HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 May 18, 2006 Transit Policy CommitteeRECORDS
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
"
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 / S S / O N
T R A N S I T P O L I C Y C O M M I T T E E
J a n u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 6
M i n u t e s
1 . C A L L T O O R D E R
T h e m e e t i n g o f 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 w a s c a l l e d t o o r d e r b y C h a i r
T e r r y H e n d e r s o n a t 1 1 : 0 1 a . m . i n t h e B o a r d R o o m a t t h e C o u n t y o f R i v e r s i d e
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C e n t e r , 4 0 8 0 L e m o n S t r e e t , F i r s t F l o o r , R i v e r s i d e , C a l i f o r n i a ,
9 2 5 0 1 .
2 . R O L L C A L L
M e m b e r s P r e s e n t
S t e v e A d a m s
R o g e r B e r g
J o h n C h l e b n i k
F r a n k H a l l
T e r r y H e n d e r s o n
D i c k K e l l y
F r a n k W e s t
M e m b e r s A b s e n t
D a r y l B u s c h
J e f f S t o n e
J o h n T a v a g l i o n e
R o y W i l s o n
3 . P U B L I C C O M M E N T S
T h e r e w e r e n o r e q u e s t s t o s p e a k f r o m t h e p u b l i c .
4 . A P P R O V A L O F M I N U T E S
M / S / C ( H a l l / A d a m s ) t o a p p r o v e t h e J u l y 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 m i n u t e s a s
s u b m i t t e d .
A b s t a i n : B e r g , C h l e b n i k
5 . A D D I T I O N S / R E V I S I O N S
T h e r e w e r e n o r e v i s i o n s o r a d d i t i o n s t o t h e a g e n d a .
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.
•
"
"
T r a n s i t P o l i c y C o m m i t t e e M i n u t e s
J a n u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 6
P a g e 3
C o m m i s s i o n e r C h l e b n i k a p o l o g i z e d t o C o m m i s s i o n e r K e l l y . H i s c o m m e n t s
w e r e n o t t o d i c t a t e t o t h e C o a c h e l l a V a l l e y b u t t o a s k t h a t r a i l s e r v i c e b e
c o n s i d e r e d f o r l o n g r a n g e p l a n n i n g .
M / S / C ( W e s t / A d a m s ) t o :
1 ) R e c e i v e a n d f i l e t h e C a p i t a l P r o j e c t S t a t u s R e p o r t s ;
2 ) D i r e c t s t a f f t o h a v e t h e t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s a d d t o t h e i r q u a r t e r l y
c a p i t a l g r a n t r e p o r t s , t h e n u m b e r o f p r o j e c t s c o m p l e t e d ( p e r
q u a r t e r ) , t h e d o l l a r a m o u n t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h o s e p r o j e c t s a s
w e l l a s w h e t h e r a n y f u n d s w e r e d e - o b l i g a t e d a n d / o r l a p s e d ( b y
f i s c a l y e a r ) ;
3 ) A d o p t t h e t i m e l i n e f o r t h e 2 0 0 9 M e a s u r e " A " A l l o c a t i o n a n d
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 i n g d i s c u s s i o n ;
4 ) D i r e c t s t a f f t o r e v i e w t h e r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e c a p i t a l p r o j e c t s ;
a n d
5 ) F o r w a r d t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r f i n a l a c t i o n .
7 . A D J O U R N M E N T
T h e r e b e i n g n o f u r t h e r b u s i n e s s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n b y 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 h e m e e t i n g w a s a d j o u r n e d a t 1 1 : 4 2 a . m .
R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d ,
J e n n i f e r H a r m o n
A c t i n g C l e r k o f t h e B o a r d
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
"
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 :
M a y 1 8 , 2 0 0 6
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 :
T a n y a L o v e , P r o g r a m M a n a g e r
T H R O U G H :
S t e p h a n i e W i g g i n s , R e g i o n a l P r o g r a m s D i r e c t o r
S U B J E C T :
P r o d u c t i v i t y I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m F i s c a l
P e r f o r m a n c e T a r g e t s
Y e a r
2 0 0 6 / 0 7
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 C o m m i t t e e t o :
1 ) A p p r o v e P r o d u c t i v i t y I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m ( P I P ) F Y 2 0 0 6 / 0 7
p e r f o r m a n c e t a r g e t s f o r t h e f a r e b o x r e c o v e r y r a t i o a n d d i s c r e t i o n a r y
i n d i c a t o r s ;
2 ) A p p r o v e a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e P I P F Y 2 0 0 6 / 0 7 p e r f o r m a n c e t a r g e t s f o r
t h e o p e r a t i n g c o s t p e r r e v e n u e h o u r f o r t h e B a n n i n g M u n i c i p a l T r a n s i t
A g e n c y , C i t y o f C o r o n a , R i v e r s i d e T r a n s i t A g e n c y a n d R C T C ' s
C o m m u t e r R a i l P r o g r a m ; a n d
3 ) F o r w a r d t o t h e P l a n s a n d P r o g r a m s C o m m i t t e e f o r r e v i e w a n d
a p p r o v a l .
B A C K G R O U N D I N F O R M A T I O N :
T h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s g o a l i s t o i m p r o v e m o b i l i t y w h i l e a d h e r i n g t o i t s t r a n s i t o v e r s i g h t
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w h i c h c o n s i s t o f 1 ) P l a n n i n g ( A B 1 2 4 6 P U C 1 3 0 3 0 c ) ; 2 ) f u n d i n g
( P U C 1 3 0 2 5 0 1 3 0 3 0 6 ) ; a n d 3 ) O p e r a t o r O v e r s i g h t / F i d u c i a r y R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
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 P C ) w a s c r e a t e d t o d i s c u s s , d e v e l o p , a n d s u b m i t
p o l i c y d i r e c t i o n r e l a t e d t o t r a n s i t m a t t e r s f o r C o m m i s s i o n a c t i o n _ W h e n t h e T P C
w a s f o r m e d , s e v e r a l p o l i c y i s s u e s w e r e i d e n t i f i e d i n c l u d i n g r o u t e p r o d u c t i v i t y . T h e
P I P i s a t o o l t h a t t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s c a n u s e t o i m p r o v e ' t r a n s i t r i d e r s h i p a n d m o b i l i t y
f o r t h e r e s i d e n t s o f R i v e r s i d e C o u n t y . T r a n s T r a c k w a s d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e u s e f u l
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f p l a n n e d a n d a c t u a l o p e r a t i n g s e r v i c e l e v e l s a n d w i l l p r o v i d e t h e
a n a l y t i c a l t o o l s n e c e s s a r y t o a s s i s t w i t h t h e o n - g o i n g i s s u e o f p r o d u c t i v i t y a s i t
r e l a t e s t o t h e d i s p a r i t y b e t w e e n 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 .
P r o d u c t i v i t y I m p r o v e m e n t P r o g r a m G o a l s
F o r F Y 2 0 0 6 / 0 7 , t h e C o m m i s s i o n a d o p t e d t h e P I P a s p a r t o f a c o m p r e h e n s i v e
e f f o r t t o w o r k w i t h t h e c o u n t y ' s e i g h t p u b l i c t r a n s i t o p e r a t o r s t o p r o v i d e b e t t e r
s e r v i c e a n d i m p r o v e e f f i c i e n c y . U n d e r s t a t e l a w , t h e C o m m i s s i o n i s t a s k e d w i t h
A g e n d a I t e m 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