Loading...
02 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.