HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 15, 2007 Transit Policy79689
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
DATE: Thursday, February 15, 2007
LOCATIONS: Conference Room C, 5th Floor
Riverside County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, Riverside
4th District, Riverside County (Teleconference Site)
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222
Palm Desert, CA 92260
*** 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.
11.36.19
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTA TION COMMISSION.
TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE
www.rctc.org
AGENDA*
*Actions may taken on any item listed on the agenda
10: 00 a.m.
Thursday, February .15, 2007
CONFERENCE ROOM C
Riverside County Transportation Commission
4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor, Riverside, 92501
and
4th District, Riverside County (Teleconference Site)
73- 7 1 0 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 222, Palm Desert, 92260
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 - OCTOBER 19, 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 requires "a unanimous vote.
Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.)
Transit Policy Committee Agenda
February 15, 2007
Page 2
6. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
Overview
This item is for the Committee to receive and • file the presentation on
Transit Oriented Development (TOD).
7. COMPLIANCE STATUS REPORT ON THE: • FISCAL. • YEAR 2006/07
PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Overview
This item is for the Committee to:
1) , Receive and file the Compliance Status Report on the FY 20.06/07._
Productivity Improvement Program (PIP); and
2) Direct staff to continue working with the transit L operators on :PIP
compliance so that a third quarter analysis can be presented for
approval and subsequent policy action.
8. STATUS REPORT ON TRANSIT VISIONING/CONCEPTUAL PLANNING
Overview
This item is for the Committee to receive and ' file the status ` report and
subsequent presentation on the Transit Visioning/Conceptual Planning
process.
9. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Overview
This item is for the Committee to elect a Chair and Vice Chair for 2007.
10. • ° ADJOURNMENT
The next Transit Policy Committee meeting. is scheduled to be •held •at
10:00 a.m., Thursday, April 19, 2007, Conference Room C, :. County of
Riverside. Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor, Riverside
AGENDA ITEM 4
MINUTES
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
TRANSIT POLICY COMMITTEE
October 19., 2006
Minutes
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the Transit Policy Committee was called to order by
Chair Terry Henderson at 10:10 a.m. in Conference Room C, County of
Riverside Administrative Center, • 4080 Lemon Street, Fifth Floor, Riverside,
California, 92501 and the teleconference site at Riverside County
4th District Office, 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite .222, Palm Desert,
California, 92260.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present
Steve Adams
Roger Berg
Daryl Busch
John Chlebnik
Frank Hall
Terry Henderson
Jeff Stone
John F. Tavaglione
Roy Wilson
Members Absent
Frank West
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no requests to speak from the public.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S/C (Hall/Stone) to approve the July 20, 2006 minutes as
submitted.
5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS
There were no revisions or additions to the agenda.
Transit Policy Committee Minutes
October 19, 2006
Page 2
6. TRANSIT VISIONING/CONCEPTUAL PLANNING STATUS REPORT
Tanya Love, Program Manager, provideda progress report on the transit
visioning process She highlighted a number of the projects identified by the
transit operators and Commission staff for the development of the
10-year conceptual ":plans within Riverside County as follows:
• Coordinated trip needs;
• Leveraging transit funds including Transportation Development
Act (TDA) funds and Measure A funds
• Meeting performance indicators; and
Focus on improving mobility.
Tanya Love introduced Mary . Sue O'Melia, O'Melia Consulting, TransTrack
program and Ryan Potts, TMV, mapping services for the transit operators.
Mary Sue O'Melia provided background information on the transit visioning:
plan and highlighted on the following:
•
•
•
•
Need for transit vision and plan;
Commission's FY 2006/07 mission and goals;
Transit visioning process;
Major projects and initiatives;
Commuter Assistance program;
Western Riverside specialized transit; and
School bus service and U-Pass programs.
In response to Chair Henderson's concern about the Patriot Passport.
program, Tanya Love replied that staff modeled the preliminary program on
one developed in Florida. At the Committee's direction, staff will work with
the transit operators to modify the program to work more effectively. for
Riverside County. Dollar amounts will constantly, need to be addressed and
be reactive to what the current market allows and staff is looking into other
subsidies for ease of administrating the program.
Mary Sue iO'Melia, . in follow-up to questions raised at the July 20, 2006
Transit Policy Committee (TPC) meeting concerning the transit services with
schools, explained that staff researched and determined the impacts on
traffic congestion. A series of maps are provided in the agenda packet that',
show the transit operators are servicing a number of elementary schools,
high schools and community colleges and universities within; Riverside
County, noting that some schools are not served by transit operators due to
Transit Policy Committee Minutes
October 19, 2006
Page3
insufficient .demand. She added that federalguidelines specify that public
transit funds cannot provide exclusive service to schools.
Chair Henderson recommended helping subsidize school bus trips by
purchasing passes for students who cannot normally afford to ride school
buses in an effort to reduce the number of vehicle trips by parents driving
students to school.
Mary Sue O`Melia replied that she does not believe that federal or state
Transportation Development Act . (TDA) funds can be used for that purpose.
Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director, added that the restriction is
due to the service being classified as a closed door service as it •is exclusive
to students.
Chair Henderson acknowledged the restriction but stated .that the goal is to
reduce unnecessary trips.
Commissioner Jeff Stone asked about partnering. with the school districts to
provide the same system as Riverside Transit Agency (RTA).
Chair Henderson replied that Assemblyman John. Benoit has been trying to
improve the school bus system by similar means, however unions will not
allow it.
Commissioner Roger .Berg explained that he believes that another issue is
that school districts do not provide •bus routes in certain areas.
Commissioner Stone explained that he believes that there are a number of
parents that choose not to utilize the service because it has become very
expensive and as a result there is more congestion during school hours.
Tanya Love replied that staff, based on the additional direction, will research
this matter, further and report back to the committee for further discussion.
Mary Sue O'Melia provided an overview on the next steps for the transit
visioning plan.
Transit Policy Committee Minutes
October 19, 2006
Page 4
Tanya Love explained that the draft maps attached to the, agenda are by
apportionment area.
In response to. Commissioner John Tavaglione's request for clarification on
the Western Riverside County maps for 2005 and 2030 as there does not
appear to be any change in population, Ryan Potts replied the basis for the
populations projections were provided by Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) model.
Tanya Love replied that •the maps . use a combination of "sources and
explained that Western Riverside Council of Governments'' (WRCOG) and
Riverside County are working on an agreement as ,to the approach for future ..
population estimates.
Commissioner Tavaglione noted a number of inconsistencies and.
recommended that staff ensure the accuracy of the data.
Tanya Love stated that she will take the lead on working and coordinating -
with the various agencies - and bring back revised maps at the next meeting
of the TPC.
Chair Henderson recommended that staff explain in its written report how
the figures are derived and the agencies it worked with.
Commissioner Chlebnik recommended an amendment to the action: to accept
the status report presentation rather than to receive and file._
Chair Henderson asked the operators if they would like to make a report to.
the Committee.
Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Agency, expressed support for the process.
She stated that operating costs continue to increase and, ridership either
remains stagnant or continues to rise. She provided information . on the
American Public Transportation Association (APTA) conference she attended
in San Jose, California.
Sheldon Peterson, Program Manager, explained that Commuter Rail program
staff is working to increase frequencies, noting the expansion of the Inland;
Empire Orange County .(IEOC) line weekend service.
Transit Policy Committee Minutes
October 19, 2006
Page 5
M/S/C (Adams/Busch) to:
1) Accept the status report presentation on the transit
visioning/conceptual planning process; and
2) Direct staff to continue working with transit operators and
programmatic staff to further define project descriptions,
services and associated performance data elements to assist in
development of a funding allocation recommendation.
7. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business for consideration by the Transit Policy
Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m. The next meeting is
scheduled to be held at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 15, 2007, in
Conference Room C, County of Riverside Administrative Center,
4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor, Riverside, California, 92501 and the
teleconference site at Riverside County 4th District Office, 73-710 Fred
Waring Drive, Suite 222, Palm Desert, California, 92260.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Harmon
Clerk of the Board
AGENDA ITEM 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 15, 2007
TO:
Transit Policy Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Transit Program Manager
THROUGH:
Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director
SUBJECT:
Transit Oriented Development
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to receive and file the presentation on
Transit Oriented Development (TOD).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Caltrans awarded grant funding to. the Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG) in October 2005 for the purpose of exploring the opportunities and
challenges of developing around transit, and to bring to theforefront what must
happen to make this concept a near -term reality in Western Riverside County.
WRCOG's partners in this project include the • cities of. Corona, Hemet,
Moreno Valley/March Field Joint Powers Authority, Perris, Riverside and Temecula;
county of Riverside, Riverside County Transportation Commission, Riverside Transit
Agency Southern California Association. of Governments, UCR Blakley Center for
Sustainable Suburban Development and Urban Land Institute -Inland Empire
Chapter.
TOD or mixed -use projects, clustered around rail stations and bus transfer centers,
make it easy and appealing for residents to use mass transit. Most of these
developments include a strong combination of retail, office, and multi -family space.
Many offer green spaces, cultural attractions, and entertainment venues. This.
grant included fundingto study the market conditions; economic and political
feasibility of transit oriented development at priority rail transit centers and
surrounding areas. Public input and preferences were gathered through survey
research, workshops, opinion polls, meetings, and other forums. .
Agenda Item 6
AGENDA ITEM 7
RIVERS/DE COU/UTY TRANSPORTATION. COMMISSION'
DATE:
February 1.5, 2007
TO:
Transit Policy Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
SUBJECT:'
Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs, Director
Compliance Status Report on the Fiscal Year 2006/07 Productivity
Improvement Program
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to:
1) Receive and file the Compliance Status Report on the FY "2006/07
Productivity Improvement Program (PIP); and
2) Direct staff to continue working with the transit operators : on PIP
compliance so that a third quarter analysis can be presented for
approval and subsequent policy action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Commission oversees transit service in Riverside County primarily through the
approval of Short Range Transit Plans '(SRTP), which details the operating and
capital costs that are planned for transit services. Public Utilities Code - (PUC)
Section 99244 requires . the Commission to annually identify, analyze and
recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operations (public bus
and commuter rail) through the, SRTP process. This process'. requires the transit
operators to:
1) Address recommendations made through the 'Triennial Performance
Audit; and
2) Comply with state PU.0 requirements for state -mandated farebox
recovery and cost efficiency.
To assist with the review -process, the .Commission reaffirmed its:commitment to
the PIP in . September 2005 for full implementation in FY 2006/07. The 'PIP was
designed to meet state PUC: requirements and " included the establishment of
objective criteria for assessing productivity, improvement opportunities. More
irnportantly, the PIP is part of the Commission's comprehensive effort to work with
the county's eight public transit operators. to provide better service and improve
efficiency.
Agenda Item 7
To further. assist with data analysis, the Commission purchased Tran:sTrack,
a web, -based transit performance rnanager software application and training
package to assist transit operators and Commission stafff in compiling, tabulating
and reporting transit .operating information.
Reports;. generated from TransTrack assist both Commission- staff and policy board`
members in reviewing 'compliance with the PIP targets',as well as; state -mandated
requirements to effectively use Transportation Develop'rnent-Act (TDA) funds that
41
for FY 2006/07 account for approximately 46% of transit operators' . capital . and
operating budgets.
PIP Performance Indicators
The following performance .indicators are evaluated through the PIP process:
,Mandatory Targets
Operating; cost per revenue hour (tied to CPI)
Fare boxrecoveryratio (between, 10%.and 20%: depending on type .o
service provided)
Discretionary Targets'
Subsidy per passenger (+/- 15% Variance)
Subsidy per passenger mile (+/- 15% Variance);
Subsidy per revenue :hour (+/- 15% iVariance)
Subsidy per revenue, mile (+/- .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.3:0 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.
Bus operators select three of the six.` discretionary targets. Two additional performance'targets
were approved for the Commuter Rail program, and as :a result, the rail program selects three of.the
;..eight discretionary targets.
Agenda Item 7
Analyze Results of, First Six Months ;of FY 2006/07 PIP Targets
Transit operator staff actively participated in the developmentof the FY 2006/07
PIP . performance targets, which are based on FY. 2005/06 third quarter actual
performance data2. The PIP targets were subsequently approved by: the
Commission at its June 14, ,.2006 meeting.. Attached to this "agenda item is a.
system -wide performance report (scorecard), by operator, ; identifying the
Commission approved ` mandatory and . discretionary performance targets for
FY 2006/,07 together with a six-month performance scorecard., The following .
provides a summary of the PIP analysis::
FY 2006/07 Mandatory ,Target Scorecard
• Operating Cost per Revenue Hour
Six .of seven operators plan: onmeeting the operating cost per.
revenue hour targets establishedfor their agency. The . city of
Riverside's (City) target was approved at _ $67.98; however,,. the
year-to-date performance indicates actual cost of $70.75 which
represents an increase of 4%. City . staff indicated through :its : PIP
analysis that the increase was due to paying, overtime as. a :result of
driver shortagesas well as .increased maintenance costs.
, Farebox Recovery Ratio
Based on TransTrack data, four of :seven : transit operators are . on
target to meet the farebox recovery ratio targets. At the.. time'. of
writing this staff report, Corona, SunLine Transit : Agency (SunLine)
and Palo Verde Valley Transit : Agency's (PVVTA) year-to-date
performance indicates that it will not be in compliance with :the .state_
mandated farebox recovery ratio; however, TransTrack's calculation of
fareboxrecovery does` not .take into consideration local revenues and
other farebox exclusions'. Through SunLine's PIP analysis,
2 Through this collaborative process, Banning, Corona, Commuter Rail and Riverside Transit Agency
requested an. increase in their Operating' Cost per .Revenue. Hour calculation. The Commission
approved .increase ranged from. 4.10% to 11.90%. The 'FY 2006/07 performance targets for these
four agencies were subsequently increased.
3 The City' of Beaumont does not have assigned transit staff'. As a result, compliance or non-
compliance with the PIP cannot be adequately determined. Commission staff will continue to work
with Beaumont's finance staff to obtain the required information; based on discussions with
Beaumont staff, it is anticipated that the information will be available by the March/April timeframe. .
4 The Commission approved PIP definition of Total Passenger Fare;Revenues was based on PUC
definition to support transit industry best practices..
Agenda Item 7 .
it isanticipated that it will meet the FY 20'06/07. farebox targets once
local revenue and other exclusions are cal g calculated through the financial
audit process. In addition, Corona estimates that it will. also meet =.the
farebox requirement as Corona historically augments its farebox.
through the use of 'general funds and other permitted revenues. It
does not appear, however, that :PVVTA:' will meet its 10% farebox:.
recovery ratio: At that time of writing this staff report, PVVTA staff'
was in the process of analyzing its services, . but believethat the.
problem rnay be with the dial -a -ride services'::
FY 2006/07 Discretionary .Target Scorecard '
As previously stated, bus operators need to meet a minimum of three of the
discretionary targets: Six of the seven operators reporting on PIP
performance are in compliance with the discretionary targets. The scorecard
: for PVVTA indicates that the; agency is on -target to ,'meet only ;twos` of. the
"discretionary targets: As a result, PVVTA"is currently not in'Complia'nce.
Next Steps in the PIP Analysis
While reviewing and analyzing individual route" productivity will remain > with . the.
transit ` operators and their governing boards, the Commission, as part' .of its
oversight responsibilities, must ensure that transit operators are utilizing TDA funds
efficiently -and effectively. FY 2006/07 is the first full year for irnplementation of
the PIP and Tr;ansTrack, performance :monitoring system:; Commission staff believes
that both 'systems will continue to assist with' monitoring performance but
recognizes that : there is a `' learning curve associated with,' new program
implementation As such, .staff wi'Il continue working closely ' with. `. the. transit
operators so that third quarter data can be 'analyzed. At that; time, upon
completion of .a review by Commission and transit . operator staff to determine
whether ` instances of: non -compliances continues to exist, the following steps will
Occur (based on .the Commission approved PIP document,):
1)_ A.;. meeting will be scheduled with transit, ;operator and' Commission
staff to jointly develop anaction plan to meet the PIP targets;
2) The agreed upon action plan, together , with the transit` operator's
performance report, will be presented to the, Commission for .approval;
and
3) The approved action plan/methodology to ;corne into compliance with'. .
the PIP. will be included as part :of the following fiscal year's S'RTP5
5 FY 2007/08 SRTPs will include the action plan/methodology to corne'into compliance with the PIP:
Agenda Item 7 5
Should the Commission approved action plan fail to achieve compliance with the
PIP within 12 months of the approved plan, staff from the transit operator and the
Commission will jointly develop a status report and identify progress as well as
proposed modifications to the action plan. The revised action plan will be
submitted to the Commission for approval.
The worst -case scenario would be if a transit operator refused to take any action to
improve performance relative to a specific PIP recommendation and performance
continued to decline or remained well below that of similar services. In such .
instance, the Commission may determine that a "reasonable effort' was not made.
If this should occur, TDA funding increases would be set aside until such time that
• the transit operator took action deemed "reasonable" by the Commission.
Attachment: Performance Scorecards
6 Reasonable effort to include meeting(s) and open, continuous communication between RCTC and
the transit agency to address concerns identified in the Triennial Performance Audit, or in the case
of non-compliance with the PIP, development of an action plan to achieve compliance.
Agenda Item 7
6
Vat
ADDITION TO AGENDA ITEM 7
Banning Systemwide Performance Targets
FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review
Data Elements
FY 2006/07 SRTP
Plan (Proposed)
FY 2006/07
Target*
Current Year
To Date
Year to Date
Performance
Scorecard **
Productivity Performance
Summary
Unlinked Passenger Trips
Passenger Miles
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours
205,000
15,396
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles
260,965
Total Actual Vehicle Miles
Total Operating Expenses
270,883
$1,164,743
Total Passenger Fare Revenue
Net Operating Expenses
$143,840
$1,020,903
Performance Indicators
Mandatory:
1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour
2. Farebox Recovery Ratio
$75.65
12.35%
$75.65
10.00%
$69.74
10.57%
J
J
Meets 2 of 2 mandatory
indicators
Discretionary:
1. Subsidy Per Passenger
$4.98
$4.03-$5.45
$5.38
J
2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile
3. Subsidy Per Hour
4. Subsidy Per Mile
5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour
$66.31
$3.91
13.32
$52.66-$71.24
$3.26-$4.41
11.10-15.02
$61.44
$3.68
11.40
J
J
J
6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile
0.79
0.69-0.93
0.68
0
Meet RCTC PIP Program:
Meets 4 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
** Based on FY 2006/07 Quarters 1 and 2 (July -December /06) actuals
Legend: Ni = In Compliance
0 = Not in Compliance
As of 2/14/2007
PIP Performance Targets FY06/07
RCTC Commuter Rail Performance Targets
FY 20.06/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review
Data Elements
Unlinked Passenger Trips
FY 2006/07 SRTP
Plan (Proposed).
2,874,486
Passenger Miles
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Train Hour
99,416;313
54,858
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Car Miles
2,885,249
Total, Actual Vehicle Train Miles
674,915
Total Operating. Expenses
$33,191,600
Total Passenger Fare Revenue -
$15,121,400
Net Operating Expenses
$18070,200
Performance Indicators
FY 2006/07
Target*
Current Year
To Date
Year to. Date
Performance
Scorecard **
Productivity
Performance Summary
Mandatory:
Operator Comments
1. Operating Cost'Per Revenue Hour
2. Farebox Recovery,Ratio
$605.05
• 45.56%
$605.05
40.00%
$471.82
52.81 %
Meets 2 of 2 mandatory
indicators
Discretionary:.
1. Subsidy Per Passenger
$6.29
$5.69-$7.69
$5.91
2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile
$0.18
$0.17-$0.23
$0.18
3. Subsidy Per Hour
$329.40
$246.93-$334.08
$244.71
4. Subsidy Per Mile
$6.26
$5.97-$8.08
$5..83
5., Passengers Per Revenue Hour
52.40
. 36:91-49.93
41.40
4
6. Passengers Per RevenueMile
1.00
0.89-1.21.
0.99
Meets RCTC PIP Program:
Meets 8 of 8 discretionary
indicators
7. Unlinked Passenger; Trips-
2,874,486
2,679,015
1,456,477
4
8: Passenger. Miles per Rev CarMiles
34.4.6
-.30 ,or more
33.00
% increase is currently
11 % compared to same
period last year.
Note: Must meet at :least.3 out of 8 Discretionary. Performance Indicators
* Based on FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals
** Based on. FY 2006/07 Quarters 1 and 2 (July -December /06) actuals
Legend: V = In Compliance
0 = Not in Compliance
As of 2/9/2007
PIP Performance Targets FY 06/07
Corona Systemwide Performance Targets
FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review
Data Elements
FY 2006/07 SRTP
Plan -(Proposed)
FY 2006/07
Target*
Current Year
To Date
Year to Date
Performance
Scorecard" i!
Productivity Performance
Summary__.
Unlinked Passenger Trips
Passenger Miles
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles'
Total Actual Vehicle Miles
217,400
943,490
33,596
433,220
460,740
Total Operating Expenses
Total Passenger Fare Revenue
Net Operating Expenses
Performance Indicators
$1,802,500
$234100.
$1,568,400
Mandatory:
Operator Comments
1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour_:-,
$53.65
$53.65
$53.36
2. Farebox Recovery Ratio
12.99%
20.00%
13.59%
0
Meets 1 of 2 mandatory
indicators a'
Discretionary:
1. SubsidyPer Passenger
$7.21
$5.41-$7.31
$6.76
2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile
$1.66
$1.24-$1.68
$1.69
0
3. Subsidy. Per Hour
$46.68
$35.75-$47.85
$46.10
4. Subsidy Per Mile
$3.62
$2.64-$3.57
$3.72
0
5 Passengers -Per Revenue Hour...
6,, Passengers Per Revenue Mile
647
0.50
Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance
* Based on FY-2005/06 3rd quarter actuals
"Based on FY 2006/07 Quarters 1 and 2 (July-December-/06) actuals
City .General Funds an.'d, other permitted revenues are used to make up: the difference to meet. mandatory:20%o Farebox Recovery. ratio.
-5 56-7.52
0.43-0.59
Indicators
6.80
0.55 `
Meets RCTC PIP Program:
Meets.4 of 6 discretionary
indicators
Legend:. NI = In Compliance .
0 = Not: in Compliance
Corona augments its
farebox revenue with city
general funds. Corona
anticipates meeting
the fa_rebox requirement
once the local revenues
are included in the
farebox -ratio calculation.
. As of 2/9/2007
PIP Performance Targets FY 06/07
PVVTA 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
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue -Hours
211,392
13,953
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles
Total Actual Vehicle Miles
21.1,392
237,450
Total Operating Expenses
$810,575
Total Passenger Fare Revenue
$84,500
Net Operating Expenses .
Performance Indicators
Mandatory:
$726,075
FY 2006/07
Target*
Current Year
To Date
Year to Date
Performance
Scorecard **
Productivity Performance
Summary
Operator Comments
1.. Operating Cost Per. Revenue Hour
$58.09
$59.58
$56.42
2.. Farebox Recovery Ratio
10.42%
10.00%
9.64%
Meets 1 of 2 mandatory
indicators . .
Discretionary:
1. Subsidy Per Passenger
$13.37
$8.23-$11.13
. $12.07
2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile
$3.43
$1.71-$2.32
$2.39
e..
3. Subsidy Per Hour
$52.04
$43.86-$59.34
$50.98
4. 'Subsidy Per Mile
$3.43
$2.5343.43.
$2.82
5. Passengers Per Revenue Hour
3.89
4.53-6.13
4.20
6: Passengers -Per Revenue Mile
0:26
0.26-0.35
0.23
Do Not Meet RCTC PIP Program:
Meets 2 of 6 discretionary
indicators
Farebox ratio and
four of six discretionary
performance
indicatorsnot met
due to continuing .
struggle of the
Dial -a -Ride service.
Staff will analyze -
service for possible.
route modifications.
Note: Must.meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance
Indicators .
* Based on. FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals
** Based on FY 2006/07 Quarters 1 and 2 (July -December /06) actuals
Legend: -NI In Compliance
:13-='Not in Compliance
As of'2/9/2007
PIP Performance Targets FY 06/07
Unlinked;_ Passenger Trips
Riverside Special Services Performance Targets
FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review
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
$263,000
Net _Operating: Expenses
$2,363,840
Performance Indicators
FY 2006/07
Target*
CurrentYear
To Date
Year to Date
°Performance
Scorecard'"
Productivity
Performance Summary
Mandatory;_
Operator Comments
1. Operating. Cost Per Revenue Hour
2..Farebox Recovery Ratio
$67.12
10.01 %
$67.98
10.00%
$70.75
10.63%
Meets 1 of 2 mandatory
indicators
Discretionary:
1-. Subsidy -Per Passenger
$15.07
$12:49-$1.6.90
$1.5.70
2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile'
$3.65
$3.17-$4.29
$3.92
3., Subsidy Per:H.our
$60.40
$3:57
$50:09.-$67.76
$303=$4.10
- $63.22
' $4 58
0
5. Passengers Per. Revenue Hour
4.01
3.41-4.61
4.00
6. Passengers Per Revenue. Mile ,
0.24
0.21-0.28
- Note: Must meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary Performance Indicators
• *`'Based on FY2005/06-3rd quarteractuats
** Based on FY 2006/07 Quarters` 1'and 2 '(July-December/06) acfuals
029
Meets RCTC..PIP Program:
Meets 5 of 6 discretionary'
_ indicators . -
In Compliance
= 'Not in Compliance
Operating Cost Per
Revenue Hour not met
due to high vehicle
maintenance costs -and
higher costs for personnel
salaries as a result of
requiring staffto;work ; -
overtime to cover shifts.
As of 2/9/2007
PIP Performance Targets FY 06/07
Riverside Transit Agency Performance Targets
FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review
Data Elements
Unlinked Passenger Trips
FY 2006/07
SRTP: Plan
(Proposed)
7,142,589
Passenger Miles
48,614,046
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours
600,414
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles
9,638,781
Total ActualVehicle Miles
11,152,919
Total Operating. Expenses
$43,665,697
Total Passenger Fare Revenue
$7,447,919
Net Operating Expenses
$36,217,778
FY 2006/07
Target*
Current Year
To Date
Year to Date
Performance.
Scorecard **
Productivity
Performance Summary
Performance Indicators
Mandatory:
Operator Comments
1. Operating Cost Per. Revenue Hour
2. Farebox Recovery Ratio .
$72.73
18.13%
$72.73
17.65%ai
$69.06
17.67%
Meets 2 of 2 mandatory
indicators
Discretionary:
1. Subsidy Per Passenger .
$5.07
$4.07-$5.50
$5.03
2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile
$0.75
$0.60-$0.81
$0.74
3. Subsidy Per Hour
4. Subsidy Per Mile
5. °. Passengers Per Revenue Hour
6. Passengers Per Revenue Mile,
Note: Must_meet at least 3 out of 6 Discretionary
$60.32
$3.76.
11.90
0.74
$46.45462.85
$2.88-$3.90
9.71-13.13
0.60-0.81
Performance Indicators
•
* Based on: FY 2005/06 3rd quarter actuals
** Based on FY 2006/07 Quarters 1; and 2 (July -December /06)` actuals.
al Blended farebox calculation. This farebox ratio does not tie to SRTP Table 3.
$56.91
$3.56
11.30
0.7.1
Meets RCTC PIP Program:
Meets 6 of 6 discretionary
indicators
As of 2/9/2007
PIP Performance Targets FY 06/07
Data Elements
Unlinked :Passenger. Trips`,
SunLine Transit Agency Perfor-rnance Targets
FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Review
FY 2006/07 SRTP
Plan -(Proposed)
3,500,429
Passenger,.Miles
1.,767,841:_
Total:Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours
181,316
Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles
2,436,817
Total Actual Vehicle Miles .
Total Operating -Expenses
2,718,264_
$19,090505
Total Passenger Fare Revenue
Net Operating =Expenses
;$3,300,000
$15,790,505
Performance Indicators
FY 2006/07
Target*
Current Year To.
Date
Year to Date
Performance
Scorecard _**
Productivity Performance.:
Summary
Mandatory:
1. Operating Cost Per Revenue, Hour
2. Farebox Recovery'Ratio
$105.29
17.29%
$1.10.72
17.14%al
$97.37
15.10%
J
Operator Comments
0
Meets 1of 2 mandatory
indicators
Discretionary:
1. Subsidy Per Passenger
$4.51
$3.7445.06
$4.38
2. Subsidy Per -Passenger Mile
$0.73
$044-$0.60
$0.70
0
3,.; Subsidy Per Hour
4.,SubsidyPer-Mile
$8709
$6.48
$76.444103.42.
$5.61-$7.60
$82.66
$6.36
5.- Passengers Per -Revenue Hour
6. Passengers Per.Revenue Mile
1931
1.44
- .17.38-23.51
1.28=1.73
1890
1.45
Sunline anticipates
meeting farebox ratio
target once local .
revenue sources are
included:
Meets RCTC PIP Program:
Meets 5 of 6 discretionary
indicators
Note: Must-meet_at least out of 6 Discretionary
Performance Indicators
* Based on FY`2005/06 3rd quarter actuals -
**` Based, on FY 2006/07 Quarters 1 and 2 (July -December" /06) actuals
a' _Blended :farebox calculation. This farebox ratio does not tie to SRTP Table: 3.
1, 2
Legend: = In.Compliance
0 = Not in::Compliance
As of 2/9/2007
PIP Performance Targets FY 06/07,
AGENDA ITEM 8
RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
DATE:
February 15, 2007
TO:
Transit Policy Committee
FROM:
Tanya Love, Program Manager
THROUGH:
Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director
SUBJECT: -
Status Report on Transit Visioning/Conceptual Planning .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for the Committee to receive and file the status report. and
presentation on :the Transit Visioning/Conceptual.,Plannin .
PgProcess.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION.`
subsequent ,
Through the: transit visioning process, Commission and transit operator staffs have
identified variousoperating and capital projects `as part of a ten-year conceptual
planning rocess covering FY 2009 FY 2019. The .proposedp projects provide the.
p gP 9
foundation for developing the county -wide transit vision. that . was a.
recommendation, made in the Commission's FY 2001 FY ; 2003 Triennial
Performance Audit.
As reported at the July 2006 Transit Policy Committee (TPC) meeting, the total
cost of the proposed projects were identified at over $2 billionrepresenting an
average annual need of $203.5 million per year. Given current revenue streams,
it is unlikely that there: will be adequate revenue available to fund the proposed .
projects. As a result, staff was directed to continue working with the transit
operators and programmatic staff; to review the: conceptual plans with an emphasis
on identifying performance measures with a focus on improving .,mobility,the
leveraging of funds as well as coordinated transit needs:
To assist with the process, consultant staff was retained to serve as facilitator for
a series of -meetings with transit operators and programmatic staff to discuss: goals
and objectives, potential projects, definitions- of service performance measurements
and other issues as well as concerns and. points of agreement. Additionally,
consultant staff was retained to provide mapping assistance for the proposed
transit/rail projects. A series of bi-weekly meetings were held with the transit
operators and programmatic staff covering major projects and initiatives identified
Agenda Item 8 -
in the conceptual plans. As a result of these meetings,. an ;updated status report
was . presented: at the October19,2006 TPC meeting together mith various draft
reaps lof.: proposed; services .and congestion points. :Pkw Outcome of that :meeting
p programmatic was that: transit operator and ro rammatic staffs' were directed to:'�
1) Refine individual projects and timeline ;for :implementation;
2) Begin to define what the expected ridership levels are together with .
the hours 'of operation
3): Forecast some of the performance
performance data elements to assist in
allocation recommendation; and
4) Explore partnership opportunities:` with sc
following:
ndicators and associated:
development of a funding
Can RCTC provide a subsidy to parents who choose to get their
children to school by some means other than being transported
by the parent? Specifically, can ,ROTC purchase passes for
students to ride either the school bus or public transit?,
Review the :provision of school transportation ;to determine if
the cost of providing transportation is: the issue, lor; address the
question of whether it is a . matter of service; reliability.;,
convenience and safety?
VVhile -much progress has been made over the past few months; on the. transit
visioning process, : there continues. to be considerable planning to be done. .
Staff will present a status report:: as to: accomplishments.. that have` occurred since;
October 19, . 2006
Attachments:
Western Riverside 2009-2019 Proposed Projects
Coachella. Valley=2009-201,9 Proposed Projects;
14
E ONTARIO STATION
RTA
Magnolia Ave/6th St
BRT Limited Line
WEST CORONA
Corona
r1-15
Lane Additions
Norco
NO •TH MAIN CORONA.
RTA Enhanced
CommuterLink Service
On 1-15
Orange County
PEDLEY
Metrolink Improvement
In Service Levels:
Riverside Line, 91 Line,
IEOC Line
l
Other Proposed Transit Projects:
City of Banning - PASS
• Fixed Route Operating Costs
• Dial -A -Ride Operating Costs
Replacement Vehicles For
o Fixed Route Service
• Replacement Vehicles For
Dial -A -Ride Service
• Capital Equipment
• Corporate Yard Transit
Division Improvements
• Fixed Route Operating Costs
Expanded Hours
Dial -A -Ride Operating Costs
o Expanded Hours
Expansion Vehicles
o For Dial -A -Ride Service
OH Hours & Out Of
• Service Area
Medical Transportation
RCTC
• Commuter Rail Station
Operations & Maintenance
• Commuter Rail Station
Parking Expansion
• Commuter Assistance Program
Seniors & Low Income
• Veterans Ride Fixed Route
Services for Free
Mbility Management Program
City Of Beaumont - PASS
• Operating Costs - Dial -A -Ride
• Replacement Vehicles - Dial -A -Ride
• Capital Equipment
• Farebox Supplement - Dial -A -Ride
Operating Costs - Fixed Route
o (Expanded Hours)
Vehicles (Replacement & Expansion) -
o Fixed Route
• Bus Stops/Shelters
City of Corona
• Fixed Operations
• Dial -A -Ride Operations
• Capitalized Preventative Maintenance
• Dial -A -Ride
Revenue Vehicle Replacement
• Fixed Route
Revenue Vehicle Replacement
• Bus Stop Amentities
• Replacement of Equipment
City of Riverside
Special Services
• Operating - Dial -A -Ride
• Capitalized Preventative Maintenance
• Replacement Vehicles - Dial -A -Ride
• Capital Equipment
• Locator Equipment
Riverside Transit Agency
• RTA Operations/Maintenance Facility
• Transit Center Enhancements
• ITS For Contracted Route Operations
• Operating - Fixed Route & Dial -A -Ride • Vehicle Expansion
• Capitalized Preventative Maintenance
• Transit Center Maintenance "
• ATIS Software Maintenance
• Revenue Vehicle Replacement
RTA
Moreno Valley
BRT Line
Moreno
Valley
RTA
Banning to Riverside
CommuterLink Service
on SR 60
San Bernardino County
Calimesa
0
Beaum
RTA
Hemet to Riverside
Express CommuterLink
I Service
l On Route TBD
(RTA Enhanced
CommuterLink Service
On 1-215
,,SOUTH
PERRIS.. _
Murriefa.
HEMET
1RPORT
r
ISan.-
Jacinto
PASS Transit
Construction of Transit
Center in PASS Area J
Banning
1
5
I
Metrolink
Hemet/San Jacinto
Extension With
Concept Stations
Metrolink:
Murrieta/Temecula
Extension With Concept
Stations
SPRUCE
e' 'NERSIDEL„ 215
DOWNTOWN
Metrolink
Perris Valley
Line With Concept
Stations l
S
WINCHESTE
ROAD
NEWPORT
ROAD
CLINTON
KEITH
ROAD
11 cHESTER
ROAD•
TEMECULA
Temepula
Proposed Measure -A Highway Projects:
1. Add 1 lane each direction in Corona (SR-91)
2. Add New Connector 1-15 N to SR-91 W (1-15, SR-91)
3. Improve Interchange (SR-91, SR-71)
4. Add 1 lane each direction (SR-71)
5. Add 2 lanes each direction from Riverside to
San Bernardino (1-215)
6. Add 1 lane each direction between
Moreno Valley & Temecula (I-215)
7. Add 1 lane each direction San Diego to San Bernardino (1-15)
8. Add EB truck climbing lane (I-10)
9. System Interchange Improvement (1-10, SR-60)
10. Add EB truck climbing lane (SR-60)
11. Realign Highway (SR-79)
12. Widen Existing Corridor between Newport Rd
and San Diego County Line (1-15, 1-215)
13. New East West Corridor between SR-79 and 1-15
(Mid -County Parkway)
14. New Corridor between Riverside and
San Bernardino County (TBD)
15. New Corridor(s) between Riverside and Orange County (TBD)
Western Riverside
2009 - 2019
Proposed Transportation
Projects (Measure A & TDA)
City of Corona Service
Improvement Proposal
City of Riverside Special Services
Improvement Proposal
Highway Improvement
Project
Metrolink Service Improvement
Proposal
PASS Service Improvement
Proposal
RTA Service Improvement
Proposal
1
Level Of Service - 2006
Level Of Service -
E or Better
Level Of Service - F
Flow per hour (Total Autos)
Greater than 5,000
3,001 - 5,000
1,001 - 3,000
Less than 1,000
Transit Networks - 2006
RTA Network
Corona Network
Pass Network
Proposed Metrolink Expansion
Metrolink / Stations
O
Proposed Highway Project
Cities
.ems+.nmwnmC.wro.
Date Created
Sources
September 2006 RTA, WRCOG, SCAG, Census 2000
0
3 6
1.111.11111111111 Miles 4
To
Banning
.411
Noe
Implementation
Of Community Based
DESERT HOT SPRINGS,MISSIONLAKE3 LLV Service Routes
Ll
Implementation
Of Community Based
Service Routes J
•
P,t HSO'1 (3LY
i
\‘EV".Skl RAFAEL RD
PALM SPRINGS
L_ e
0
Implementation of
Sub -Regional
Service Routes
74
TA
CIENOA OR
i
`RRERR �?
1 _D
O
s
4 PALT'TCUIYOA,0•4
4
3
0
YISTAC NO
ME3QUITEr/AVE
it ItT/1A
CATHEDRAL CITY
Proposed BRT on the
Highway 111 Corridor
Implementation of
Sub -Regional
Service Routes
Frequency Improvements
for Sub -Regional Services
RAYON RD
GERALD P. O
RANK SINATRA DR
RANCHO MIRAGE
COUNTRIJC}UGOR
Implementation of -
Sub -Regional
Service Routes
OR
COUNTRV'CweoR {g
1
ESE
< Nf"•N
PAN DRTI_1406YLN
':I; MPu
l
A V1Ep
367T1 AVE
O
INDIAN' WELLS t
Proposed Frequency
Improvement
on Route 111
&flz
74
1
O
1
AVE
VENUE 32
WAS NG DR
LA QUINTA
Frequency Improvements
for Sub -Regional Services,
Other SunLine Proposed Transportation Projects
• BRT/Express Bus Service/Commuter Service Capital Projects
• BRT/Express Bus Service/Commuter Service Operating Cost
• Vehicles - Fixed Route / Demand Response
• Community Based Service Implementation Capital Projects
• Community Based Service Implementation Operating Cost
• Frequency Improvement on Line 111 Capital Projects
• Frequency Improvement on Line 111 Operating Costs
• Implementation of Market -Based Service Capital Projects
• Implementation of Market -Based Service Operating Cost
• Discount Senior Fares & Additional Service Operating Cost
• Implementation of Sub -Regional Service Capital Projects
• Implementation of Sub -Regional Service Operating Cost
• Transit Enhancement Project Capital Projects
• Transit Facilities Project Capital Projects
• Capitalized Preventive Maintenance
• ITS Project
Commuter & Express
Bus Services on the
1-10 Corridor
INDIO
12ND AVE
TNAVE
60111 AVE
UOTa AVC'
61TIIA
62N0 A
IRPORT OL
6
Frequency Improvements
for Sub -Regional Services
COACHELLA
62NO AVE
,I,
Implementation
Of Community Based
Service Routes
62N0 AVE
Implementation of
Sub -Regional
Service Routes
C4TII AVE
Coachella Valley
2009 - 2019
Proposed Transit
Projects
SunLine Service
Improvement Proposal
Level Of Service 2006
Level Of Service -
E or Better
Level Of Service - F
Flow per hour (Total Autos)
Greater than 5,000
3,001 - 5,000
1,001 - 3,000
Less than 1,000
SunLine Network
Cities
T�oatimtg+r;..r
Date Created Sources
September 2006 SunLine, CVAG, SCAG, Census 2000
O
0 1 2
4
i�
Miles
ULI Inland Empire
ANNUAL SPONSORS
FOUNDING
JP Morgan Real Estate
Empire Commercial
Real Estate L.P.
PRINCIPAL
Best, Best & Krieger
Lewis Operating Corp.
PFF Bank & Trust
SunCal Companies
Young Homes
CORPORATE
Alexander Communities, Inc.
Architerra Design Group
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
City of Hesperia
Forest City Development, Inc.
Iger & Associates Government
Interface Consultants
KeyBank
Meritage Homes
Orange Coast Title
Stewart Title, Inc.
T & B Planning Consultants
The Planning Center
PATRON
David Evans & Associates
Diversified Builder Services
Michael Brandman Associates
Western National
Realty Advisors
William Hezmalhalch
Architects, Inc.
Developing Around Transit in
Western Riverside County:
Challenges & Opportunities for Transit Oriented Development
81520719
In 2006 Western Riverside County was ranked second among the fastest growing counties in
California. With this expectation for future growth, how are people going to move around and how
are we going to house them? One solution: Bring housing and jobs closer to key transit nodes.
The ULI Inland Empire and the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) have brought
together public and private sector .professionals to explore the opportunities and challenges of
developing closer to transportation centers. This three -fourth (3/4) day symposium will bring to the
forefront what must happen to make this concept a reality.
You will learn about:
• Transportation and land use issues affecting Western Riverside County,
• Strategies for transit -oriented development from leading public and private sector
professionals,
• Essential elements to consider when planning to develop property around transit.
Become informed and make your reservations now for this important event!
DATE & TIME
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
7:45 am — 2:30 pm
LOCATION
Eagle Glen Golf Course
1800 Eagle Glen Parkway
Corona, CA
Thank You to Our Sponsors:
EVENT SPONSORS
Forest City Development
Stantec Consulting
Riverside Transit Agency
For Event or Annual Sponsorship Information, please contact the ULI office at (909) 632-1010
ULI Inland Empire District Council
25241 Paseo de Alicia
Suite 120
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
te1909-632-1010fax 909-632-1009
coordinator@lnlandEmpire.ulLorg
www.InlandEmpire.tili.org
ULI-the Urban Land Institute
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C.20007-5201
800-321-5011
www.uli.org
Developing Around Transit
in Western Riverside County
Challenges & Opportunities for Transit Oriented Development
PROGRAM
7:45 AM REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST
8:15 AM WELCOME AND SYMPOSIUM OVERVIEW
JOHN POTTS — ULI Inland Empire Chair
MAYOR CHUCK WASHINGTON — Vice -Chair, WRCOG
JOSEPH NORBECK — Executive Director, UCR Blakeley Center for
Sustainable Suburban Development
8:30 AM TRENDS PRESENTATION
RICK BisxoP — Executive Director, WRCOG
ELIZABETH MAHONEY - Market Development Director,
Southern California Regional Rail Authority
9:15 AM TRANSIT VISIONS FOR FOUR WESTERN RIVERSIDE CITIES
RANDALL JACKSON — President, The Planning Center
KAREN GULLEY — Director of Design, The Planning Center
10:30 AM AN ON THE GROUND LOOK AT TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND
WHAT MAKES FOR SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT
JOHN FREGONESE — Fregonese-Calthorpe Associates
11:30 AM CASE STUDY - DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSIT VILLAGE - WALNUT CREEK
MARK FARRAR — The Vanmark Group
12:30 PM LUNCH AND EXPLORING CHALLENGES & SOLUTIONS
TO DEVELOPING AROUND TRANSIT
BOB LEITER— San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
1:30 PM NEXT STEPS FOR THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUBREGION
MODERATOR
CON HOWE, Director
ULI Center for Balanced Development in the West
PANELISTS — MARK FARRAR, The Vanmark. Group
JOHN POTTS, The Garrett Group
KATHERINE PEREZ, Forest City Development
KEN GvTTIEREz, Planning Director, City of Riverside
BOB JOHNSON, Director of Planning, City of Temecula
2:15 PM WRAP-UP AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
REGISTRATION FORM
Developing Around Transit in VL estern Riverside County
Wednesday, February 28, 2007 Eagle Glen Golf Course
Four Easy ways to register:
ONLINE www.uli.org/register
(Credit card payment only)
FAX 1-800-248-4585
(Credit card or check payment)
* If you are going to mail in your registration, you must
first call it in to ensure a prepared name badge.
ULI Inland Empire
District Council Meeting
8152-0719
PHONE 1-800-321-5011
(Credit card or check payment)
MAIL*
ULI Inland Empire
Department 304
Washington, DC 20055-0304
(Credit card or check payment)
ULI Member
Name.... ................_
Title
Company............ _ .. ..
Address _ ...............__...__. .
City/State/Zip . _ ...:..
Telephone......_ ..
Informal Name for Badge
Fax . E-mail*
* E-Mail is Required in Order to Receive a Confirmation by next business day.
For Multiple registrations, please duplicate this form
Registration Type and Fees:
(please check appropriate box):
Member Non-Memb
Private ❑ $75 ❑ $90
Public Sector ❑ $65 ❑ $70
YLG ❑ $55 ❑ $65
Student ❑ $45 ❑ $65
Media ❑ Free
$10 extra @ door
❑ Sponsors please email info to
coordinator@inlandempire.uli.org
❑ Send me ULI Membership information
Registration Deadline:
Friday, February 23, 2007
OnLine Registration Deadline:
Monday, February 26, 2007
12:00 pm
Payment Methods: (Please check the box indicating your method of payment)
❑ CHECK: Make Checks Payable to ULI Inland Empire
❑ CREDIT CARD:
Indicate credit card:
❑ Visa
❑ Diners Club
❑ Mastercard
❑ Discover
Card Number:
Name on the card:...........
Cardholder Signature:
❑ AMEX
Exp. Date:
a
If payment has not been received prior to the registration deadline date, a
credit card guarantee will be required on site. No credit card charges will be
processed if payment is received within 1 week of the meeting date.
Refund requests must be submitted in writing no later than the date of
the registration deadline; refund requests will not be accepted after this date.
Fax requests to 202-624-7147
ws
Public transit operators in Riverside County served more
than 13.8 million passengers in 2006 — traveling over 167
million miles.
This is significant, when you consider that each bus has
the potential to remove 40 to 60 cars and a rail car has
potential to remove 145 to 200 cars from our freeways.
Transit Service Improvements
Working to develop a transit plan for the next 10 years,' we
are exploring ways to enhance fixed route transit services
like RTA buses that serve important daily destinations such
as work, school, supermarket and home. New commuter
rail and intercity buses on existing highways, such as the
I-15, I-215 and I-10 freeways are also being examined.
Another priority is to make Dial -a -Ride services easier
to use and more efficient. Concern about the growing
population of retiring baby boomers, is making specialized
transit and paratransit service for seniors a critical part of
our future transit services.
Another mechanism to make the transit network more
safe and efficient is to improve commuter assistance and
operations to heighten park -and -ride security and enhance
call center services and traveler information. Creating
land use plans and transit oriented developments that
complement and support the core transit infrastructure and
Metrolink station areas is also critical to the success of the
overall transit vision.
Transit Facility Improvements
As the backbone of transit service operations, transit
facilities are being expanded and improved to more
efficiently move riders through Riverside County's transit
network. One more way to gain efficiencies is to improve
the commuter assistance program which helps guide and
inform riders of schedules, detours, traffic, and ride -share
opportunities.
The regional transit system must be one component of a
transportation network that gives our citizens flexibility
in how they want to travel. Transit will not be the only
option for travel, but it should be one that is convenient,
reliable, and enjoyable.
The Transit Oasis Strategy: An Initiative in Transportation Choices for
Western Riverside County, 2003
I: The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) administers funds, oversees and
coordinates public transportation services in Riverside County. Currently, ROTC is developing
a 10 year transit plan for 2009 through 2019. Using a visioning process, RCTC has engaged
representatives from all the public transit operating agencies in the County. In a series of topical
meetings, the following issues are being discussed: Fixed route transit; Commuter rail & intercity bus;
General public dial -a -ride; Specialized transit & paratransit, Commuter assistance; Environmental
Er land use, transit supportive land use
a
P
Riverside County is California's fastest growing county
with 2 million people and housing growth ranked fourth
in the nation. If Riverside County were a state, it would
have a bigger population than Idaho or Nebraska. At
the rate it's growing, by 2020 Riverside County will be
more populous than Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, or
Kansas." To accommodate this level of growth, Riverside
County will need a vision to address the significant social,
demographic, economic and environmental challenges.
The vision is a transportation s,
rough a balancedmulti-modal
and walkways, all woe kr= l
e o ,.
In cooperation with local, state
and federal agencies, we will
strive to create a transit system
that will:
Improve mobility
f
Improve safety and reduce
traffic congestion
Protect the environment and
quality of Life
Promote economic
development & benefits
Consider the transportation
needs of all citizens
4080 Lemon Street
www.wrcog.cog.ca.us
Measure A Transportation Improvements
In 2002, the residents and businesses of Riverside County
took action by voting for an extension of Measure A, a half -
cent sales tax measure that will provide $4.3 billion dollars
for transportation improvement projects through 2039.
These projects include new freeway and road interchanges,
new transportation corridors to Orange and San Bernardino
counties, new Metrolink commuter rail service and new
bus transit options.
Creating a Transit Vision
for Riverside County
Proposed Transit Enhancements
Like most Southern Californians, Western Riverside
residents are in love with their cars. With a myriad of
roads and highways traversing our region, and nearly
perfect weather, driving has become a way of life.
However, that love affair comes with a price and we are
paying for it with increasing congestion, traffic gridlock,
air pollution and driver frustration. But there is a way to
change it. By initiating more transit projects, it is possible
to redirect more people and resources towards bus and
rail. Furthermore, by increasing the frequency of existing
transit lines, adding extensions to those lines, and building
new lines we can create a competitive alternative to the
automobile, and reduce dependency on the car.
4080 Lemon Street
3rcYfio6fAtittile',
MS 103 2
www.wrcog.cog.ca.us
In 2006, Western Riverside Council of Governments
(WRCOG) commissioned Stanley R. Hoffman Associates
to explore the market potential for transit -oriented
development (TOD) around existing and proposed
Metrolink stations in Western Riverside County. This effort
built on a previous study in 2004, by the Center for Transit
Oriented Development (CTOD) that looked at capturing
demand for housing near transit as well as a survey of
residents completed in April, 2006 by True North Research
to document views on land use, growth and development.
The WRCOG study area
As shown above, the Western Riverside Study area
encompasses five of Transportation Urban Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) zones. Within the northwest zone are the existing
Metrolink stations in Corona and Riverside. The future
Metrolink stations are located in the cities of Moreno Valley
and Perris in the central zone; Temecula in the southwest
zone; and Hemet in the Hemet/San Jacinto zone.
"Over 14.8 million households are expected to
want housing within a half -mile of these rail systems
by 2025 — more than double the number of
households living there today."
— Hidden in Plain Sight: Capturing Demand for Housing Near Transit
September 2004.
The changing face of WRCOG
The face of Western Riverside County is changing. The
old guard is giving way to a bold new county resident's
profile. The kid's are grown up, and the empty -nesters, as
well as singles, are starting to make housing choices better
suited to their lifestyles. Consumer demand for housing
that offers amenities such as live/work, convenient access to
transit and shopping suggests a shift towards the pedestrian
friendly transit village community As shown in Table 1, 40
percent of future household growth will be in the category
of "other households", which includes couples without
children, single householders without children not living
alone, and non -family households. This trend supports
the findings of the TOD demand study which revealed that
the highest demand for TOD was generated among non-
traditional and non -family households.
Potential transit village households
Projections show that household growth and employment
in the WRCOG region will double by 2030. Of the
approximate 396,000 new households being generated
between 2000 and 2030, over 71,000 are estimated as
potential TOD households.
71,798
Potential TOD Demand
396,680
Projected Growth
D
�,
S�
How do Riverside County residents
get around?
Using statistics based on the period between 1990 and
2000, the following observations can be made about travel
patterns in Riverside County:
■ The number of workers who used bus and rail transit
as a means to travel to the workplace has significantly
grown from 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent.
■ Driving alone continues to be the primary means of
travel to work for Riverside County residents at 73
percent, carpooling at 17.6 percent and 1.4 percent for
public transit use.
■ The highest transit usage is found to be among Single
Householders with Children at an average 1.5% for the
WRCOG region
■ The average commute time for residents of Riverside
County traveling to work is 31 minutes and is also the
highest in the region.
■ Percentage of public transit usage by household increases
as population grows
■ As oil prices and congestion increase, it is anticipated that
the percentage of workers using transit will also increase.
Growing our transportation corridors
Transportation development in the region is experiencing
a "building boom" including Riverside County which
recently approved a 30-year extension of Measure "A,"
the half -cent sales tax generating billions of dollars for
transportation. In addition, Riverside residents recently
voted for the Transportation Urban Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) which places a fee on new development to pay
for mitigating transportation improvements. Further
evidence of the importance of
transportation is seen in the
results of the resident survey
which found that quality of
life is paramount in the minds
of WRCOG residents and one
of the ways to improve their
quality of life is to reduce
traffic congestion.
The approval of Measure A in 2002 and the TUMF
program will generate nearly $7 billion dollars in
transportation funding over the next 30 years.
Western Riverside County a collection of profiles, indicators, and maps
Is there really demand for TOD?
All the research and studies point to the support of
Western Riverside residents for improving transportation
corridors and changing land use patterns to support those
corridors. Creating effective transit oriented developments
will provide residents with choices to live a lifestyle that
keeps commuting time at a minimum and provides a better
quality of life. This will also ensure that our children have
a future in Western Riverside County by providing housing
choices near transit.
residents surveyed with all groups exceeding 72 percent.
Respondents were then presented with both positive
and negative statements about transit villages. Positive
statements included a reduction in air pollution and
commuters not having to travel far or getting stuck in
traffic. Negative statements included creating loud and
noisy neighborhoods, causing traffic congestion, and
greatly limiting parking around the station. After hearing
both negative and positive statements, 75 percent of
residents said they would still support this kind of
development around present and future transit stations in
Riverside County.
Majority of residents were unaware of TOD concept, but
once people learned more about the benefits of a transit
village, support grew to 79 %!
■ 42% expressed interest in living in a transit village
in the next 2 years.
■ 14% said they were "very interested".
■ 50% expressed interest in living in a transit village
in the next 10 years.
■ 19% said they were "very interested" in the next 10 years.
Residents Would Consider Living in
a Transit Village
Here's what Western Riverside County residents had to say
about living in a transit village:
Exactly half (50 percent) of all respondents expressed some
level of interest for living in a transit village 10 years from
now and 42 percent expressed interest in the next two
years. This confirms that there is an existing and growing
market for TOD in Western Riverside County.
Those who expressed some interest in living in a transit
village cited accessibility/convenience (55 percent) and
reduction in time spent in traffic (22 percent) as the main
reasons for interest.
Of the respondents who expressed no interest for living
in a transit village now or in the future, 27 percent stated
that it would be too crowded, congested, and noisy, and 24
percent stated that they were happy living where they were
and didn't want to move.
Transit village appeal goes beyond just
proximity to transit
One of the most interesting things revealed in the survey
results was the appeal to various lifestyle considerations
that transit villages provide. Amenities such as mobility
with reduced dependency on the personal vehicle and the
convenience of being able to live, work, shop and play
without the constraints of distance and time are obvious
attractive features of TOD. However, the `attraction of
neighborly communities' was mentioned more frequently
than `easier access to transit.' This suggests that people are
looking for a sense of place and belonging rather than just
easy access to transit.
In general, residents concern about future livability in
Western Riverside County underlies their support for transit
villages and TOD. That concern combined with peoples
need for neighborly communities and a sense of place makes
TOD a viable solution for accommodating a portion of the
growing population in Western Riverside County.
4080 Lema
• MS 108 2
About the Survey
In 2006, Western Riverside County was ranked second
among the fastest growing counties in California. With
this the expectation for future growth, how are people
going to move around and where they are going to live?
One solution: Bring jobs and housing closer to key transit
nodes.
To explore this idea, The Western Riverside Council of
Government (WRCOG) embarked on a program with
transportation agencies and selected cities to study the
opportunities and challenges of developing closer to
transportation centers and bring to the forefront what must
happen to make this concept a near term realty
As part of this effort, a public opinion survey was
conducted to determine residents' views on land use,
growth and development, and the level of interest
and support for transit villages and transit -oriented
development (TOD).
.4 not sure
14.9 excellent
55.8 good
23.6 fair
3.5 poor
1.7 very poor
Exploring People's Perceptions about
Opportunities For Transit Villages and
Transit -Oriented Development
Seventy-one percent of people interviewed felt that the
quality of life in Western Riverside County is either
excellent or good. However, when asked to think about
the quality of life in 10 years, 38 percent of residents
anticipated that the quality of life would decline. This in
large part is due to the impacts created by a significant
increase in population.
Ways to improve the quality of Life
When residents were asked what one change local
governments could make so that Riverside County would be
a better place to live in now and in the future, 36 percent felt
that it would be reducing traffic congestion and improving
the transportation system. The second most frequently
suggested change was limiting growth and/or improving
strategies for dealing with growth at fourteen percent.
Residents feel that one of the keys to maintaining the
quality of life of Western Riverside County is reducing
traffic or improving the transportation system.
5.5 not sure
41.5 definitely support
33.8 probably support
8.6 probably oppose
10.7 definitely oppose
How was the survey conducted?
A random sample of 1,290 residents within the Western
Riverside County were contacted by phone and responded
to the survey Interviews were conducted in English and
Spanish between February 22 and March 5, 2006
(For more information on the methodology see survey
report at http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us).
Look what we found!
Here's what Western Riverside County residents had to
say about their quality of life:
3.1 not sure
19.2 very interested
30.9 somewhat interested
44.0 not at all interested
2.9 depends
Public Supports TOD Concept
Here's what Western Riverside County residents had to say
about Transit Villages:
Before taking the survey, only 11 percent of the respondents
said they had heard of terns transit villages or TOD.
However, after briefly learning about transit villages
and TOD, 79 percent of respondents said they would
support this kind of development around present and
future transit stations in Riverside County. This support
was also consistent among the 50 subcategories of
4080 LemOn Street
3zd, 160'r r W- ;,, 1 k .
MS 1032
if
www.wrcog.cog.ca.us
The Study Area
The study area is centered on the North Main Corona
Station located north of Route 91 and Corona's Downtown
District, near Main Street. In 2000, the City adopted the
North Corona Specific Plan in hopes of turning the area
into a vibrant entertainment district. Instead, the area has
developed into a mix of secondary/off-price discount retail
establishments, auto -oriented large and small retail uses
and fast food outlets withmany underutilized parcels.
About the North Main Corona
Metrolink Station
As the second busiest station in the county, the North Main
Corona Metrolink Station area has strong potential to be
revitalized into a vibrant transit village offering expanded
Land Use Concept
Higher density
residential
New connection
between River Road
and Sheridan Street
Higher density/
residential with street -
fronting users and 7"
"pavilion" retail /
/Resolve intersection
conflicts: pedestrian
autdmdbile, bus
Consolidate
parcels and
coordinate
street pattern
_CA-9 I
Expand bus drop-off area:
Utilize underpass potential
opportunity for bus and
parking plaza. Resolve
grade -separation issue.
FLture
otential t
Eonnection
We§tern Riverside Council of Governments in partnership
with Southern California Associated Governments, Caltrans,
transportation agencies and corridor cities completed a visioning
exercise around the existing and proposed Metrolink station areas in
Riverside, Corona, Perris, Hemet, Temecula and Moreno Valley. This
fact sheet highlights the results for the North Main Corona Station_
commercial retail opportunities, affordable housing, and
other mixed -use developments. Future plans for the North
Main Station include an expansion of the 536-space Park
& Ride facility, which operates at 95 percent capacity, to
accommodate 4,000 cars. In addition, the Riverside Transit
Authority is planning to construct a new bus terminal
across from the station.
Creating a Vision
Hours of interviews, briefings and planning design sessions
with City officials and key stakeholders culminated in a
comprehensive vision for the establishment of a transit
village at the North Main Corona Station. The following is
a summary of the "Big Ideas"
Potential for mixed use,
residential development
IntroduFe small, public
open sp�d2es adjacent to
paths andioads
Continue path`
to Rincon Street'.
Incorporate "transit
room" to accommoeate �.
transit services
--E"vsbate=o-plportunitiesri
for dispersal and joint- t
use parking t
Coordinate this parcel's
development potential
with the bus site
Coordina
design of Grand
with the downtown vision
Expand Main Street^
entry concept to istrict Gateway '*---" -
melude,building edge_' Signature "Gateway Architecture"
coordinate with adjacent parcels.
Require pedestrian connection to transit.
_ *V
iAl
The 'Big Ideas
The unique location of the North Main Corona Metrolink
Station presents opportunities' for high intensity and
mixed -use development. One of the key features of the
transit village concept includes the consolidation of
parcels to promote higher density mixed -use residential
development with street -fronting uses and "pavilion"
retail. This would increase demand for transit services
by providing a pedestrian friendly environment that also
includes public open spaces and pedestrian oriented
walkways and roads. Most of the development would be
focused along Main Street corridor which has significant
bus services linking it to the Metrolink station. Another
development concept is to create a transit room adjacent
to the station platform to accommodate specialty transit
supporting retail uses. It would remain open 24-hours and
serve as a central area that directs people to the various
transit services and parking structures. Because of the
proximity to the CA-91 freeway, a district gateway with
"signature" gateway architecture has also been suggested
creating a defined village area focused on transit.
Circulation and Parking
Intensification of land use around the
Metrolink station would potentially
result in traffic impacts such as,
intersection overloads at Main Street and
Grand Boulevard. To address this issue
a number of strategies are suggested,
including: separation of commuter and
community traffic using Main Street
by-pass routes; establish Main Street
as a slow -go street between River Road
and Harrison Street to give priority to
pedestrians and and buses; increase
perimeter access and identify gateways
to the Transit Village such as "District
Gateway," and "River Gateway" with
monuments and signage.
Another critical element to the success
of a tranist village is parking. Current
plans call for a single -use garage
adjacent to the Metrolink station.
However, a single -use facility in one
location is hard to finance, inflexible
and will discourage pedestrian activities. Therefore,
development of multiple, strategically located parking lots
and structures that are balanced with street networks is
recommended.
Bus Transit
The integration of bus service is also a vital part of the
transit village concept surrounding the North Main Corona
Station. Four types of bus service are recommended for the
City of Corona including: commuter buses, limited express
buses, local buses, and community shuttles. Community
shuttle buses would include services for business park
users and downtown commuters. The commuter bus may
operate along I-15 corridor to areas south of Corona while
the limited stop express service would operate along high
density corridors with Corona and possibly El Cerrito.
Local bus provides service to all corridor bus stops in both
peak and off-peak hours and could be integrated with the
existing Corona Cruiser and RTA intercity coverage routes.
If you have any questions or want more information on
these concepts please contact the Planning Department at
XXX-XXXX.
Hf h-Intensity Vision
ofTransit Core
Prime parcel at Main and
Blaine Streets is developed
as high- intensity office or
mixed use
Prototype may
include residential
over office or live/
work uses
Pedestrian
connector to
Main Street
a
,0°6
Transit room
adjacent to
Metrolink Station
RCTC parking structure
begins adjacent to
the transit room and
extends east
Metrolink parking is established
in an alternative location —site
is an icon for a Transit Village
Future transit -
adjacent
development with
potential for transit
parking
Strong
pedestrian
connectivity
TAW
k AT
The 'Big Ideas"
Using a design exercise called a charrette, three distinct
land use scenarios were developed for the Downtown
Riverside Station area . Each of the scenarios identified
a common set of opportunities and constraints for the
creation of transit oriented development. Taking the best
ideas from each of the three scenarios a consolidated "Big
Ideas" plan was developed and presented to the community
at a public open house.
The following is a summary of the "Big Ideas" plan for the
Downtown Riverside Station Area.
Connecting to Metrolink
Creating connections between Metrolink and downtown
Riverside, bus transit, parking and surrounding
neighborhoods is a central part of the "Big Ideas" plan.
The proposed creation of a pedestrian bridge spanning
the CA-91 freeway, implementation of a bus transit center
adjacent to the Metrolink station and placing parking in
close proximity to the Metrolink platform are all examples
of improving the linkages to the station. Adding new bus
routes that will terminate at the transit center is another
way to bring more people to the area. However, the key
to making the vision work is the creation of pedestrian
friendly corridors that provide a safe, friendly environment
welcoming people to and from the station platform. Using a
mix of ground level retail, residential, office, entertainment
and recreational facilities, the Metrolink station area can
be transformed into a community of walkable pathways
creating a sense of place and encouraging ridership.
Community Sensitive Design
Protecting the character and sense of community was
paramount in the creation of transit oriented development
concepts. Using proven design principals, many of the
community issues such as noise and high density were
mitigated. Parking structures for Metrolink were placed
in a linear fashion along the rail corridor serving as a
buffer for noise. Higher density residential units were
backed against the parking structures and oriented in a
garden/courtyard style development. These higher density
buildings were then outlined with lower density artist lofts
oriented towards Lincoln Park serving as a buffer along
Howard Avenue.
Lincoln Park is located in close proximity to the Metrolink
station and provides a critical gathering place for the
community. To capitalize on the popular park, a Mercado
was suggested for the area immediately south. This could
serve as a gateway to the community and create a strong
sense of place. Community services such as day care and
teen programs could also be encouraged along Twelve
Street adding to the park activity Orienting all buildings
toward the park area would also promote safety.
Currently along Park Avenue there is a mix of businesses,
residential and churches. Placing a Mercado near Lincoln
Park could help facilitate the movement of larger businesses
into a central location and the conversion of Park Avenue
into a pedestrian oriented corridor with wider sidewalks,
improved landscaping, rehabilitated building facades and
slower traffic.
Housing opportunities
Increased property values in Riverside have made it difficult
for low and moderate income residents to obtain housing.
Providing affordable housing in the transit village ensures a
balance between the need to accommodate growth and the
need to preserve an existing multi -generational community
Senior and/or workforce housing is also proposed along
University Avenue corridor providing easy access to transit.
Another creative way to accommodate growth is allowing
"granny flats" to be developed along the alleys.
The City of Riverside is working to make this plan a reality
If you want more project information please contact the
Planning Department at XXX-XXXX.
Community Interactive Wrokshops
The Study Area
Centered on the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station,
the study area is located east of the CA-91, south of
Mission Inn Avenue, west of Sedgwick Avenue and north
of 14th Street. The Sante Fe railroad tracks divide the
area into two distinct land use groups. West of the tracks
is predominantly auto -dependant commercial uses and
a park -and -ride facility that serve the needs of Metrolink
commuters and the nearby businesses. On the east side
of the tracks is the established Eastside community and
Lincoln Park.
About the Downtown Riverside
Metrolink Station
Since the Downtown Riverside Station opened in
1993, it has become the busiest station in Riverside
County serving over 1,000 passengers daily. Centrally
located between downtown, UC Riverside and historic
Mission Inn, the station provides commuters with direct
Consolidated Design Concept
4080 Lemon Street'
ca.us
From Transit Station
to Transit Village
Western Riverside Council of Governments in pan nership
with Southern California Associated Governments, Cattrans,
transportation agencies and corridor cities completed a visioning
exercise around the existing and proposed Metroanh station areas in
Riverside, Corona, Perris, Hemet, Temecula and Moreno Valley. This
fact sheet highlights the results for the Downtown Riverside Station.
access to Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties.
This creates a perfect opportunity for transit -oriented
development to occur around the station area including
mixed use developments of residential, retail, office and
entertainment.
Creating a Vision
The visioning exercise to develop station area design
concepts was an intensive effort over a three-day period
including a community interactive workshop, a design
charrette and public open house. To begin the process,
a presentation was made to residents and businesses
explaining what transit -oriented development is about
followed by an interactive survey of transit village concepts
and design prototypes. This preference survey served as a
catalyst for in-depth discussions on issues and concerns
affecting area residents. Input received provided direction
for community sensitive development concepts around the
Metrolink station.
ER
TRO
The 'Big Ideas"
If you build it they will come?
One of the challenges facing Perris is relatively low demand
and support for retail and services in the downtown
district. There are currently not enough residents or
businesses in the vicinity to support retail and service
opportunities. However, there is potential through the
introduction of the new Metrolink station for interest
in economic investment. Intensification of uses within
a quarter and a half mile radius would allow the City to
establish D Street as the main commercial corridor in the
downtown district. The vision is to create a pedestrian -
oriented rather than automobile -oriented land use
pattern surrounding the transit center. With the proper
development regulations and other incentives, mixed
use and residential uses along D Street are feasible. It
is also important that the historic character of the area
is maintained while new development takes place. The
redevelopment of the historic train depot and surrounding
amenities will encourage a consistency of design.
Making Connections
In developing a transit village
concept, careful attention
should be given to preserving
connectivity to the Civic Center.
This can be achieved by focusing
multi -story commercial and
mixed use activity along D and
Second streets. To create safe
and inviting walkable pathways,
pedestrian -oriented retail uses
along D Street should be located
between CA-74 and San Jacinto
Avenue. The immediate area
surrounding the proposed
Perris Station should include
community uses and retail uses.
A transit room with seating areas
and transit supporting retail
could also be incorporated into
the platform area.
Circulation Concept
District Gateway
Bus street should
incorporate buffer edges
Second
Street as a
Slow -Go or
pedestrian-
oriente
street
J
Parking for the area should not be developed in one
central large structure but instead scattered and mixed into
the transit village mixed use projects. This will promote
pedestrian activity and prevent the site from becoming an
exclusive park-n-ride site.
Automobile oriented or regional commercial uses should
be placed adjacent to the newly widened and improved
CA-74. This corridor will continue to serve as the main
arterial with large scale commercial uses accesible from
Fifth and Third streets. D and Second streets would serve
as the internal framework for the transit village concept.
Consideration should also be given to converting Second
Street into a slow -go, pedestrian -oriented street with angled
parking and a center median. It is anticipated that three
forms of bus transit will serve the Perris Station including
regional commuter express bus, RTA intercity bus, and
community shuttle service.
Housing Needs
Residential development in the core area might
accommodate mixed use housing of 30 units per acre.
Consolidation of parcels is critical to create opportunities
for mixed use/multi-use development.
District Gateway:
. Connection to San
Jacinto Avenue bypass
. Connection to Fifth and
Sixth Streets
Provide connectivity to
Civic Center
San Jacinto Avenue
G)
a
first Str
second Streets,
Third Street-.
MCA 74
i'-... fifth Street...`
Sixth Street
seventh Street
Symbolic intersection
with D Street
First and Third
Streets as Slow -Go
distribution streets to
residential uses
Retail frontage
along Second
Street
District Gateway
CA-74 as a thru road,
take access to adjacent
parcels off of Fifth and
Third Streets
t'
The Study Area
The proposed Perris Metrolink Station will be the
terminus of the San Jacinto Branch Line, also known as
the Perris Valley Line. The study area is centered on the
proposed station, located at the Old Perris Depot, about
a quarter -mile from the Perris Civic Center in downtown
Perris on East Fourth Street (CA-74) between C and D
streets. The historic downtown district, alongside the
rail corridor, was once the thriving hub of economic
activity; however, recently it has experienced considerable
decline. In 2005, the district completed some small scale
public street improvements, such as, enhanced median
island landscaping, new planters, lighting, and parking
infrastructure. Historic buildings are located near D and
Fourth streets, which includes the historic train depot.
Primary uses among the local merchants are auto service
and repair services. SR-74 which intersects just south of the
proposed station has been widened to a four lane highway
connecting with Interstate 15.
About the Perris Metrolink Station
The proposed Perris Metrolink Station is part of a 19-
mile extension from downtown Riverside that will begin
Land Use Concept
Residential uses
should edge onto C
Street in addition to a
landscaped setback to
buffer from train noise
Build off of Civic Center with
pavilion retail uses across Sari
Jacinto Avenue
Fte
`Promate multiple,`joint-
'ukd parking areas y
adjacent to transit
station
Automobile -oriented
commercial uses can
benefit from exposure
along CA-74
From Transit"- n
to Transit ' 7!'
Western Riverside Council of Governments in partnership with
Southern California Associated Governments, Caimans, transit
agencies and corridor cities completed a visioning exercise around
the existing and proposed Metrolink station areas in Riverside,
Corona, Perris, Hemet, Temecula and Moreno Valley This fact
sheet highlights the results for the proposed Perris Station.
operation in 2009. The station is projected to accommodate
6,000 passengers and alleviate 4,000 auto trips by 2030.
The proposed station will also include a new Riverside
Tranist Authority (RTA) bus transfer site and local shuttle bus
service. Commuters using the station will be able to travel to
Riverside, Orange, and Los Angeles counties.
Creating a Vision
To help create a vision for the area surrounding the
future Perris Metrolink Station, an interactive stakeholder
forum was held to bring City officials together with key
developers, real estate professionals, business and chamber
of commerce representatives and other leaders in the
community The forum included presentations from the
consultant team on transit oriented development concepts
along with opportunities and constraint of the proposed
station area. Participants were encouraged to provide
community insight and help define what they envision for
their downtown district. The consultant team also worked
closely with the Perris Planning Commission to guide the
desgin concepts.
Higher intensity, courtyard -
oriented residential
development between D and
F Streets
Residential densities
decrease away from
the core influence area
n intaAvenue..,,
Create core
f mixed-use
-Second,Bjreet tlttdevelopment
along Second
1 Street in addition
to development
along D Skeet
Third Street
'fifth:Stree
Sixth(Street
Seventh Street
With residential development at 30
units/acre on the east side of D Street
and 12 units/acre on the west side
of D Street, the Transit Village can
supply approximately 800 units.