fK ch1i1-1E5 �c-�-��A-G(sc ._7(7- b(ff( \<N CX c7)--` - G j.. L.\ �� — V \ -c`'--i it ,/,- � -� ///41 ,4ei G //Cji � 7/: �-97,1.4_ K;(/ . (9 44JG14-• r 0 6 -4' )'t. 6 6'71-'-? 0 640 ✓ )Yr�v— 54-we_ 0--e-KG,,, Z. e3.) („,,..:cr. iv61.e<-_.e. %k 71-7`044,/. 1 , ti i I s AGENDA ITEM 4 MINUTES • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE January 23, 2006 Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Transit Policy Committee was called to order by Chair Terry Henderson at 11:01 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present Steve Adams Roger Berg John Chlebnik Frank Hall Terry Henderson Dick Kelly Frank West Members Absent Daryl Busch Jeff Stone John Tavaglione Roy Wilson 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S/C (Hall/Adams) to approve the July 18, 2005 minutes as submitted. Abstain: Berg, Chlebnik 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no revisions or additions to the agenda. Transit Policy Committee Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 2 6. STATUS REPORT: ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY, CAPITAL PROJECTS, 2009 MEASURE "A" ALLOCATION AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING Craig Fajnor, Chief Financial Officer for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), provided an update on the status of RTA's open grants and capital projects, providing categorization. Eric Haley, Executive Director, suggested that partially funded projects have a different protocol for listing so projects are more clearly represented. Tanya Love, Program Manager, concurred with Eric Haley's comments to review the classification of open grants and capital project. She explained staff's concern of having funds lapse out of the County. She then presented a status report on route productivity, the productivity improvement program, capital projects from FY 1996/97 through FY 2005/06, timeliness of expenditure of capital funds, and 2009 Measure A and TDA funding allocations, and the proposed timeline. The next steps are to include additional data on the operators' quarterly reports including the number of projects completed by quarter, identify the dollar amounts associated with those projects and identify whether or not any of those funds were de -obligated or lapsed. Commissioner John Chlebnik suggested that the representatives of the Coachella Valley area approach the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) board members and look at allocating a portion of their funding toward implementation for rail service to the Coachella Valley area. Commissioner Dick Kelly responded that CVAG has previously discussed the issue and determined that those funds are best used for Sunline and its public transit. He noted his involvement in working on rail to the Coachella Valley and Measure A projects for the last 20 years and a considerable amount of work has been done. The focus is completion of the 1989 Measure A projects and local public transit. Chair Henderson suggested including the reclassification of capital projects as part of the recommended action. Tanya Love noted that an invitation was extended to the operators to present their projects. RTA accepted the invitation. The other operators declined as it is believed that significant head way is being made in closing. out projects. • • • Transit Policy Committee Minutes January 23, 2006 Page 3 Commissioner Chlebnik apologized to Commissioner Kelly. His comments were not to dictate to the Coachella Valley but to ask that rail service be considered for long range planning. M/S/C (West/Adams) to: 1) Receive and file the Capital Project Status Reports; 2) Direct staff to have the transit operators add to their quarterly capital grant reports, the number of projects completed (per quarter), the dollar amount associated with those projects as well as whether any funds were de -obligated and/or lapsed (by fiscal year); 3) Adopt the timeline for the 2009 Measure "A" Allocation and Transportation Development Act funding discussion; 4) Direct staff to review the reclassification of the capital projects; and 5) Forward to the Commission for final action. 7. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Transit Policy Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:42 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Acting Clerk of the Board i i AGENDA ITEM 6 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: May 18, 2006 TO: Transit Policy Committee FROM: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Deputy Executive Director SUBJECT: Presentation: Western Riverside Council of Governments' Transit Oriented Development Demonstration Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to receive and file a presentation on the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG): Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Demonstration Project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Endorsed by the Commission in 2004, the general concept of the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) Transit Oasis Strategy seeks to: • Connect most major destinations and mixed -use areas or "activity centers" in Western Riverside County together with regional express transit;Provide local circulator vehicles within each of these activity centers to carry passengers within the areas and connect them to the express network; • Plan land uses to complement this core transit infrastructure, designing the station areas to be places around which development can concentrate; and • Provide amenities and operational features that attract "choice" riders — people who have cars, but find it advantageous to take transit. Building upon the CETAP Transit Oasis Strategy, WRCOG has received funding from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Ca!trans, RCTC and Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to identify a TOD demonstration project. WRCOG Consultant, Susan DeSantis and IBI Group Consultant, Doug Langille will present an overview of the demonstration project approach. Agenda Item 6 1 AGENDA ITEM 7 REVISION TO AGENDA ITEM 7 CHART, PAGE 4 Revisions noted by Bold Italics OPERATORS REQUESTING WAIVER (for Operating Cost/Rev Hr target) Operator FY 2006/07 Target FY 2006/07 SRTP Plan Banning $72.67 $75.65 Corona $50.54 $53.65 Commuter Rail $540.70 $605.05 RTA $69.20 $72.73 % Increase over FY 06/07 Targets 4.10% 6.15% 11.90% 5.10% ADDITION TO AGENDA ITEM 7 PERFORMANCE TARGETS BY OPERATOR Transit Policy Committee May 18, 2006 Banning Systemwide Performance Targets FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours FY 2006/07 SRTP Plan (Proposed) 205,000 15,396 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 260,965 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 270,883 Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses $1,164,743 $143,840 $1,020,903 Performance Indicators FY 2006/07 Target' FY 2006/07 Productivity Scorecard Performance Summary Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio $75.65 12.35% $72.67 10.00% O Meets 1 of 2 mandatory indicators Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile $4.98 $66.31 $3.91 13.32 0.79 $4.03-$5.45 $52.66-$71.24 $3.26-$4.41 11.10-15.02 0.69-0.93 v Meets RCTC PIP Program: Meets 5 of 6 discretionary indicators Operator Comments Waiver Requested. Operating cost/hr above PIP target due to increase in fuel costs, general liability insurance and employee services. Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Based on FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals Performance Indicators Legend: V = In Compliance O = Not in Compliance As of 5/17/2006 PIP Performance Targets FY06/07 Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses Performance Indicators Beaumont Systemwide Performance Targets FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review FY 2006/07 SRTP Plan (Proposed) 125,500 278,652 21,000 278,652 283,000 $1,080,095 FY 2006/07 Target* FY 2006/07 Scorecard Productivity Performance Summary Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile $57.15 10.00% $8.61 $3.88 $51.43 $3.88 5.98 0.45 $58.28 10.00% $6.89-$9.32 $3.18-$4.30 $44.50-$60.21 $3.12-$4.22 5.49-7.43 0.38-0.52 J J J J J J J v Meets 2 of 2 mandatory indicators Meets RCTC PIP Program: Meets 6 of 6 discretionary indicators Operator Comments Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance Indicators Based on FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals Legend: J = In Compliance O = Not in Compliance As of 5/17/2006 PIP Perfomance Targets FY 06/07 RCTC Commuter Rail Performance Targets FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review Data Elements FY 2006/07 SRTP Plan (Proposed) FY 2006/07 Target* FY 2006/07 Scorecard Productivity Performance Summary Unlinked Passenger Trips 2,874,486 Passenger Miles 99,416,313 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Train Hour 54,858 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Car Miles 2,885,249 Total Actual Vehicle Train Miles 674,915 Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue $33,191,600 $15,121,400 Net Operating Expenses $18,070,200 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 7. Unlinked Passenger Trips 8. Passenger Miles per Rev Car Miles $605.05 45.56% $6.29 $0.18 $329.40 $6.26 52.40 1.00 2,874,486 34.46 $540.70 40.00% $5.69-$7.69 $0.17-$0.23 $246.93-$334.08 $5.97-$8.08 36.91-49.93 0.89-1.21 2,679,015 30 or more 0 f v Meets 1 of 2 mandatory indicators Meets RCTC PIP Program: Meets 8 of 8 discretionary Indicators Operator Comments Waiver requested. Operating cost/hr above PIP target due to additional services on the IEOC line and change in cost allocation plan. Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 8 Discretionary Performance Indicators * Based on FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals Legend: •\( = In Compliance 0 = Not in Compliance As of 5/17/2006 PIP Performance Targets FY O6/07 Corona Systemwide Performance Targets FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review Data Elements FY 2006/07 SRTP Plan (Proposed) FY 2006/07 Target* FY 2006/07 Scorecard Productivity Performance Summary Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles 217,400 943,490 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 33,596 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expenses 433,220 460,740 $1,802,500 Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses $234,100 $1,568,400 Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile $53.65 12.99% $7.21 $1.66 $46.68 $3.62 6.47 0.50 $50.54 20.00% $5.41-$7.31 $1.24-$1.68 $35.75-$47.85 $2.64-$3.57 5.56-7.52 0.43-0.59 O O 0 f v Fails 2 of 2 mandatory indicators a Meets RCTC PIP Program: Meets 5 of 6 discretionary indicators Operator Comments Waiver is requested for Operating Cost/hour due to increasing cost of fuel. Although Corona does not meet the farebox recovery ratio, general fund money will be used to supplement the farebox. (See footnote below). Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance Indicators Legend: = In Compliance O = Not in Compliance * Based on FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals a/ City General Funds and other permitted revenues will be used to make up the difference to meet mandatory 20% Farebox Recovery ratio. As of 5/17/2006 PIP Performance Targets FY O6/07 PWTA Systemwide Performance Targets FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips FY 2006/07 SRTP Plan (Proposed) 54,292 Passenger Miles 211,392 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 13,953 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 211,392 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 237,450 Total Operating Expenses $810,575 Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses Performance Indicators $84,500 $726,075 FY 2006/07 Target* FY 2006/07 Scorecard Productivity Performance Summary Mandatory: Operator Comments 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $58.09 $59.58 V 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 10.42% 10.00% V Meets 2 of 2 mandatory indicators 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $13.37 $3.43 $8.23-$11.13 $1.71-$2.32 0 3. Subsidy Per Hour $52.04 $43.86-$59.34 V 4. Subsidy Per Mile $3.43 $2.53-$3.43 v 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 3.89 4.53-6.13 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.26 0.26-0.35 v Meets RCTC PIP Program: Meets 3 of 6 discretionary indicators Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary * Based on FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals Performance Indicators Legend: ,( = In Compliance O = Not in Compliance _ 1 As of 5/17/2006 PIP Performance Targets FY 06/07 Riverside Special Services Performance Targets FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips FY 2006/07 SRTP Plan (Proposed) 156,899 Passenger Miles 647,955 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 39,138 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 662,706 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 692,925 Total Operating Expenses $2,626,840 Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses $263,000 $2,363,840 Performance Indicators FY 2006/07 Target* FY 2006/07 Scorecard Productivity Performance Summary Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $67.12 $67.98 J 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 10.01 % $15.07 $3.65 10.00% $12.49416.90 $3.17-$4.29 J J J 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile $60.40 $3.57 $50.09-$67.76 $3.03-$4.10 J J 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 4.01 0.24 3.41-4.61 0.21-0.28 J v Meets 2 of 2 mandatory Indicators Meets RCTC PIP Program: Meets 6 of 6 discretionary indicators Operator Comments Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary * Based on FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals Performance Indicators Legend: J = In Compliance O = Not in Compliance As of 5/17/2006 PIP Performance Targets FY 06/07 Riverside Transit Agency Performance Targets FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles FY 2006/07 SRTP Plan (Proposed) 7,142,589 48,614,046 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 600,414 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles Total Actual Vehicle Miles 9,638,781 11,152,919 Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses $43,665,697 $7,447,919 $36,217,778 FY 2006/07 FY 2006/07 Target* Scorecard Productivity Performance Summary Performance Indicators Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile $72.73 18.13% $5.07 $0.75 $60.32 $3.76 $69.20 17.65%al $4.07-$5.50 $0.60-$0.81 $46.45-$62.85 $2.88-$3.90 O 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 11.90 0.74 9.71-13.13 0.60-0.81 v Fails 1 of 2 mandatory indicators Meets RCTC PIP Program: Meets 6 of 6 discretionary indicators Operator Comments Requesting a waiver for Operating Cost/Rev Hour to reset target to proposed $72.73 OCPR due to increase in costs in excess of CPI of 4.1%. Page 6 and Table 8 of SRTP identifies these costs. Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance Indicators * Based on FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals a/ Blended farebox calculation. This Farebox ratio does not tie to SRTP Table 3. !Legend: ,j= In Compliance O = Not in Compliance As of 5/17/2006 PIP Performance Targets FY 06/07 SunLine Transit Agency Performance Targets FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review Data Elements Unlinked Passenger Trips FY 2006/07 SRTP Plan (Proposed) 3,500,429 Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 21, 767,841 181,316 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 2,436,817 Total Actual Vehicle Miles Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue 2,718,264 $19,090,505 $3,300,000 Net Operating Expenses $15,790,505 Performance Indicators FY 2006/07 Target* FY 2006/07 Scorecard Productivity Performance Summary Mandatory: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Farebox Recovery Ratio $105.29 17.29% $110.72 17.14%al J J Meets 2 of 2 mandatory Indicators Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per Passenger 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 3. Subsidy Per Hour 4. Subsidy Per Mile 5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour $4.51 $0.73 $87.09 $6.48 19.31 $3.74-$5.06 $0.44-$0.60 $76.44-$103.42 $5.61-$7.60 17.38-23.51 J O J J J 6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile 1.44 1.28-1.73 v Meets RCTC PIP Program: Meets 5 of 6 discretionary indicators Operator Comments Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance Indicators Legend: J= In Compliance 0 = Not in Compliance Based on FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals a' Blended farebox calculation. This farebox ratio does not tie to SRTP Table 3. As of 5/17/2006 PIP Performance Targets FY 06/07 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 18, 2006 TO: Transit Policy Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Productivity Improvement Program Fiscal Performance Targets Year 2006/07 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) FY 2006/07 performance targets for the farebox recovery ratio and discretionary indicators; 2) Approve an increase in the PIP FY 2006/07 performance targets for the operating cost per revenue hour for the Banning Municipal Transit Agency, City of Corona, Riverside Transit Agency and RCTC's Commuter Rail Program; and 3) Forward to the Plans and Programs Committee for review and approval. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission's goal is to improve mobility while adhering to its transit oversight responsibilities which consist of 1) Planning (AB 1246 — PUC 13030c); 2) funding (PUC 130250 — 130306); and 3) Operator Oversight/Fiduciary Responsibilities. The Transit Policy Committee (TPC) was created to discuss, develop, and submit policy direction related to transit matters for Commission action_ When the TPC was formed, several policy issues were identified including route productivity. The PIP is a tool that transit operators can use to improve' transit ridership and mobility for the residents of Riverside County. TransTrack was designed to provide useful interpretations of planned and actual operating service levels and will provide the analytical tools necessary to assist with the on -going issue of productivity as it relates to the disparity between ridership and operating costs. Productivity Improvement Program Goals For FY 2006/07, the Commission adopted the PIP as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's eight public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency. Under state law, the Commission is tasked with Agenda Item 7 2 the responsibility to identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators. The process requires the transit operators to address recommendations that are made by state -mandated performance audits. The Commission oversees transit service in Riverside County primarily through the approval of SRTPs, which detail the operating and capital costs that are planned for transit services. Each operator adopts such a plan and then provides data to the Commission on actual performance. The following performance indicators are evaluated through the PIP process: Mandatory Targets Operating cost per revenue hour (tied to CPI) Fare box recovery ratio (between 10% and 20%) Discretionary Targets' Subsidy per passenger (+/- 15% Variance) Subsidy per passenger mile (+/- 15% Variance) Subsidy per revenue hour (+/- 15% Variance) Subsidy per revenue mile (+A 15% Variance) Passengers per revenue hour (+/- 15% Variance) Passengers per revenue mile (+/- 15% Variance) Additional Discretionary Targets for Rail Program Ridership growth: goal of 2% growth Passenger miles per revenue car: goal of 30 passengers per revenue car mile The performance indicators are critical in ensuring that service can be maximized in an efficient manner. More importantly, the PIP is a cooperative process between the Commission and the transit providers to work together on approaches to improve mobility in an environment fraught with rising costs for fuel, labor and insurance. TransTrack — Transit Performance Manager Software While reviewing and analyzing individual route productivity will remain with the transit operators and their governing boards, the Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that transit operators are utilizing Transportation Bus operators can pick three of the six discretionary targets to meet. Two additional performance targets are approved for the Commuter Rail program, and as a result, the rail program can select three of eight discretionary targets. Agenda Item 7 3 • • Development Act (TDA) funds efficiently and effectively. In addition to implementing the PIP, the Commission recently purchased and implemented TransTrack, a transit performance manager software application and training package to assist staff in compiling, tabulating and reporting transit operating information for use in the SRTP, monthly management reports, transit operator reports as well as annual reports to external agencies (e.g., State Controller and National Transit Database reports). TransTrack will assist the Commission's staff and policy board in reviewing compliance with the PIP requirements identified in the RUC as well as state -mandated requirements to effectively use TDA funds. FY 2006/07 PIP Targets: All Operators Meet Farebox and Discretionary Targets Transit Operator staff actively participated in the development of the targets. Using the PIP performance targets (based on FY 2005/06 third quarter actual data) and FY 2006/07 planned operating levels (prepared by individual operators), an analysis was completed to determine compliance with the mandatory and discretionary performance targets. Transit operator input was constructive and led to effective collaboration in calculating the performance targets which resulted in 1) an increase in the Consumer Price Index (for planning purposes, the CPI was calculated at 3.6 in December 2005. In March, the CPI increased to 4.1 %; and 2) FY 2005/06 third quarter actual data was used to calculate FY 2006/07 performance targets (instead of projected data). At the time of writing this staff report, operators were planning to meet the mandatory fare box targets as well as a minimum of three of the discretionary targets. Performance Target Increase Request for Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Four (4) operators plan on meeting the mandatory target of operating cost per revenue hour; however, an additional four operators have requested that the performance target for their agency be adjusted as illustrated on the following table: Operator FY 2006/07 Target FY 2006/07 SRTP Plan Banning $72.67 $75.65 Corona $51.47 $53.65 Commuter Rail $540.70 $605.05 RTA $69.20 $72.73 %Increase over FY 06/07 Targets 4.10% 4.24% 11.90% 5.10% At the time of writing this staff report, SRTPs were in draft form; and as a result, the operators were in the process of finalizing the reasons for requesting a waiver. Staff will provide a copy of the actual performance targets, by operator, at the TPC meeting as well as additional information on requesting an increase in the operating cost per revenue hour performance targets. Agenda Item 7 4 Ridership and Operating Costs The FY 2006/07 SRTPs estimate that $134,917,875 in funding is required to support the operating and capital requests for the eight (8) public operators. The following chart provides an overview of the costs together with projected ridership levels by apportionment area and transit operator: AGENCY/APPORTIONMENT AREA Capital Total Costs City of Banning $ 1,164,743 $ 34,950 $ 1,199,693 205,000 City of Beaumont $ 1,200,095 $ 140,000 $ 1,340,095 125,500 City of Corona $ 1,802,500 $ 50,000 $ 1,852,500 217,400 Riverside SpecialSenices $ 2,626,840 $ 1,920,000 $ 4,546,840 156,899 Riverside Transit Agency $ 43,665,697 $ 7,716,682 $ 51,382,379 7,142,589 Wester County: Bus $ 50,459,875 $ 9,861,639 $ 60,321,507 7,847,388 WestemCounty: Rail* $ 33,191,600 $ 14,537,035 $ 47,728,635 2,874,486 WESTERN COUNTY: TOTAL $ 83,651,475 $ 24,398,667 $ 108,050,142 10,721,874 Suntine Transit Agency $ 19,050,505 $ 6,910,772 $ 25,961,277 3,500,429 C.OAr HELLAVALLEY: TOTAL $ 19,050,505 $ 6,910,772 $ 25,961,277 3,500,429 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency $ 824,606 $ 81,850 $ 906,456 54,292 PALO VERDE VALLEY: TOTAL $ 824,606 $ 81,850 $ 906,456 54,292 GRAND TOTAL -ALL AREAS: $ 103,526,586 $ 31,391,2139 $ 134,917,875 14,276595 *Commuter Rairs costs a nsists of RCTCs share of approximately $7.1 M plus OCTA and LA Metro's share of approximately $26M. Over the last 12 months, transit operators have initiated efforts to address the rise in operating costs and the need to increase ridership. SunLine Transit Agency recently completed a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) designed to identify service efficiency opportunities and increase ridership. Riverside Transit Agency has initiated their COA which is estimated to be completed in the fall. In addition, RCTC's Commuter Rail Program through Metrolink is near completion' of a 30-Year Strategic Assessment Plan. The next triennial performance audit (anticipated to take place in the fall of 2006) covering FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 will review the actual performance of the transit operators and will provide a comparison of ridership and operating costs between audit periods. In the interim, implementation of the PIP and TransTrack will provide essential tools to monitor service levels by providing objective criteria for assessing productivity improvement opportunities including cost efficiencies. FY 2006/07 Allocation of Funds A more detailed funding request, by fund type, will be presented at the June/July Commission meetings. In the interim, total funding information to support the proposed operating levels and capital requests is provided in the following chart to assist the policy board in reviewing the proposed increase in the performance targets. Agenda Item 7 5 • Riverside County: FY 2006/07 Operating and Capital Costs Additional Rail Cost $19,038,400 14% Other Revenues $1,178,008 1% TUMF (W RC) $356,965 0% Passenger Fares $26,455,559 --- 20% Federal - Discretionary Funds $1,814,299 1% Federal - Formula Funds $19,229,054 Measure "A" 14% $4,504,186 3% TDA (LTF & STA Funds) $62,341,309 47% Passenger Fares $11,334,159 - Public Bus Operators $15,121,400- Commuter Rail Operator The actual SRTPs will be presented at the May 22, 2006 Plans and Programs j Committee. Agenda Item 7 6 AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: May 18, 2006 TO: Transit Policy Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Conceptual Plans: Proposed Transit Operating and Capital Needs Utilizing Measure A and Transportation Development Act Funding STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the proposed conceptual plan template for identifying operating and capital requests for four program areas in western Riverside County, transit in Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley; 2) Direct Commission staff to work with transit operators and program staff to develop conceptual plans for Measure A and Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding; and 3) Submit the draft conceptual plans for discussion at the next meeting of the Transit Policy Committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The following recommendation was made in the Commission's FY 2001 -`FY 2003 Triennial Performance Audit: "Create a Vision of Transit Service for Riverside County: RCTC, working in cooperation with the transit operators (including Metrolink), should create a vision of transit service for Riverside County that ensures that the transit operators provide services that meet the county's transit needs and adhere to applicableperformance standards established in state law and by the Commission. The vision should include a process that includes input from the operators, public policy makers, and community stakeholders. The vision should provide overall policy direction in the provision of a coordinated county -wide transit system.... Agenda Item 8 The establishment of the Transit Policy Committee (TPC) provides the institutional means within RCTC to create the vision. It is staff's belief that reviewing the 2009 Measure A and Western Riverside TDA funding formula simultaneously should assist the Commission in developing a vision of transit services for Riverside County. 2009 Measure A and TDA Allocation Of the seven policy issues originally identified for the TPC to address, the allocation of Measure A funding for four program areas in Western Riverside as well as fund allocation in the Coachella Valley remains. Based on preliminary discussions held at the January 2006 TPC meeting, the following timeline was adopted: TPC Committee Meeting Activity/Deliverable May 18, 2006' July 24, 2006 Review and approve Measure A/TDA revenue projections. Provide outline/template for conceptual planning purposes. Review conceptual plans of proposed transit operating and capital needs and Measure A programs. October 23, 2006 Evaluate conceptual plans (10 year increments) The Measure A and TDA revenue projections are not yet available but it is anticipated that they will be presented with the Measure A Strategic Plan in the Fall. In the interim, Commission staff felt it prudent to continue to identify the operating and capital needs of the four program areas in Western Riverside as well as the transit needs in the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley. The following. identifies the total Measure A funds (2009 — 2039) by apportionment area and program type outlined in the voter approved 2009 Expenditure Plan: Western Riverside: $390,000,000 ➢ Commuter Assistance ($50M — minimum threshold) ➢ Specialized Transit ($85M — minimum threshold) ➢ Commuter. Rail ➢ Intercity bus Original date of TPC meeting was April 24, 2006. Due to scheduling conflict, the April meeting was not held. Agenda Item 8 8 Coachella Valley: $188,000,000 ➢ Provide express east -west transit routes in the Coachella Valley Improve and expand public transit and specialized transportation services Discount fares and expanded transportation services for seniors and persons with. disabilities ➢ Bus replacement and more frequent service As previously reported, in addition to the 2009 Measure A funds, the Commission previously adopted a TDA funding formula for western County at 78% for bus and 22% for commuter rail. When the 78%/22% funding formula was approved, a timeline was established to review the funding formula in FY 2007/08 with proposed changes, if any, to be implemented in FY 2009/10. The next step in creating a vision for transit service is to receive input from the transit operators and program staff. To that end, staff has developed the attached conceptual plan template for completion by the municipal transit operators, Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, RCTC Commuter Rail (Metrolink), RCTC Commuter Assistance, and RCTC Specialized Transit. Commission staff is requesting approval to work with staffs from the above areas to develop the conceptual plans. If approved, it is anticipated that draft plans will be presented at the next meeting of the TPC. Attachment: Conceptual Plan Template Agenda Item 8 9 Measure A and Transportation Development Act (TDA) Proposed Transit Operating and Capital Projects Summary of Proposed Project Agency Name: Primary Contact Person, Name, Title, Telephone and Email: Brief Description of the Proposed Transportation Project: Goal/Outcome of Proposed Project: Evaluation Criteria (Identify how agency will determine effectiveness of this project): Geographical Service Area of Transportation Project: Number of Vehicles Requested (if any), identifying number, expected make/model and passenger capacity: As of 5/12/2006 10 Measure A/TDA Summary of Proposed Project