Loading...
06 June 25, 2007 Plans and Programs80797 RECORDS TIME: DATE: LOCATION: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1:30 p.m. PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE Monday, June 25, 2007 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside ***COMMITTEE MEMBERS*** Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells, Chair Frank West, City of Moreno Valley, Vice Chair John Chlebnik / Ray Quint°, City of Calimesa Jeff Miller / Karen Spiegel, City of Corona Robin Lowe / Marc Searl, City of Hemet Michael H. Wilson / Gene Gilbert, City of Indio Frank Hall / Harvey Sullivan, City of Norco Dick Kelly / Cindy Finerty, City of Palm Desert Ronald Oden / Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Mark Yarbrough, City of Perris Chris Carlson / Jim Ayres, City of San Jacinto Bob Buster, County of Riverside, District I Roy Wilson, County of Riverside, District IV Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V *** STAFF *** Eric Haley, Executive Director Cathy Bechtel, Project Development Director *** AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY*** State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Transportation Improvement Program New Corridors Intermodal Programs (Transit, Rail, Rideshare) Air Quality and Clean Fuels Regional Agencies, Regional Planning Intelligent Transportation System Planning and Programs Congestion Management Program Comments are welcomed by the Committee. if you wish to provide comments to the Committee, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.15 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1:30 p.m. Monday, June 25, . 2007 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Each individual speaker is limited to speak - three (3) continuous minutes or. less. The Committee may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Committee, waive this three (3) minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. - Also, ' the Committee may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the. consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Committee shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Board should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda .which are not listed on the agenda. Board members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda June 25, 2007 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 26, 2007 6. 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.) CONSENT CALENDAR - All matters on the Consent Calendar will be. approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE Overview This item is for the Committee to: Page 1 1) Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. INTERSTATE 15 COMMUTER RAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Overview This : item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the draft 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. Page9 Plans and Programs Committee Agenda June 25, 2007 Page 3 9. FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSIT SERVICES AND SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN ACTION PLAN APPROVAL Page 29 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Review and approve the FY 2007/08 through FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) and action plans for the city of Corona (Corona) and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA).; 2) Allocate up to $ 270,000. in Local Transportation . Fund (LTF) Funds to the city of Beaumont (Beaumont) pending. submittal of its FY 2007/08 through FY 2009/10 SRTP and action plan; 3) Approve Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request for a . Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) waiver on operating cost per revenue hour thereby resetting .its target to $76.54; 4) Approve the FY 2007/08 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 5311 Program of Projects (POP) for Riverside County; 5) Conduct a public hearing at the July 11, 2007 Commission meeting on the proposed Section 5307 POP as shown on Attachment. 1; 6) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); 7) Approve the FY 2007/08 LTF and State Transit Assistance (STA) fund allocations for transit as shown in Attachment 2; 8). Approve budget increases to LTF expenditures of $626,200 and to STA expenditures of: $474,800; 9) Adopt Resolution No. 08-002, "Resolution to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds and 10) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda June 25, 2007 Page 4 10. REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN . AMENDMENT AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF BANNING'S MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SYSTEM Page 119 Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1.) Allocate additional operating funds of $39,461 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Funds to the city of Banning's Municipal Transit System (Banning); 2) Amend Banning's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional operating funds; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action: 11 FISCAL YEAR 2007/08 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS FOR STATE ROUTE 60 AND STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDORS Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1,) Authorize payment.- of $1,645/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 to the existing Riverside, Coronaand Mira Loma buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; 3) Direct staff to develop an expanded buspool program along the 1-15 corridor to San Diego; and 4) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS 1 STAFF REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Commission activities. Plans and Programs Committee Agenda June 25, 2007 Page 5 • 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Plans and Programs Committee meeting is scheduled to be herd at 1:30 p.m., Monday, August 27, 2007, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • AGEN A ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE Monday, March 26, 2007 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee was called to order by Chair Daryl Busch at 12:35 p.m., in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. ROLL CALL Members/Alternates Present Daryl Busch Chris Carlson John Chlebnik Frank Hall Richard Kelly Robin Lowe Jeff Miller Patrick Mullany Ron Oden Frank West Roy Wilson Members Absent Marion Ashley Bob Buster Michael H. Wilson 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 26, 2007 Page 2 ELECTION OF OFFICERS Election of Chair At this time, Chair Busch opened nominations for the Chair position. Commissioner Roy Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Robin Lowe, nominated Commissioner Patrick Mullany for the Chair position. No other nominations were received. Chair Busch closed the nominations. Patrick Mullany was unanimously elected as the Committee's Chair for. 2007. Election of Vice Chair At this time, Chair Busch opened nominations for the Vice Chair position. Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Jeff Miller, nominated Commissioner Frank West for the Vice Chair position. No other nominations were received. Chair Busch closed the nominations. Frank West was unanimously elected as the Committee's Vice Chair for 2007. At this time, Chair Mullany assumed the Chair. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 28, 2006 M/S/C (Busch/Miller) to approve the August 28, 2006 minutes as submitted. Abstained: Carlson, Lowe, and Oden 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no revisions or additions to the agenda. 7 REGIONAL PROGRAMS SPOTLIGHT: COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM UPDATE Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director, explained that a new element has been added to the Plans and Programs Committee agenda to focus on programs primarily funded by Measure A to demonstrate how it has improved mobility and helped the highway program become more efficient and productive. The program being highlighted at this meeting is the Commuter Assistance Program (CAP). • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 26, 2007 Page 3 Robert Yates, Program Manager, presented an update on the CAP, highlighting the following areas: • CAP outline/background; • CAP: Club Ride, vanpool/buspool, employer partnerships, park and ride, $2/day incentive; • Participating Riverside County employers: 376 Riverside County employer partners serving 46,000 jobs; • Riverside County constituents: 56,000 constituents directly served and all constituents served through reduced congestion; CAP mission statement; • Improved mobility through the CAP; • Program tracking tool developed in 2006 • Performance summary of the CAP; • Route 794 update; • Coachella Valley grant for $2/day incentive; • Revisions to marketing material; • Enhance communications with commuters; • Manage implementation of 511 program; and ' • 2009-2019 Measure A plan for transit visioning. In response to Commissioner Dick Kelly's question regarding commuters from Palm Desert, Robert Yates explained that the map is used to portray that the CAP serves all residents by reducing congestion and improving mobility. He added that detailed information by city can be provided in the CAP quarterly reports. At Commissioner Jeff Millers request, Robert Yates provided clarification on the total number of boardings for Route 794. Staff is working with Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and will provide a more detailed report. Mark Stanley, RTA, responded when comparing the ridership of all the 700 lines that Orange County Transportation Authority (OCT.A) operates, Route 794 has the second best ridership and the best performance in terms of passengers per hour and passengers per mile. Robert Yates introduced Helen Bermudez, National Rideshare Coordinator for Walmart. She, briefed that Committee on the positive, impacts of the CAP. She explained that Walmart's priority is environmental compliance and personal responsibility. Working with these programs helps Walmart achieve its goals and comply with the focal regulations within the South Coast Air Quality Management District- (SCAQMD). Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 26, 2007 Page 4 In response to Commissioner Ronald Oden`s questions regarding the Coachella. Valley grant, Robert Yates replied that the grant is in the amount of $75,000, which is an air quality mitigation grant that was offered through Riverside County. The goal is to attract 400 people in the Coachella Valley area to rideshare. It is a two-year demonstration project. Commissioner Oden expressed that he believes the prograrn will be effective, however the grant funding is very low for the effectiveness the program can have for the community. Robert Yates responded that in an effort to mitigate the administrative costs of the: program, the Commission has a ,$15,000 in -kind contribution that is guaranteed as part of the grant proposal. Additionally, staff is working with Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to find an. appropriately sized facility to hold the kick-off meeting in order to reduce administrative costs to concentrate on delivering the maximum amount of incentives. Commissioner Oden expressed that he believes any of the cities would be cooperative. Commissioner Kelly stated that CVAG has purchased property that will work for rideshare parking. Commissioner Kelly expressed that he believes that the parking lot at the new Walmart in Palm Desert would be an ideal site in the interim and requested Commission staff work with CVAG and Walmart to discuss this opportunity. Helen Bermudez replied that Walmart has looked at . establishing a formal park and ride facility and has expressed liability concerns. Shewill contact the store manager in Palm Desert and work with him on an interim park and ride facility. Robert Yates replied that he will have the CAP look into this and work with CVAG and Walmart in Palm Desert. Commissioner Robin Lowe stated that Mobile Source Reduction Committee. (MSRC) will be awarding a grant to Santiago College for its implementation. of a rideshare program for its students. She recommended that staff contact Ray. Gorski at MSRC for additional information. She commended staff for its work on the proposal for the grant program and expanding the CAP. • Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 26, 2007 Page 5 At Chair Mullany's request, Robert Yates provided ridership statistics on the . different types of CAP. M/S/C (Busch/Chle'bnik) to: 11 Receive and file update on the Commuter Assistance Program as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 8. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT Tanya Love, 'Program Manager, presented RTA's FY 2006/07: Short Range Transit Plan amendment. In response to Commissioner Miller's concern regarding parking issues at the North Main Corona Metrolink station during the parking lot expansion, Sheldon Peterson, Program Manager, replied that staff is working on this issue. A parking strategy was presented to city staff approximately two weeks ago that included expanding RTA's CommuterLink service, coordination with the Corona Cruiser and satellite parking. City staff is identifying :sites along Main Street as well. M/S/C (R. Wilson/Lowe) to: 1) Allocate $47;030 in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) as the local match for the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 program; 2) Allocate $2,690 in STA funds to RTA to serve as the local match for the FTA Section 5311(f) grant program; 3) Authorize the reprogramming of $25,672 in STA funds to cover the operating, costs of the CNG fueling station; 4) Allocate $60000 in Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to cover the cost of providing shuttle service due to ..construction on 1-215; 5) Recognize an additional $20,000 in other revenue for the Crest Cruiser program and $2,500,000 in TUMF funds for the Riverside Transit Center; 6) Amend the FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect these changes, and include the projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Program, as appropriate; and 7) Forward to the Commission for final action. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 26, 2007 Page 6 9. FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT: ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS TO THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE'S SPECIAL SERVICES M/S/C (Lowe/R. Wilson) to: 1) Allocate $90,102 in Transportation Development Act (TDA`) funds to the City of Riverside's Special Services (RSS) program; 2) Amend the FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to - reflect the additional funding; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 10. REQUEST FROM PEPPERMINT RIDGE FOR MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS LOCAL MATCH FOR THE SECTION 5310 CAPITAL PROGRAM M/S/C (Lowe/Miller) to: Allocate $ 26,100 to Peppermint Ridge to provide the required local match for the Section 5310 capital program; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-26-114-00 with Peppermint Ridge for $.26,100 in Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western County; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. 11.. COMMUTER RAIL PROGRAM UPDATE M/S/C (Chlebnik/Busch) to: 1) Receive and file the Commuter Rail Program Update as an information item; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. 12. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. 13. COMMISSIONERS 1 STAFF REPORTS There were no Commissioner or staff reports. Plans and Programs Committee Minutes March 26, 2007 Page 7 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Plans and Programs Committee, the meeting adjourned at 1:23 p.m. The next meeting of the Plans and Programs Committee is scheduled for April 23, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7A • RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2007 TO: Plan and Programs Committee FROM: Henry Nickel, Staff Analyst Sheldon Peterson, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Commuter Rail Program Update STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file an update on the Commuter Rail Program; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Inland Empire -Orange .County (1E0C) Weekend Service Cumulative Passenger Trips IEOC Weekend Service First week of school w 40,000 °- 32,000 t— 24,000 c 16,000 8,000 - 0 NQ) O ,�O N ,g"L c �a� , Daily passenger trips on the new year-round IEOC Metrolink weekend service have remained consistent through May. To date, the 1E0C weekend service has provided 45,265 passenger trips since commencing July 15, 2006. This constitutes 26,633 additional trips resulting from year-round service compared to 2005's 18,932 Sumrnerlink seasonal trips. Growth of the service reflects ongoing marketing efforts coordinated among the Commission, Orange County Transit Authority and San Bernardino Associated Governments. Agenda Item 7A Riverside Line Passenger Trips Riverside Line Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's Riverside Line for the month of May averaged 5,301, an increase of 303, 6% more than the month of April. Compared to one year prior, the line averaged an overall daily increase of; 533 passenger trips. This is nearly 1 1 % more than a year ago. On Time Performance (95°A, Goal) Riverside Line t00 95 to 90 aci 85 `m 80 a 754------ 70 -1.-- el`�AQco J�A� ,Jp� PJA � r - co 01 01 �1 •O� 01 0 ‘-\°, p�GA ��� <t°� 4\q PQ� `Sad Month May on -time performance averaged 98 % inbound (-1 % from April) and 97 %' outbound (-1 % from April). There were seven delays greater than five minutes during the month of May. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda item 7A 2 • Inland Empire -Orange County (IEOC) Line 5,000 4,800 4,600 4,400 4,200 4,000 3,800 3,600 Passenger Trips Inland Empire Orange County Line r 00 00 . Ao , oo do o`O Ao 0o Al 0A 01 �J\ FJ� 5�Q OG �°, 0'6 �a� Fw' mar PQ� N.1\a� Month Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's IEOC Line for the month of. May averaged 4,8.13, an increase of 22 trips, less than 1 % over the month of April. The line has increased by 336 daily trips or 8% from a year ago May 2406. 100 . 95 90 85 =- m 80 -` a 75 ':--- On Time Performance (95% Goal) Inland Empire Orange County Line. 70 L ADO OHO Ao 4) o) OHO A§ 06 01 AAAAA a� . �J� �J PJ� Q per'` �c§�o, Oe� �a� <cer 46' c 'R9 4a� Month May on -time performance averaged 97% southbound ( + 5% from April) and 93% northbound (no change from April). There were 18 delays greater than five minutes during the month of May. The following are primary causes: Agenda Item 7A Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations 17% 28% 17% 38% 91 Line Passenger Trips 91 Line 2,800 2,600 w 2,400 T.: 2,200 ~ 2,000 `o It 1,800 1,600 1,400 00 p0 p0 00 00 •00 00 00 A'l 01 01 61 01 �a� �J� �� PJ� �eQ cf" �°, OiG ‘z,`‘ Month ' Daily passenger trips on Metrolink's 91 Line for the month of May averaged 2,34.8 an increase of 33 trips, 1 % more than the month of April. The line has decrease by 78 daily trips or -3 % from a year ago May 2006. On Time Performance (95% Goal) 91 Line 100 O 95 cm • 90 m • 85 l 80 j a 75 1 .r._. _.-T' 00 00 00 00 00 00 Qo 00 0A oA AAAA Q. Se, 0- �° o° �a <c° 47). PQ �Sa Month May . on -time performance averaged 98% inbound (-2% from April) and 96% outbound (-2% from April) There were six delays greater than five minutes during the month of May. The following are primary causes: Signals/Track/MOW Dispatching Mechanical Operations Agenda Item 7A 4 • Connecting Transit Service Performance The Commission's role facilitating interconnectivity between . Metrolink and connecting transit services is essential to ongoing viability of system. Such services address the needs of transit dependent riders as well as help mitigate congestion and the necessity for expensive parking capacity at the stations. The Commission is working to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of transit connections. In order to meet these requirements, the Commission has worked with Metrolink and local transit operators to offer connecting services to , and d from Riverside County Metrolink stations at no cost for those with valid Metrolink tickets. Within Riverside. County, services include free transfers to routes operated by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), RTA's Commuter Link service and the Corona Cruiser. The following graphs show total monthly Metrolink transfer passenger trips on each of the three services. Passenger Trips RTA Fixed Route Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's connecting fixed routes (1, 15, 16, 21, 29, 3, and 38). totaled 2,348 for the month of May, an increase of four trips, 0.17% more than the month of April. Monthly trips have decreased by 20 or -0.84% over the past fiscal year. 7,000 tl, 6,400 �- 5,800 F- 0 5,200 * 4,600 4,000 SI° 06 ,Ao °Ao ,0 �oA tat � 5�Q o� �° pe �a �a•�� PQ 41' Month Agenda item 7A Passenger Trips RTA Commuter Link Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on RTA's Commuter Link routes (202, 204, 20.6, and 208) totaled 6,213 for the month of May, an increase of 588 trips, 10.45% more than the month of April. Monthly trips have increased by 2,558 . or, 69.99% over the past fiscal year. This is primarily attributed to the addition of new buses toy address demands on route 206 and improve on -time performance. a 0 41 Passenger Trips Corona Cruiser Month Monthly Metrolink transfer trips on the Corona Cruiser totaled 621 for the month of May, an :increase of 77 trips or 14.15 % more than the month of: April. Monthly trips have increased by 377 or 154.51 % over the past fiscal year. This is partially attributed to the development and distribution of a promotional brochure it December and improved driver retention. Attachments: 1) Metrolink Average Weekday Passenger. Trips 2} Metrolink Schedule Adherence Summary — Weekday Service Agenda Item 7A 6 uthuo Inn 0,10t4 Pus sWe1 toPR! 8Ay %Z - %£• %8 %Z %L l - %b %Z- %L %I.- 90 Aelty sn LO Aew e8uetio % ... % L % L %0 %£ %09 %0 % 1- %0 %£ LO AV SA Lo rteiry. e6ueyo % %l LLtt`£tt 8tP£'Z £L8't £89'9 10£19 9L9 901'ZL 8££'L £LZ'b � LOAeLN %0 i 698`Zt7 91.£1Z L6L't 6917`9 866't 9L9 °an. £t£'L LLO`V LO adb. %9 £L6RZtt 1ZZ'Z St 9117 Z61719 6Z6't ` £LL L9£'ZI. 66Z'2. VOL`tr LO JgW %Z I. 96£`Zt7 86Z`Z LOL`tt LStr`9 9Z8'V 9L9 �1.89 ZZ L'Z l 8L L'L 9£ L ` 7 LO qed %6 S60`I.17 Lb£'Z LOL'V L£1,'9 980'tr L£611.1. 096'9 Z961£ . L0Uer L %O- Zb8`L£ £99'L POZ`ti LL8'9 09Z`t� 9LS 9L6'0L t=89'9 ZZS`£ 90 *ea.. %l- 981`Zt7 Z604Z 9ZL't rZL919 OZO'S 1V9 .OL 15O`ZL ~ ` Z171.4L 9£6`£ . 90 AoN %0 '0£S`Zti 9tZ'Z 9£5`17 199'9 096't� L L6Z'ZL. LSL'L +ZLL'L OLO't 90 PO -_. %Z 'L5£`Zb 9Lt`Z 989'tr 91 7'9 90L't V Z99 80Z`ZL l£0'tt 90 deS %1.- '06£` 147 -'bZt'Z 9691? 86£`9 LOS'b ZZ9 £99' 1 L 81.Z4L . OM'£ 90 6ny. %0 8064Ltr �£8t''Z . t'8V'117 91.9'9 8Li'b L£9 L 89' L L 69Z'L 000't 90 Inf %Z- oeotp Z9£'Z +V8£`1, ££9'9 SZ9't 999 996' 11 Z6Z'L 39 V17 90 un` %'b 179eZtt 9Zt>`Z LLt't 099'9 99L'V £99 1:2£'ZL 99n t'LZ'b 90 AeW ..,,. ...i. _R' ",.,�'`., ,� :rt^ G' i. %"4 r 1,. t �{•'1 'JJ:'" a .Ar v^' ,G, •. Y.. .,F .� Sz �� .r � a'�}c9 :43, 4..¢ � � k. �i.,,. ji� �`�t�{t+ri .�. .: i%., �t !' :a ;a „��iw ��i •:,�. ;�.�,� s T L . • Y.4� �� �� Sy 5 :fit`<S�y,aa ?l..i 3& �esf'S:k ':}:,t k:5� 1 ^:CC:- •.'�. ,'.'' ;:N 4 r'ig #7., �t(^� �,..{,��! .2;.�'nrrE�' I •41�1'}I,4 �}+;ey-�; tams.., ""A X •r�•rr ';t-. t:•. �-: � j,,;.TS .!- • t'bl` . ;.. f;.�` �' ¢M [ .�� ICR '.' �i^.. x;_.cr.• vR!d , . 4. 3'1'ky1 .^N'^`f"N'g-"'•;•': ^zV r` :, �f Yt1 :A . st" • e r le �S S'.5.�3K'A �' iU 7��. i �s¢ . tie: ,t �� r �t�..�� C,1... i e „ 9�M. _ 7� .. �L - �" • a31S[1Pad AVOI`lOH • MOONIM HiNOW N331211H1 Sd12�1 N99N3SSdd AVI 133M 3OVIGAV NN11M113UV • maNOWE4-10 %oL6 %96 %L6 %96 %00l %tr6 %66 .uogelnoled euM-uo 8Ui ul pepnloul lou eae et-IMA Pellnuuv •ual;supiel to mod 1e ewp-u0 east Aet0 i0 peueplsuoo ete sule4 peleup. uai •sAelep emenepea o,ti spew ueed eney stueu enfpe oN %96 %96 %96 %001. 4yzio Atira %00l %66 ! %96 %L6 %tr6 %S6 %96 °%06 rt.1,1 eulell pope°! xeed LO aey1. awls, pomp:Ape to *mum S WPM u!nl.wd sulil pored plead %096 %96 %L6 %96 %96 %£6 %L6 %S6 %L6 %16 %Bfi %L6 .%66 %L6 %96 %tr6 %tr6 %L6 %L6 • LO AgW %96 %96 %l6 %96 %OW. %£6 %ZS . %96 • %96 %96 %66 %L6 %66 f£6 %96 %66 %£6 %£6 %Le • %66 LO•Jdy %tr6 4%56 %1/6 %S6 %Z6 %l6 %tr6 %136 % %96 %96 %L6 %L,6 %96 %LS %98 %£8 ' . %66 %L6 LO fsW % 5 6 %S6 %96 % 0 0 1 %tr6 %S6 %tr6 %86 ' %S6 % %99 _°%179 %L6 %001 %96 %L6 %Se %L6 %L6 %L6 LO qed %S6 %S6 %56 %OOl %L6 %56 °%06 %L6 %Z6 %16 %96 %96 %oL6 %L6 %£6 %96 %96 %66 - - .' :LO uef: %Sfi %tr6 %56 %96 %96 °%t76 %96 %tr6 % ..%16 % %99 %16 %96 %96 %L6 %tr6 %S6 %96 %L6 90.0ea C( % l 6 %l6 %06 °%£6 %£6 °%L9 %Z6 %69 %99 % ' %96 %S6 %16 %16 %Z6 % l 6 %69 %99 90 noN %96 %96 %16 %96 %tr6 %96 %56 %96 %56 %66 %L6 %96 % 0 0 1 %tr6 %96 %06 %96 %96 %00l k .9010O %S6 %tr6 %S6 7%96 %96 %99 %99 %96 %Z6 %96 %96 7026 %66 r°/056 %tr6 °%56 %96 %96 %96 %96 90 des %otr6 %S6 °%tr6 %S6 %Z6 Y %Z6 %Z6 %Se %16 %96. %S6 %66 %96 %t>6 °%£6 °%t6 %96 %L6 90 Env %S6 %56 %96 %S6 %tr6 %Z6 °%tr8' %176 %06 %L6 %96 %96 %96 %176 %96 • r °%176 • %tr6 %96 • %96 9010 %£6 %£6 %.Pt % L 9 % S 9 % L 9 %179 • %69 %tr6 + %tr6 %S6 %16 %96 - %96 %96 %96. %/6 °%£6 °%S6 90 uhr %96 %S6 %96 %96 %£6 %£6 %96 %L6 . %tr6 %16 %1r6 %56 %S6 %176 %96 %96 %L6 %S6 %96 9O AeW ' ,_ i ^. ..: q - . � . :. � ., .. Jr .•.S. ��^ ki '.: .. t ' `•, � 1JC... p �, '. G � f . r� <, 1. ,. 1 1n v : 'yt 7 M: tl'� � `� •; �..� lr •.tf'Y'•' -.4f e.'S. `�. fit:... .� �� 1M1.�� .•+".vtc'�.. .�4 } •. �� dy ... .� n :i ., ,\...i •.0 .aa /':u: «.�. k. �'.. :> v7 ,. , 9 �' !1• i C L. P' • a 1K '� , 'AY. �f • ..a , ..z �, ,:.. 1.,.r � .� �,. ,, , .�, r a. , .,1s , ..... _ ..., ..., .�,r. ,. � ,.. ,.�,.. ,., �:.... i.f .. ,... c. ;. . .,. :.. ... i...�., x I d h s`.� .rf. . �✓ t,a ..F ti .i, ,i �. .. ... .'•...... .. .. ..r ,.. -,,� ....,.. r �r .. .. �. w ... ... �......,. �.. ,1 , , s,, \ dl f ?� n.: }..1�.. ,K ', Y. . 7+ ., � 0�1 .b.. � t ��• y.2 a i. �. r; ! \; •A•+ •F, �:.,.. .r.. FV :.i,': ;N• r, v ,e 7. i' 4,. . � hf -i,� ::,.4.n. . t.n .r" `•A ,. +, . , •_f: .....v'� d`,.:j, .7'. ;..�.: �", Y.«,. ,., .r ..,,..... .. ,,. _ .�yn',^y. _ µ .i.Ja_. �. e�'�- .�i �, .� , .�., �. � . ... �lL _. �.?f 1 ..� .v. .. ,.r 7 .. .;. b k n s X 1 {r �� � .Yr 1 •� xec' �J '1 fr t, i :c•� JF.: A: �k`� . A•s, � ... 7.'...v ...s�fl�. .yT7!„G .. �. F�. .,, ., : t� � �F2 #" �' � � } . , ,� 1� 1: r�. ;' � `. •:•/ Ili. -e.. w.. 6�` t., 'S ;i K+G t .,.,.etelT�rt�6".Ai!�.�.,...�'. S 1'Y ... tl �. � � ;. "F, Y a � .� {.' Y. ny� f' ! .. •��i�L'.r�sr.: .: �.. � . .1' � ^ "P1� � t9 ,� �' � • ^i.� � J•M : ,�; r 4 � 9 , .,, 3.. •�a�::,�.. uk• .:. ..., ,y, •1+��+ y 1. r,- �s �:'�? ��' n" } r, .dL. li },.x 1,^. 'j ,.,�. h� 'i•'v a ra•., �( �.�Y�*Yf.,..�.,, ..^... .'.'i'.. \. �, x;:. t .4' .J-: .fl., •�;t, .sr�.3 w :ti< rih� r)' _t„ }. d a � r. .i'4..., .'�� .. � �N. ,' :Y ,, � .Y , ��8i1'.:��. .., .V •er gI i .. ` R H �}'s1t J: � { n �,., .5t{�',�,� '�,%e: :: .'f(iM ._S'c r.0 I- q �r �V. �'�':iJr�. .i;r,�: �,�,,..t _,'.9 ,�. ,r. .tc - �., t -;W� �y� 1 ��- /?'� j _lam N=v fir' �U {j ` yy 4��� ,�•Yr ,., ViA..^�M4. � d�k.-.�A�.-...UNAii/ai.�,.T!-/�% `:' � c !� �? �.,ti.iif ^ 0 .� ,°l',. �t .,. ty�4, e,,,.,' t%Mh�_ ��1+ 3 w �{ ,c` \ t tt ��tt ., �'�'HN�. .�V.1 't�+CAA rr o •+ L' .,l'i c ^t• .�.. .'Z� .Q - �. .�'i, r.SS,e: b'o) ` 4� .. � .,,X��... :.v.74 ..- 1. >.. .�. �. ',4.,. �9 � .�.. r .~� � jjJ( %'.>n :%.�" d ... , l'i,���F.�'�.53.. TT q. ., 'N • SHINOW V.153111i awl! Peinpeyog;o semum S ul4SM Buinla.ly j0 eBewewed 30IAM3S AblaN33M Ativvim s 30N3213HOV mna3HaS }iNnotu 3W AGENDA ITEM 8 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2007 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Sheldon Peterson, Rail Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Interstate 15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Receive and file the draft 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study; and 2) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2005, the Commission completed an evaluation of five potential commuter rail routes within Riverside County. The Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study recommended that two of the five routes be examined in greater detail as possible candidates for future public investment. Those two routes are: • an extension of the Perris Valley Line from south Perris at -215 eastbound through Hemet to San Jacinto; and • an extension of the Perris Valley Line from south Perris at 1-215 southbound along the 1-215 corridor to Temecula and Murrieta. In order to perform a follow-up study, Wilbur Smith Associates was retained; to. evaluate the potential of conventional commuter rail services on two other 1-15 corridors. These are: • Temecula north: between Temecula and points west (via Corona), including Los Angeles and Orange County work centers; and between Temecula and points east (via La Sierra), including Riverside and San Bernardino; and • Temecula south: between Temecula and San Diego. Agenda Item 8 The consultant team was also asked to explore the potential of implementing a commuter rail level of service on the proposed California High -Speed Rail (HSR) system between Temecula and San Diego. The study also quantifies the possible benefits of a Poway station as a destination for Temecula based commuters. Evaluation Criteria Each service alternative scenario is evaluated upon eight criteria that measure its feasibility to satisfy the goals of the study. The matrices developed to rank and compare each alternative are based upon the following Commission approved evaluation criteria: •. Ridership — Passenger Trips • Right -of -Way Issues Operating Cost Per Passenger - Mile Capital Cost (Track, Stations and Equip) • Farebox Recovery Ratio • Mobility Improvements Time Savings • Mobility Improvements Low Income Households • Capital Cost Per Passenger Daily Trip Access to In order to provide an objective assessment of the eight scenarios that result in , a clear explanation of the Study's recommendations, the evaluation . criteria was revised, discussed and agreed upon before any results were developed. The results of the evaluation are attached. Stakeholder Involvement As part of the study development process, an 1-15 Rail Feasibility Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was established to receive information from the consultant team and provide input on the evaluation criteria, data collection, and, ranking of the service extensions. The 1-15 Rail Feasibility TAC was open to both Riverside and San Diego County representatives of local governments; planning agencies, transit agencies, developers, Native Arnerican tribes, and ; social service groups. Several meetings were held at the Temecula City Hall to discuss various details of the project. Suggestions from the 1-15 Rail Feasibility TAC helped to develop the alternative of establishing a modified corridor that would go from Corona to Lake Elsinore as a more cost effective alternative than going all the way to Temecula. The consultant team incorporated this recommendation and included it as part of the analysis. The 1-15 Rail Feasibility TAC members were also able to provide input as to the viability of potential public private partnership opportunities for the routes studied. Agenda 'Item 8 10 • Scenario Rankings Strong indicators of feasible passenger rail service include the following: • Reasonable capital costs per passenger; , • High numbers of forecasted passenger trips in 2030; • High mobility (daily trip time savings); • High farebox recovery ratio; and • Limited right-of-way issues. Seven capital . cost alternatives were developed. The analysis determined that although some of the alternatives did provide for moderate ridership the high capital costs of acquiring new right-of-way and building a completely new rail infrastructure reduced the feasibility of those options. Below is a brief summary of five of the alternatives that were analyzed: • Alternative A with service from Temecula traveling north through Corona has the best trip time savings and moderate ridership. It also. has the second highest price tag of $569 million, the highest capital cost per passenger, and the lowest fare box recovery ratio at 24% Accordingly, Alternative A is not recommended for further analysis at this time. • Alternative C with a shorter extension from Lake Elsinore traveling north has almost as much ridership and trip time savings, and is almost twice the fare box recovery compared to Alternative A. It also . has less than half the implementation costs at $250 million and a much lower cost per passenger. • Alternative Cl travels from Lake Elsinore to Corona, with an additional station at Dos Lagos and thus a few more passenger trips. Alternative Cl scores essentially the same as Alternative C. • While Alternatives C and C 1 score well on a number of, criteria, these alternatives are somewhat inferior to the two commuter rail routes recommended for further analysis in the 2005 Western Riverside County Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. Accordingly, unless implementation costs could be reduced, this study recommends that these two alternatives not progress toward further analysis. Agenda .Item S • Alternative G with commuter rail service from Temecula to San Diego compared the best in terms of passenger trips, passenger trips per train, fare box recovery, access for low income households, and operating costs per passenger -mile. However, its implementation cost of $1.6 billion is three times that of the next highest, Alternative A. Despite the commuter viability, Alternative G is not cost effective as a commuter rail scenario. However, it remains a preferred alignment of the California HSR program which anticipates state bond funding to complete the project. In the interim, discussions are ongoing between the Riverside Transit Agency and the San Diego Association of Governments regarding the implementation of express bus and bus rapid transit along the corridor. Conclusion Based on the eight approved evaluation criteria and analysis, the evaluated. scenarios do not offer a cost effective or viable commuter rail extension at this time As demographics and population trends change for specific areas, the.. feasibility of these routes could be re-evaluated. Attachment: Draft 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study - Executive Sumrnary Agenda Item 8 12 DRAFT I-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study' Executive Summary Background In 2005, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC) completed an - evaluation of five potential commuter rail routes within Riverside County. That study, the RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, recommended that two of those five routes be , examined in greater detail as possible candidates for future public investment. Those two routes are 1) an extension of the Perris Valley Line from South Perris at 1-215 eastbound through Hemet to San Jacinto, and 2) an extension Perris Valley Line from South Perris at 1-215 southbound along the 1-215 corridor to Temecula and Murrieta. In order to perform a follow-up study, Wilbur Smith Associates was 'retained to evaluate the potential of conventional commuter rail services on ; two. other 1715 corridors. These are: • Temecula North between Temecula and points west (via Corona), including Los Angeles and Orange County work centers; and between Temecula and points east (via La Sierra), including Riverside and San Bernardino • Temecula South: between Temecula and San Diego. The consultant also was asked to explore the potential of implementing a commuter rail level of service on the proposed California High -Speed Rail (HSR) system between Temecula and San Diego. Currently, the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is studying the ridership potential. of a statewide High Speed Rail (HSR). The MTC .effort is pursuant to the Program Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). developed for the California High -Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) in 2004 That report assessed the potential capital costs for building the HSR system, inclusive of a Los Angeles -Riverside -San Diego segment. The current ridership estimate assumes 49 daily trains between Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego, with 108,000 daily passenger trips, including peak :commute :period trips, within Southern California'. ' A region defined here as the jurisdictions _ of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 13 DRAFT 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential of conventional commuter rail services on twocorridors, one to the north of Temecula towards Corona along 1-15 and the other to the south. Regarding the former, this study looks at various' commuter rail alternatives operating between 1) Temecula and Los Angeles, 2) Temecula .and Orange County work centers, and 3) Temecula and San Bernardino. Regarding the latter, the study explores the conventional commuter rail potential between Temecula and San Diego. The study's purpose of exploring the use of the HSR system for commuter trips between Temecula and San Diego changed during the course of the study. This was a result ofa change in previous HSR assumptions, which currently call for a higher level of, service in the Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego segment: In all, 36 trainsare planned for the peak periods. This means there would be 18 in the morning peak period, of which 9 trains would be southbound. Such a high service ` level obviated the need to explore using of HSR as a commuter option, as clearly it would be one if HSR were implemented as envisioned. Accordingly, the study shifted to explore the intraregional ridership of six peak period "limited stop" HSR round trips and two mid -day round trips stopping at a conceptual Poway station at SR 56, in addition to the planned HSR stations. Regarding the Poway station, the study's presumption at the outset was that many Temecula area commuters would use the station as a destination. The Wilbur Smith Associates team was supported by Cambridge Systematics and Schiermeyer Consulting Services. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of city staff and transportation and planning agencies, Native American tribes and private developers — provided input and feedback on study findings. Service Options The conventional commuter rail service options studied are identified in Figure "Temecula North At the outset, the study team considered three potential commuter rail options running north from Temecula. All options assumed 16 weekday trains: six AM peak trains, six PM peak trains and four mid -day trains. Specific service cases included: 14 DRAFT 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Figure 1 Study Routes Los Angeles N. Main Corona Laguna Miguel NORTH NOT TD SCALE NORTH ows Temecula to Los Angeles Ternecula to l aguria-Niguel Temecula to San Bernardino SOUTH AuBsTer necula to San Diego: Commuter Rail and HSR .. Existing Rail Lines San Bernardino Lake Elsinore 15 DRAFT I-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study • Case 1: half of trains operate between Temecula and Los Angeles, andthe other half operate between Temecula and Laguna Niguel; this is known as the Base Case. On the Corona -Temecula extension, new stations would be at Temecula, Bundy Canyon Road, Nichols Road and Temescal Canyon Road. • Case 2: all trains operate between Temecula and Laguna Niguel. New stations would be the same as in Case 1. • Case 3: all trains operate between Temecula and Los Angeles.: New stations would be the same as in Case 1. After subsequent consideration by the TAC and RCTC staff, five more service cases were added. These were: • Case 4: half of trains operate between Temecula and Los Angeles, and the other half operate between Temecula and Laguna Niguel. One additional new station is assumed at the Dos Lagos development just south of Corona. • Case 5: all trains operate between Temecula and Laguna Niguel. New stations would be the same as in Case 4, with Dos Lagos. • Case 6: all trains operate between Temecula and Los Angeles. New stations would be the same as in Case 4, with Dos Lagos. • Case 7: All trains operate between Temecula and San Bernardino. New stations would be the same as in Case 1, without Dos Lagos. • Case 8: All trains operate between Temecula and San Bernardino: New stations would be the same as in Case 4, with Dos Lagos. Temecula South The team considered just one conventional commuter rail service case running south from Temecula: 16 trains between Temecula and downtown San Diego, with stops at Escondido, Poway at SR 56, Mira Mesa, Old Town and the San Diego Depot, The evaluation of the Poway HSR station also assumed 16 HSR trains stopping there in 2030. Ridership Forecasts The first step in the analysis was to forecast the Year 2030 ridership for the eight conventional commuter rail service cases running north from Temecula, the one conventional commuter rail service case running south from Temecula, and the 16 • • DRAFT 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study, HSR limited stop service case with a stop at Poway. The forecasts for the conventional commuter rail options north and south of Temecula and for the limited stop HSR service were done using different methodologies, as explained below. Temecula North The forecast of the first eight cases used the same methodology employed in the 2005. RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study2. The intent was to develop, ridership forecasts that can be compared apples -to -apples with the forecasts of the conventional commuter rail services evaluated in the 2005 study. The forecasting methodology reflects the assumption that people are drawn, to commuter rail if they must make longer trips, especially if there are frequent trains available to encourage and support convenient trip -making. In other words, the longer the trip and the more frequent the headways, the more riders find commuter rail an attractive option. Table 1 shows the peak period and ail -day forecasts of 2030 passenger trips generated at the proposed extension stations. The extension trains would generate additional ridership between existing Metrolink stations as a result of the additional frequencies they provide. Table 1 Temecula North Commuter Rail Ridership Forecast in 2030 Temecula North Case Service Stations A.M Peak All -day 1 Split Service (Base Case) 4 899 989. 2 All Temecula Trains to Los Angeles 4 957 1,052 3 All Temecula Trains to Laguna Niguel 4 999 1,099 4 Split service (Base Case) 5 942 1,037 5 All Temecula Trains to Los Angeles 5 1,003 1,104 6 All Temecula Trains to Laguna Niguel 5 1,047 1,152 7 All Temecula Trains to San Bernardino 4 1,003 , 1,104' 8 All Temecula Trains to San Bernardino 5 1,059 1,165 Split service assumes trains'originating in Temecula are destined for both Los Angeles and Laguna Niguel. Los Angeles trains carry riders transferring to IEOC Line trains at Corona. Laguna Niguel trains carry riders transferring to 91 Line trains at Corona. San Bernardino trains carry riders transferring to 1E0C and 91 Line trains at La Sierra. Cases 4-6 and 8 assume an additional station at Dos Lagos. 2 The methodology used wasdeveloped originally to support the 2004 Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment commissioned by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and refined during the subsequent 2007 Metrolink Commuter Rail Strategic Assessment. Commuter rail ridership forecasts in both studies were based on estimates of the commutermarket share or mode split which commuter rail reasonably could be expected to achieve, assuming various levels of train frequency, travel distance and congestion on parallel road systems. 17 DRAFT 145 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Atthis level of specificity, the differences in ridership among the service cases are small to the. point of not being statistically significant. Temecula South For a forecast of 2030 weekday passenger trips generated by a conventional commuter rail service operating between Temecula and San Diego, the study team used a statewide ridership and revenue forecasting model developed for the California High -Speed Rail Authority and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. This statewide model was developed to support evaluation of high- speed rail alternatives in the State of California. It is a fully multimodal model capable of; forecasting air, commuter rail and highway alternatives as well as high- speed rail. Table 2 below shows the forecasts of weekday boarding's by station in 2030. Table 2 Temecula -South Commuter Rail Weekday Boardings in 2030 Temecula at I-15/1-215 974 Escondido 2.20 Poway at SR 56 279 Miramar 210 Old Town 548 Depot 860 Total 3,090 High -Speed Rail and a Poway Station The team also used the aforementioned HSR model to forecast the ridership of a limited stop HSR service between Temecula and San Diego. Just considering the ridership generated by the 16 limited stop HSR peak and mid -day trains at the study area stations, the forecast in Table 3 shows that the Poway station would have 242 average weekday boarding's in 2030. The majority of these trips would be made by high-speed rail riders who would be using a different station, if the Poway station did not exist. Thus, there is no significant increase in total riders with the inclusion of the Poway station. This is likely because high-speed rail serves longer distance trips more effectively, so the system does not need to have ; as many stations to be effective in serving these longer distance trips. . 18 DRAFT I-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Table 3 Temecula -South HSR Weekday Boarding's In 2030, with a Poway Station Temecula 1,297 Escondido 411 Poway . 242 University City 340 San Diego 1,515 Total 3,805 It is important to note as well that a Poway station would serve a larger market than just trips to those stations cited in Table 3 as the limited .stop trains would also stop at other HSR stations in Southern, Central and Northern California. Accordingly, it appears that a Poway station would.. generate about 4,000 boarding's and alightings, or passenger trips, per weekday in 2030, most of which would have occurred at other stations if the Poway station was not built. Capital Costs With potential ridership ranges identified in Table 1, the study team began its analysis of more specific alternative routes and conceptual capital costs for the purpose of a comparative evaluation to identify the most cost effective option. These included two alternatives to limit the southward Temecula extension to Lake Elsinore in order to shorten line construction and thus minimize costs. Also the capital cost alternatives explore the potential of connecting to the 1-15 right-of-way at different locations. Furthermore, the alternatives oriented to the west assume Base Case operations: with half of trains operating to Los. Angeles and the other half operating to Laguna Niguel. Thus, the alternatives discussed below .represent a subset of the eight ridership service cases and explore different approaches to travel along the same general corridor, including various station options. Temecula North Capital costs at a conceptual level were developed for seven separate alternatives for commuter rail operations on Temecula -Corona Corridor. The costs are discussed below. The estimates reflect factors unique to each alternative. The alternatives considered are: 19. DRAFT 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study • Alternative A - From the junction with the BNSF Transcon at Porphyry .Wye just east of the North Main Corona Metrolink Station, this alternative is 35.3 miles long and runs the length of the corridor to Temecula. From north to south, the route would make use of the right-of-way of the former Atchison' Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (Santa Fe) branch line as far as the Alberhill residential development south of Lake Street in Lake Elsinore. It would then use a new right-of-way east of the development to reach Nichols Road, before entering the 1-15 right-of-way for its southward run to Temecula: The four new stations for this alternative would be at Temescal Canyon Road just east of the 1-15 over crossing, Nichols Road, Bundy Canyon Road and Temecula/Murrieta. Corona would serve as a transfer station for riders not carried directly to destinations by trains from Temecula. • Alternative B - This alternative is much the same as Alternative A. The major difference is that the rail alignment would enter the:1-15 right-of-way at Lake Street, about three miles north on 1-15 from. Nichols Road. The. length ofihe alignment and the stations would be the same. i; Alternative C - At 15.7 miles, this is a short alternative, with a southern terminus at Lake Street. There would be just two stations one at Temescal Canyon Road and the other at Lake Street; riders from points farther south in the 1-15 corridor could board trains at Lake Street. Alternative C would also be a less complicated alternative to build, since it would make use of what is left of the original Santa Fe right-of-way. This alternative would have much of the same ridership as Alternative A, except that the trips between the two southern most stations would be lost, as those stations would not be included in this shorter alternative. Alternative Cl This alternative is the same as Alternative C, with ,the addition of another new station at Dos Lagos. The additional station would result in a small increase in ridership versus to Alternative C. Alternative, D - This alternative is the same as Alternative A, with the addition of another new station at Dos Lagos. • Alternative E - This alternative assumed that all six trains depart Temecula in the morning peak and terminate in San Bernardino, ratherthan in Los Angeles, Laguna Niguel, or both. Thus, it assumed the reestablishment of the east leg of the Porphyry Wye, connecting the existing BNSF branch line with the Transcon, and the relocation of railcar storage tracks which lie across where the east leg used to be. The alternative runs 35.3 miles. La Sierra would serve as a transfer station for riders not carried directly to . destinations by trains from Temecula. • Alternative F - This alternative is like Alternative E, with another new station at Dos Lagos. 20 • • DRAFT 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study A summary of the conceptual cost estimates for all seven alternatives appears in Table 4 on the following page. Most unit costs used to calculate total category costs were the same as assumed for the 2005 I-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. Costs for items that were assumed here but were not part of the 2005 analysis were developed separately. Cost Summaries and Short Listing the Alternatives Total conceptual capital cost estimates, including such soft costs as engineering and construction management as well as contingencies, were in a wide range. The high side is represented by Alternative B, which assumed the greater use of the 1- 15 right-of-way, from Lake Street to 1-15/1-215 in Temecula/Murrieta. The low side is represented by Alternative C, with a terminus near Lake Elsinore. The five longer alternatives (A. B, D. E and F) essentially cover the same area. They differ from each other in minor ways. Of the five, Alternative A was selected for further . evaluation in this study, as it showed to be potentially :the least expensive to implement. Alternative C and Alternative Cl also were retained, as these appeared to be the simplest and easiest to construct, while still providing a viable option to potential riders throughout the corridor. 21 DRAFT 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Table 4 Temecula Extension Total Conceputal Capital Costs - $ in Millions (includes engineering and contingencies) Alternative and Length (miles) A B C C1 D E F Cost Element (35.3) (35.3) (15.7) (15.7) (35.3) (35.3) (35.3) Track . 34.0 34.0 16.0 16.0 34.0 34.6 34.6 Turnouts 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.3 At grade, highway rail crossings 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 Structures 181.7 214.7 22.1 22.1 181.7 181.7 181.7 Drainage 3.2 3.2 1.4 1.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 Stations 32.0 32.0 16.0 24.0 40.0 32.0 40.0 Signals 41.1 40.8 21.0 21.0 41.1 41.6 41.6 Earthwork . ' 7.4 6.5 5.5 5.5 7.4 7.4 7.4 Right-of-way 24.7 21.3 19.5, 19.5 25.6 24.7 25.6 Specialty tems 0.6. 0.6 3.1 3.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 Estimated Construction Costs 327.3 355.7 107.1 115.1 336.2 328.7 337.6 EMDCM" (15% of Construction) 49.1 53.4 16.1 17.3 50.4 49.3 50.6 Subtotal 376.3 409.0 123.2 132.4 386.6 378.0 388.3 Contingenies (30% of Subtotal) 98.2 106.7 32.1 34.5 100.8 98.6 101.3 Total Estimated Costs"` 474.5 515.7 155.3 166.9 487.4 476.6 489.5 Equipment 94.8 94.8 94.8 .94.8 94.8 94_8 94.8 Total Estimated Capital Costs 569.3 610.5 250.1 261.7 582.2 571.4 584.3 Alternative Description A Corona -Temecula, entering 1-15 at Nichols Road at Lake Elsinore B Corona -Temecula, entering 1-15 at Lake Street at Lake Elsinore C Corona -Lake Street at Lake Elsinore Cl Corona -Lake Street at Lake Elsinore with additional station at Dos Lagos D Same as A, with additional station at Dos Lagos E San Bemardino-Temecula, entering 1-15 at Nichols Road at Lake Elsinore F Same as E, with additional station at Dos Lagos Notes: ' EMDCM = Engineering/Mobilization/Demobilization/Construction Management ** Includes EMDCM and Contingencies Subtotals reflect rounding which may cause some variance Temecula ;South Alternative G assumes conventional commuter rail operations between Temecula and downtown San Diego. As with the other alternatives, this assumes 16 trains: six AM peak period southbound trains, the reverse in the evening peak, and two - mid -day round trips. This alternative is 66 miles long. As this alternative follows the proposed HSR alignment, the study team followed as closely as possible the costing methodology adopted for the Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs report for the California High -Speed Rail Authority" (June 2004). A summary of estimated capital costs for Alternative G appear in Table 5 below in a format which tracks the format used in the earlier HSR capital cost estimate. 22 • DRAFT 1-15 Commuter RailFeasibility Study Table 5 Temecula South HSR Total Conceptual Costs - $ in Millions (Includes engineering and contingencies) Alternative G (66 Miles) Cost Element Cost Track 49.5 Earthwork and Related Items 19.2 Structures/Tunnels/Walls 688.9 Grade Separations 27.5 Building Items (Stations) 44.0 Rail and Utility Relocation 18.1 Right -of -Way (ROW) 137.9 Environmental Mitigation 27.9 Signals and Communication 61.6 Vehicle Costs 94.8 Support Facility Costs 20.0 Program Implementation Costs (15% of Construction) 178.4 Contingencies (30% of Construction) 278.6 Total Construction Costs 928.8 Construction, ROW, Enviro. Mitigation, Vehicle Costs 1,189.4 Constr., ROW, Enviro, Vehicles, Prg. Impl., Contingencies 1,646.5 High -Speed Rail and a Poway Station The only capital cost assumed for this option is the cost of an additional station at Poway. This is because such a station is not included in the current system plans of the HSRA. As noted, an initial presumption of this study was that many Temecula area commuters would use a Poway station as a destination. The 2004 Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs report cited a cost .for a March Air Force Base (AFB) station at $27 million, plus another $2 million for surface parking. Including contingencies and "soft costs"` for design and implementation, a total cost for the March AFB station would be about $43 million. Ample undeveloped land would facilitate construction of a HSR station there. As undeveloped land appears to exist in the vicinity of 1-15 and SR 56, where a Poway station could be located, a similar cost figure would seem a reasonable amount to assume for a Poway station. Although a Poway HSR station could generate about 4,000 boarding`s and alighting per day in 2030, the ridership .forecast showed that the majority of trips generated by a Poway station would be made by HSR riders who would be using a 23 DRAFT I-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study different station, if the Poway station did not exist. Since this station would not address any commuter needs from Temecula, further examination of a Poway HSI1 station does not appear merited at this time. Evaluation The 2005 commuter rail study utilized nine criteria to evaluate five commuter "rail` service options. The same evaluation criteria are used for this study, so as to produce an apples -to -apples comparison of the options. Alternatives A, C, C 1 and G are evaluated per the nine criteria, which are shown in Table 6 on the following page. In the table, the feasibility of an alternative .per a specific criterion is summarily assessed with a "Harvey 'Ball". That is, .the fuller the Harvey Ball, the more feasible the performance. Eight of the evaluation criteria were quantitative, that is, a numerical result could be determined for each alternative per each criterion. One was qualitative; meaning that the evaluation of the alternatives per this criterion were subjective, .this is based on the professional judgment of the consulting team. The criteria are described below. For this evaluation, Alternatives A, C and C 1 assume extension trains running to both Los Angeles and Laguna Niguel, as was assumed in the ridership Service Case 1 (the Base Case). • Daily Passenger Trips in 2030: this is a measure of the ridership generated. by the commuter rail services. The purpose of public transit is to attract riders. Therefore, options that generate more riders score better by this measure. Alternative G is clearly superior in this regard. • Daily Passenger Trips per Train in 2030: this is a measure of capacity utilization. Options which put more riders on trains score better on this." measure than those that put less. Again, Alternative G is clearly superior: by this measure. 24 • DRAFT 145 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study 'Table 6 Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria -Commuter Service. ,'4 y.^' " a.. --:4•���r,. �a ? ec`.`. :r - �y.��F.� �r k '� '" Frr Sr ' hie^ ., _ � )5•. ,c fz", y f.-. ,i <oR. - - -: � ' '"4xR-.<f3+, -. i , rh..,rll<.i,"(S �:: a, ., <: fix. .. si..< < r. �s' YF. �. .,5" ...rid . .<.,<�c` .1, .;frSt � �-n�K ,r 0y ��v s , �.. r.}. _ .r d •�� .. �`' �,ir. 7�s u•. a .'.s< Ph £"3» ✓ yl. ��:'. i N.✓ 5 n. ,. h'S. � ' Doi,.. W «.,✓fr. ,.IkIK'is ,s;? � � I3J�� o K tt�3'r ,.<. 4 /r 'st, .:-.s„..,w. h .s::. £�zc t' .s st. �. , „ .3S?.gi�s y,..�„2 ,`� T,k."',r :?i�CYtp�`�: •• i yfl� • �tr m � 7"'�9, � r.`i3 i .1..' �. g, e. " �Sk t -. .Cr r" � � € 'A,s? ^' r �, •x 'crt. � a ' i'<. � x sx," F k ` r€' Y.., , x .. .. ..�<iE w sar ex <7,y,. « n b : "�. < , - :,. AT � •i r " ., .,., s���i<?�iA.ix. a"{$}^ ' F . .': 8.!?t .�� : .„£Sa�� r6ro�'kb ' u "s , <>'•:' :, .:� .'F'sR ., �;y,'yp F K 's�. ..,... <. ,�'�. 1 .3s < .. �`t �^'�3•t .bpi. , 1 ,.. .' rZ.,�i,£, " .r <., i�.: i `& ) •,Y¢`wi ", t '• pi, ' � . i � �i. � �. ,:...i�.�.,.�. !� t5 � � , > a' , " lai . .R..,.. ��/j� � - �«r�� .e� <;� ,...3�.n. ui ;'a< .K {, £.r'R.u;� . '�,'<�:-' '�' w�<<I�a�� ! � �'. P`i:A`s lr<�: .."!'`�`.?3, 3:.`3� � zd��' , �'"[i°F`,. },Jro Y.� 3 6� . t�. :'1. p, t' <., lI 'r>. »:z ' S•`• N..:� rr�'l. j���', ';�i ,l .�}y� N� �`�` { ...z H� > l %1: :i > h7. >5.�'£ <i! .`; i.� � sE � Yi >� �. •t .<.,c�r. .. :},�it<..,yi ....<.. 4 .�,. .. x�s����.yni• .�•�> �fsb� >a;a; ...�, s^� �r�. � .», <H' "F�y,�F �}�{M�eq♦� %£. �r 11; �' .}� ': w 'c ..,if ;5£,f, ,«:� ,ma t E <; (}1"n '.. e�:{`r : �.� %r:�' q� .. t.,l;aui•`$ ...FCC ,' .3.k R '4 5: '.. d;*4 y, sY .s' r. sY.,...E.-.L„3Cr<�?y ,�u..;)��..>;hs�'� >5 _.;. a✓a, fi.s, pp 7;7 .. f rat , 3`i .:;A3 :. k S'.�, °�.::P:` $ l.x •W )fit} x .,{ a..l^..$ O� �I .. 13.... �) 'tiY�"�g%r". r d! .,7r `lQ (j �a��.: 4: ....:. a : f � . Y .. L "/.«R, W:E Zr�<.° ',ib. 1, a..eo:r: i x ,<s 'F b^'&Vk S. ). F' A'p�i {iNk.. �F1�i� :� �;,£, z ✓� i.&f.e { t �� `Ft i.> '"z j, tF' f .,t.�'. 4$ ?e.. :'�'Y i E) r llix7�teat�'�'a�a � :. <'<.s$ � �lIV!' h.:: F£ �S. 5:2 n .. , :x y �>".x, c'�� ..,3., ^�d :,1.:-.. t Yy �s n 4 tlRi{�t�J'�Sl�h'1#'. 3 ni' i: 3 {) S tiger'$' x>. <i• L ) 6 < A m r= Interstate 15 ICommuterl Temecula 36.5 989 Q 62 (1-1; 24% Q Q 456 hours • 28.03% O $0.54 Q $569,3 O $575,632 O C 0` Interstate 15 /Commuter/ Lake Elsinore 17.0 874 Q 55 Q 43% • Q 409 hours • 28.38% O $0.30 III $250,1 •Q $286,156 O Cl y' m a Interstate 15 /Commuter/ Lake Elsinore w/ Dos Lagos Station 17,0 921 ‘I-11;' 58 iiI) 45% II Q 376 hours 411 28.18% O $0.30 S $261.7 © $284,148 0 G Interstate 15 /Commuter/ San Diego 66,4 3,090 • 193 • 50% • Q 146 hours O 42.04% • $0,34 • $1,646.5 a $532,834 O Table Key Feasible Moderately Feasible Q Incremental route miles east or south of North Main Corona. Similar to a cost -benefit ratio, this criterion measures the percentage of estimated operating costs recoverd through estimated fare box revenues. Source; Wilbur Smith Associates and WRCOG data and calculations. Less Feasible Q 25 DRAFT 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study • Fare Box Recovery Ratio: this is a measure of the proportion of operating costs covered by fare revenue'. This is a traditional measure of cost effectiveness used by transit services. Just for the options that are part of the Metrolink system (A, C and C 1), only the operating costs of running north to North Main Corona are counted for this calculation. The calculation for Alternative G is the traditional fare box recovery calculation: total revenues are divided by total operating costs. Even so, its performance is superior to those of Alternatives A, C and Cl, which consider only partial operating costs. The result is due to more riders, who in sum generate more revenue andthus cover more operating costs. • Right -of --Way issue: This is the sole qualitative criterion, meant to capture the degree of difficulty for RCTC to implement passenger rail service in the study corridors or to gain access in existing rights=of way. All four alternatives face major implementation and access issues. For example, A, C and Cl presuppose acquisition of the former Santa Fe right-of-way between Lake Elsinore and south Corona (inclusive of a portion now covered by a golf course) as well as access to the BNSF. Alternatives A and G assume access to the I 15 right-of-way for rail service. Thus, all alternatives appear equal by this measure. Mobility Improvements — Daily Trip Time Savings: This is the measure of time saved by traveling on trains versus driving on area highways, most of which will be plagued with peak period congestion in 2030. Travel time is calculated on a daily (weekday) basis. Minutes saved between points are multiplied by the ridership betweenthe same points, generating total daily savings in 2030. In this regard,: the Temecula North alternatives generate more than twice the hours saved as does the Temecula South alternative. Of the . Temecula North options, Alternative A scores the best, a result of carrying more, riders farther. • Mobility Improvements — Access to Low Income Households: This is measured by reference to income levels of residents located in catchment areas within five miles of proposed stations. Here Alternative G, the Temecula South option, scores best. • Operating Cost per Passenger -Mile: This criterion captures the estimated operating cost required to carry a passenger one mile.. 3 Operating costs were estimated by multiplying train -miles by the $41.31 per train -mile figure used in the 2005 commuter rail study. The cost figure was developed by Metrolink. Revenue was estimate by multiplying Metrolink-like fares by passenger -miles, just as was done in the 2005 study. 26 • DRAFT I-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study However, for the Temecula North options (Alternatives A, C and C1)., operating costs only include the cost of operating north to Corona. On the other hand, passenger -miles for these options are calculated from origin to ultimate destination, which for the most part are west or east of Corona. This is a different calculation than for Alternative G, wherein total operating costs (a much bigger number) are divided by total passenger -miles. Just comparing the Temecula North options, Alternatives C and C 1 do better. This is because operating costs of Alternative A are more than twice those of Alternatives C and C 1, while passenger -miles of Alternative A are only 16 percent more than those of Alternatives C and C 1. • Capital Costs: These are the absolute costs of implementing the alternatives. for this evaluation, Alternatives C and Cl are superior, a result of shorter line construction. • Capital Costs per Passenger: This is total capital costs divided by daily (weekday) one-way passenger trips. Alternatives C and Cl are: superior, a result of ridership nearly the same as Alternative A but with less than half the implementation cost. Summary Conventional Commuter. Rail Alternatives Alternative A with service from Temecula North through Corona has the best trip . time savings. It also has the second highest price tag, the highest capital cost per passenger, and the lowest fare box recovery. Alternative C with a shorter extension from Lake Elsinore north has almost as much ridership and trip time savings, but it has less than half the implementation costs and cost per passenger and almost twice the fare box recovery compared to Alternative A. Alternative. C 1, which travels from Lake Elsinore to Corona with an additional station at Dos Lagos and thus a few more passenger trips, scores essentially the same as Alternative C. Alternative G with commuter rail service from Temecula to San 'Diego does the .best in terms of passenger trips, passenger trips per train, fare box recovery, access for low income households, and operating costs per passenger -mile. However, its implementation cost is three times that of the next highest, Alternative A. 27 DRAFT 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study While Alternatives C and C1 score well on a number of criteria, these alternatives on balance are somewhat inferior to the two commuter rail routes recommended for further analysis in the 2005 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study. Accordingly, unless implementation costs could be reduced, this study recommends that these two alternatives do not progress toward further analysis. Also because of their high implementation costs, Alternatives A and G are not recommended for further analysis at this time. As demographics and population trends change for specific areas, the feasibility of these routes could be re-evaluated in the future. Public Private Partnership It is worth noting that RCTC has been approached by Local developers to explore the potential of public private partnerships concerning new commuter rail services on the I-15 corridor. A . concept to lower overall capital costs for Alternatives C and C1 (Lake Elsinore options) would be potential public -private partnerships, where private developers help fund or donate right of way and contribute to the overall capital costs. One such concept could reduceimplementation costs for Alternative Cl by $1 13.2 million — assuming that developers provide or fund the right-of-way requirements, the stations, and contribute $-50 million to rolling stock requirements. This approach would make the service more cost efficient and could increase the viability of the project. 28 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study: Corona -Temecula and Temecula -San Diego 2005 Feasibility Study VENTURA COUNTY *Ventura METROLINK LINES Ventura County Line Antelope Valley Line San Bemardino Line Riverside Line Orange County Lino Inland Empire!Orange County Line 91 Line (Riverside, Fullerton, Downtown LA) * Future Perris Valley Extension SERVICE ALTERNATIVES Lancaster LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles Union Station 1. Commuter Rail, UPRR, Riverside - Banning 2. Commuter Rail, UPRR. Riverside - Indio 3. Commuter Rail, PVL, Perris- San Jacinto 4. Intracounty Rail, PVL, Riverside - Can Jacinto 5. Commuter Rail, Winchester, Perris- Temecula 6. Intracounty Rail, Winchester, Riverside- Temecula 7. Commuter Rail, 1-215, Perris -Temecula 8. Intracounty Rail, I-215. Riverside - Temecula RCTC Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Map ORANGE COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY San Bernardino #� Jr. Ass,..armin 7ct Beaumarn a ® ter. iverside ■ Perris a 1. fir. r 2. San Jacinto •- 1 7. 5. 8. **d 6. Temecula San Juan Capistrano Oceanside RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY T N 1-15 Study Purpose • Examine Ridership, Operations, and Cost to determine feasibility of implementation of Commuter Rail Service • Establish estimates for the physical, operational, and financial feasibility of a major capital investment along the routes Evaluation Criteria 1. Passenger trips in 2030 2. Passenger trips per train 3. Fare box recovery ratio 4. Right-of-way issues 5. Mobility improvements time savings 6. Mobility improvements —access to low income housing 7. Operating costs per passenger -mile 8. Capital costs (track, stations, equipment) 9. Capital cost per passenger 1-15 Study Route Los Angeles Study Routes N. Main Fukrton Corona Santa Ana Oreansida NORTH M1V1iU KIut LEGEND NORTH tam -Temecula to Los Angeles Temecula to Laguna Niguel OM Temecula to San Bernardino SCUT+ Temecula to San Diego: Commuter Rail and NSR — Ex sting Rail Lines San Bernardino Riverside South Perris Lake Elsinore Temecula Escondido Mira Mesa San Diego San Jacinto Corona -Temecula Conventional Assumptions • Service level — 6 peak period round trips — 2 mid -day round trips • Routes (Base Case) — 3 round trips to Los Angeles — 3 round trips to Laguna Niguel — 1 mid -day round trip each to Los Angeles and Laguna Niguel • Sensitivity tests on routes — All trains to either Los Angeles, Laguna Niguel or San Bernardino — An additional station at Dos Lagos Evaluation Candidates • Ridership in 2030 — Around 1,000 passenger trips per weekday • Base Case operating pattern selected — Greater potential to capture more riders between existing Metrolink stations — Consistent with Scope for the Project • 3 of 7 Alternatives chosen for evaluation — Bracket potential capital cost range Alternative A lTemescal Canyon Rd San Juan Capistrano Nichols Rd Alternative A Temecula Extension Access to 1-15 ROW at Nichols Rd Access to 1-15 Row' �a Bundy Canyon Rd Temecula/Rancho Mumeta Mart LEGEND ® 91 tine ...w. Temecula Extension • Stations Alternative C Sanluan CaOtsrrano Riders from Temecula and Murrieta would access trains at Lake St. Alternative C Lake Elsinore Extension Southern Terminus at Lake St mom91Lme ® Lake Elsinore EKtension • Stations Alternative Cl San Juan Capistrano Riders from Temecula and Murrieta would access trains at Lake St. Alternative Cl Lake Elsinore Extension Southern Terminus at Lake S 1� tGt:P;iy 97 Line n- lake Elsinore Extensson ® Stations Access for Low Income Housing RCTC 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study l Household Income Level Map J Legend Household Income Level M ? «» "' whew srw, Y7 te•rconie A. ,te, +14 awawha<ehu» H¢ Buoy LOeM+nHIH,,HI ---- Amry85wHYROHA id -�� striuz.. cry eawrc� H well 014.1.440.1.0.040.1.A. smw4mn.r.hwtl W.sJ..IimneH, wpar ,. Yn mennew. am w w .®.y..Scsf9av 1YHw-twMS. wp.sm tem Corona -Temecula Temecula -San Diego Conventional Assumptions • Ridership in 2030 — 3,000 passenger trips per day • Service level — 6 peak period round trips — 2 mid -day round trips • Route — Assume the HSR alignment — Use LOSSAN Corridor south of Miramar Road Alternative G North San Clemente Temecula/Murr;eta AA- to Tem u Fa 'brook ®#:, San MaKOS L. an. 1 Escondido initasRamona-- 'RancheSari t _ NORTH NOT TO SCALE LEGEND aw Commuter Rail Alignment 0 Stations Palomar MourMain Alternative G Temecula -San Diego Commuter Rail Route Northern Section 5 zs 0 IOmiles Santee rr' iop!LioJ NYSSO1 autertiy suo9e1S O -._. yam. aN3931 camp ues umolumoa umol PIO eum WPM Jopuio3 NVSSO1 uoppas waylnos alnoa iiea Aalnwwoa aam ues-ep aawal g angeuaamy .mil Access for Low Income Housing RCTC Proposed Temecula=; ,an1(Oiego Rail Line Household I nm = "el Map e e Legend Riverside CO MousehWo Income Level Vitry 1.4.1.Et. mir52I.4 )1 ® lAw M4pro/4Y tilde a 331.1101 kW*. IntAmo ISN.3,110 Set W11 MI Nob hicenm te.vae. tan 541.05) San Diego Co Hcusehe4l Income Level N B 11.0.. mamv (t.emeun525.534) eel benvo(SYAW WAS.) at Oedema Me m MV OSS m ete veM El me, ;mom Avow em S55.4511 -- afgmaoeKTC ec uv 'rma®ya 6lyh.syv ASM765aa+Evy Amd+ G.^nt Porn). iw o .ow.a. ut iwrMva mma+ F+w aw u+w c.mwnnwrma mmeacwrct mom vmm nwwwx mom...mem i +.. .m.�m.wohas a.w .. a...w..mar�. ux4u.ee. i. Ompisc ow. a mr•142 n rots mv.. m, Lop . `anm, ay...e,..n.ma Evaluation Scenario Corridor /Service Type/ End Point Route Miles` Passenger Trips In 2030 (Daily) Passenger Trips Per Train (Daily) Fare Box Recovery Ratio'" Right- of- Way Issues Mobility Improvements- Daily Trip Time Savings Access to Low Income Households (Percent) Operating Costs per Passenger - Mile ($) Capital Costs: Track, Stations & Equipment ($ millions) Capital Costs Per Passenger ($) A Interstate 15 36.5 989 62 24% 456 hours 28.03% $0.54 $569.3 $575,632 E' /Commuter/ Q Q Q Q . O Q O O 0 Temecula C C Interstate 15 17.0 874 55 43% 409 hours 28.38% $0.30 $250.1 $286,156 m /Commuter/ Q Q • Q i 0 • Q O I- Lake Elsinore C1 1- >, Interstate 15 !Commuter/ 17 0 921 58 45% hours 376 ho 28.18% $• $Q 7 $2048 d) Lake Elsinore w/ Dos Lagos Station Q Q • Q • O n G Interstate 15 66.4 3,090 193 50% 146 hours 42.04% $0.34 $1,646.5 5532,834 /Commuter/ San Diego • • • Q O • • 0 0 Table Key Feasible • Moderately Feasible Incremental route miles east or south of North Main Corona. Less Feasible O Similar to a cost -benefit ratio, this criterion measures the percentage of estimated operating costs recoverd through estimated fare box revenues. Source: Wilbur Smith Associates and WRCOG data and calculations. 2005 Study Results Table ES-1 Initial Screening and Application of Evaluation Criteria -Commuter Service Scenario Corridor /Service Type/ End Point Route Miles Passenger Trips In 2030 (Daily) Passenger Trips Per Train (Daily) Farebox Recovery Ratio Right- of- Way Issues Mobility Improvements- P Daily Trip Time Savings Access to Low Income Households (Percent) Operating Costs Per Passenger- Capital Costs: Track, Stations& Equipment ($ millions) Capital Costs Per Passenger ($) Mile ($) 1. T Union Pacific Railroad 34.5 768 48 19% 176 hours 43.96% $0.68 5299.9 5390,495 (0 0 /Commuter/ Banning -Beaumont O O Q O Q • Q Q O 2. C Union Pacific Railroad 76.5 2,174 136 22% 124 hours 42.96% $0.63 $544.4 $250,414 i— /Commuter/ Indio • • Q O O • Q O O $. C° 7 Perris Valley Line 16.5 1,338 84 61% 518 hours 44.32% $0.24 $111.5 $83,333 v /Commuter/ Q (II;• • • • • • • NSan Jacinto P 7 Winchester Road 20.5 1,292 81 53% 486 hours 37.76% $0.25 $203.6 $157,585 5. t3' LL /Commuter/ Q Q • Q • Q • Q Q Temecula 0) 7 = 16.5 2,166 135 109% 932 hours 37.23% $0.12 $249.4 $115,143 E /Co • • • Q • Q • Q CICommuter/ (. Temecula Table Key Feasible • Moderately Feasible Q Less Feasible O * Incremental route miles east or south of South Perris, assuming Metrolink's 91 Line service is extended to South Perris. Lek Similar to a cost -benefit ratio, this cdtenon measures the percentage of estimated, incremental operating costs reccrered through estimated, incremetal farebox revenues. Source: RLBA, WSA and WRCOG data and calculations. Study Conclusions • While attractive on several measures, Alternatives C and Cl are still inferior to scenarios recommended for evaluation in the 2005 study - Not recommended for further analysis unless costs can be reduced • Alternatives A and G are more than twice as expensive as C and Cl - Not recommended for further analysis HSR Alternative • 49 trains planned between Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego daily • 108,000 daily riders in 2030 • 16 trains would stop at Poway daily • Estimated cost for a Poway station: $43 million • Boarding and alighting would occur at other HSR stations, if Poway did not exist • Accordingly, further analysis of station not recommended at this time • HSRA will continue to evaluate LA -Riverside -San Diego service. Action Items • Receive and file draft 1-15 Commuter Rail Feasibility Study • Forward to Commission for final action • AGENDA ITEM 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRA NSPOR TA TION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2007 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/08 Allocation of Funding for Riverside County Transit Services and Short Range Transit Plan Action Plan Approval STAFF RECOMMENDATION; This item is for the Committee to: 1) Review and approve the FY 2007/08 through FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) and action plans for the city of Corona (Corona) and Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA); 2) Allocate up to. $270,000 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Funds to the city of Beaumont (Beaumont) pending submittal of its. FY 2007/08 through FY 2009/10 SRTP and action plan; 3) Approve Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) request for a Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) waiver on operating cost per revenue hour thereby resetting it's target to .$76.54; 4) Approve the FY 2007/08 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5307 and 5311 Program of Projects (POP) for Riverside County; 5) Conduct a. public hearing at the July 11, 2007 Commission :meeting on the proposed Section 5307 POP as shown on Attachment.1; 6) Direct staff to add projects into the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan. (RTIP); 7) Approve the FY 2007/08 LTF and State Transit Assistance (STA) .fund allocations for transit as shown in Attachment 2; 8) Approve budget increases to LTF expenditures of $626,200 and to STA expenditures of $474,800; 9) Adopt Resolution No. 08-002, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation- Commission to Allocate State Transit Assistance Funds"; and 10) Forward to the Commission for final action. Agenda, Item 9 29 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At the June 13, 2007 Commission meeting, the FY 2007/08 through FY 2009/10 SRTPs were approved for the city of Banning, city of Riverside Special Services;,; SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program. The SRTP for RTA was approved in concept pending the receipt ;o f additional information regarding RTA's request for a PIP waiver on operating cost per revenue hour. The SRTPs cover the county's three apportionment areas and outline the planned operating and capital expenditures for a three-year period; Actual operating -and capital fund allocations are requested for only year one of the three-year plan. As the transportation planning ggency (TPA), the Commission is responsible for planning transit services, allocation of transit funds and operator: oversight/fiduciary responsibilities. The approved SRTPs provide the basis for the oversight activities. The SRTPs for Beaumont, Corona and PVVTA were not approved at the June 13t`' Commission meeting due to non-compliance with the Commission's approved PIP program for FY 2006/07. At that time, staff was directed to work with the transit operators to jointly develop an action plan to meet the Commission approved PIP. Since that time, Corona and PVVTA have submitted their agency's action plans which Commission staff believes will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their transit services. The SRTPs and action plans for Corona and PVVTA are:, attached. Currently, at this time, Beaumont has not submitted its action plan and as a result, its SRTP has not been presented to the Commission for review and approval. Pending receipt of this information, staff recommends that interim funding be provided for up to a three-month period so that transit services will continue without interruption. If approved, it is recommended that the interim funding be based on the FY 2006/07 allocation, which was $1,080,000. The interim monthly allocation :would be $90,000 for a total not to exceed $270,000 Commission staff will continue to work with Beaumont's management to assist with completion of both the SRTP and the action plan. RTA's FY 2007/08 through FY 2009/10 SRTP was approved in concept pending further analysis of its request for a PIP waiver on operating cost per revenue hour over and above the Consumer Price Index of 5%. The waiver requested reflects a 0.77% (or $0.58 per revenue hour) increase over the above target. After reviewing the additional data from RTA, Commission staff is requesting that RTA's FY 2007/08 operating cost per revenue hour target be reset to $76.54. In an effort to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transit services, the PIP program together with TransTrack - the web based performance software monitoring system - were fully implemented during FY 2006/07 While Commission staff believes that both systems will continue to assist with monitoring transit performance through real time data analysis, there is a learning Agenda Item 9 30 • curve associated with the new program implementation. Now that the Commission has a full year of experience with the programs, staff anticipates proposing a change to the PIP program at its July Transit Policy Committee meeting related to the composition of the mandatory and discretionary targets. The proposed change, if approved, will more closely align the PIP program with the Transportation Development Act (TDA) which provides the majority of transit funding. SRTP Financial and Ridership Overview The FY 2007/08 SRTPs estimate that $165,760,4551 in funding is required to support the operating and capital requests for the provision of Riverside County transit services. The following chart provides an overview of the operating and capital costs together with projected ridership levels by apportionment area and transit operator: AGENCY/APPORTIONMENT AREA Operating Capital City of .Banning $ 1,189,294 $ 915,000 City of Beaumont 1,202,819 125,000 City of Corona 1,928,813 50,000 Riverside Special Services 3,016,719 500,000 Riverside Transit Agency 54,272,469 9,051,321 Western County: Bus 61,610,114 10,641,321 Western County: Rail 8,695,550 17,772,266 WESTERN COUNTY: TOTAL 70,305,664 28,413,587 SunLine Transit Agency, 20,369,283 14,263,573 COACHELLA VALLEY: TOTAL 20,369,283 14,263,573 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 873,489 538,259 PALO VERDE VALLEY: TOTAL 873,489 538,259 TOTAL: ALL AREAS $ 91,548,436 $ 43,215,419 Leverage of Commuter Rail Funds* Total: Total Costs $ 2,104,294. 1,327,819 1,978,813 3,516,719 63,323,790 72,251,435 26,467,816 98,719,251 34,632,856 34,632,856 1,411,748 1,411,748 $ 134,763,855 30,996,600 $ 165,760,455 *Commuter Rail's costs include RCTC's share of approximately $8.7 million plus LA Metro, OCTA and SANBAG's share of approximately $31 million (consists of $13,473,900 -Additional Commuter Rail operating subsidy plus $17,522,700 - Commuter. Rail Farebox) Ridership 178,500 103,020 210,000 163,750 7,231,939 7,887,209 2,996,389 10,883,598 3,533,550 3,533,550 52,772 52,772 14,469,920 Amount includes funding for city of Beaumont transit :services; however, interim funding allocation is recommended pending receipt of revised FY 2007/08 through FY 2009/10 SRTP and Action Plan for PIP compliance. $150,000 in Measure A funds is also identified for RTA; however, actual allocation will be made through the Commission's Commuter Assistance Program. Agenda Item 9 31 FY 2007/08 Operating and Capital Costs The following chart provides an overview, by funding source, of the operating and capital costs required to provide transit services in Riverside County: Riverside County: FY 2007/08 Operating and Capital Costs TDA (LTF & STA Funds) $79,181, 409 47% Fuel Rebate Revenue $1,500,000 -� Add11 Commuter Rail Operating subsidy paid by SANBAG, OCTA & LA Metro '$13,473,900 Other Miscellaneous 8% Revenues $15, 861,271 10% TUMF (WRC) $1,100,160 1% Measure A - . $4,279,000 3% Federal - Formula Funds (Section 5307&,5311) $19,057, 864' 11% Federal -Discretionary . Funds (Section 5309) $1,403,256 1'% 1 Passenger Fares $29,903,595 18% PASSENGER. FARES $12,380,895'- Public Bus . $17,522,700 = Commuter Rail $29,903,595 TOTAL Of the $165,760,455 amount identified in the above charts, approximately:;. $61..8 million (37.3%) is derived from: Passenger fares; Western Riverside Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees; • Miscellaneous other revenue; and • Commuter rail member agencies' revenue share and fuel rebate revenues. The remaining balance of approximately $103.9 million' (62.7%) consists of federal, state and local funds that are allocated through Commission action. Agenda item 9 32 • Request for Allocation of FY 2007/08 . Funding - Federal funding: Section 5307, Section 5309 and Section 5311 Section 5307 formula Funds On an annual basis, the FTA distributes federal operating and capital block grant funds to urbanized areas through its Section 5307 program. There are four urbanized areas in Riverside County: • Riverside/San Bernardino; • Hemet/San Jacinto; • Temecula/Murrieta; and • Indio/Cathedral City/Palm Springs. Prior to an operator submitting its Section 5307 grant application to FTA, the Commission must develop and approve a POP for .each urbanized area and conduct a public hearing. Attachment 1 consists of the . proposed Section 5307 POP for Riverside County; they contain projects identified in the SRTPs. The draft POP, if not amended through the public hearing process, will become final as presented and will be included in an approved RTIP and subsequently forwarded to the Southern California Association of Governments for review and processing. Section 5307 Formula Funds City of Riverside Special Services Riverside Transit. Agency Commission Regional Commuter Rail SunLine Transit Agency 495,000 12,676,685 1,452,661. 3,749,587 18,373,933. The actual Section 5307 apportionments for FY 2007/08 will not be _ known until later this calendar -year when final appropriations are made by Congress. The ;POP was developed at -the highest anticipated funding amount to allowthe operators to proceed withtheir grant applications and to avoid delays associated with ;program amendments and additional paperwork should the actual apportionments come in lower than estimated. Balances, if any, will be carried over to subsequent fiscal years and will be made available to meet future transit needs. Section 5309 Discretionary Funds The Section 5309 program provides capital assistance, on a discretionary basis, for new and replacement buses ' and related facilities. For FY 2007/08, RTA and SunLine have identified projects totaling $1403,256 in Section 5309 discretionary funds. Prior to the operators accessing these funds, the projects must be included in an approved RTIP. Agenda Item 9 33 Section 5311 Formula and Discretionary Funds The Section 5311 Rural Transit Assistance program available through the FTA. provides federal operating assistance funds for rural transit operators. These funds; are administered by Caltrans and the majority of the funds are passed through to counties based on a population formula. The remaining funds, if sufficient to justify a call for projects, are awarded in a statewide discretionary program by Caltrans for rural capital projects and intercity bus programs. Transit operators in counties where formula funds are fully programmed submit projects for, discretionary funding to Caltrans. In order for grants to be' approved, the Commission must develop and approve a Section 5311 POP. This year's program was prepared using the FY 2006/07 funding level for transit operations. As with the Section 5307 program, the actual apportionments will not be known until later this calendar -year when final appropriations are made by Congress. By programming at what may be a higher level of funding, the operators will be able to apply for maximum funding and avoid delays and additional work to amend programs and grants. The proposed program allocates the estimated $683,931 in formula funds for Riverside County in FY 2007/08 to RTA at 61.7 % and SunLine at 38.3 % 1 The 61.7%/38.3% formula was approved by the Commission in 1987 and was based on the level of service each agency operated in the non -urbanized areas of the county. In FY 2002/03, Commission staff discussed the formulawith staff` from RTA and SunLine to determine if the formula was still applicable. Both agencies agreed that the formula should remain at the current percentage splits The following is the proposed FY 2007/08 Section 5311 Program of Projects: Section '5311 Formula Funds County - 100% Federal Funds Available $659,942 FY 2006/07 Estimated Carry Over $23,989 COUNTY WIDE TOTAL: $683,931 RTA - 61.7% - SunLine - 38.3% , $407,1.84 $252,758 $14,801 ' $9.188 $421,985 $261,946. Both RTA and SunLine identified the use of Section 5311 formula funds for operating during FY 2007/08. Should additional funds be identified, available funds will be carried over and available for programming in FY 2008/09. - Transportation Development Act Funding The TDA provides two major sources of funding for public transportation. The first, LTF, provides for a %4 cent of the 71A % state retail sales tax collected in each county. The state Board of Equalization returns the sales tax revenues to the Agenda Item 9 34 county of Riverside where it is held until the Commission provides written allocation instructions for disbursement. For FY 2007/08, it is estimated that LTF revenue for transit services will be $73,078,9922 STA funding is the second source of TDA funds. STA funds are generated from the statewide sales tax on motor vehicle fuel (gasoline and diesel). The STA funds are appropriated to the state controller for allocation by formula to each Transportation Planning Agency. The Commission is responsible for the allocation of these funds for Riverside County. The formula allocates 50% of the funds on the basis of the region's population compared to. the State's population (STA 99313 Funds). The remaining 50% is allocated according to the prior year proportion of the region's transit operator passenger fare and local support revenues (STA 99314 Funds). According to the state controller's office, the amount of. STA funds projected to be received in Riverside County for FY 2007/08 is $23,262,930 ($s20,612,392 is 99313 discretionary funds and $ 2, 650, 538 is 99314 non -discretionary operator funds). Prior to approving the STA allocations, the Commission must adopt the attached resolution as specified in the TDA statutes, California Code of Regulations. In order for the public transit operators to claim LTF and/or STA funds for operating and capital purposes, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the FY 2007/08 SRTP. The requested allocations are consistent with the approved SRTPs and the funds are explicitly for the projects as stated in the approved plans. Attachment 2 outlines the specific operators' requested TDA allocations for FY 2007/08. Staff recommends the approval of the TDA and FTA. funds as presented. As in previous years; any modifications in fare box revenues, federal' ° grants, Measure A funding, or carry over funds may require operators to revise their services to operate within the funding limitations. Fiscal Impact The FY 2007/08 budget adopted at the June 13, 2007 Commission meeting included $65,403,600 in LTF transit operating expenditures, $5,498,700 in LTF capital expenditures and $7, 548, 500 in STA capital expenditures. Two budget adjustments totaling $626,200 for LTF expenditures and one budget adjustment for $474,800 are required based on these recommended allocations. 2 Of the $73,078,992 LTF amount, $7,307,900,has been set aside as reserve funds based on Commission approved policy. Agenda Item 9 35 Financial Information n Fiscal Year Budget: Yes/No Yes/No Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $70,293,802 (LTF) $ 7,898,607 (STA) Source of Funds: Transportation Development Act: LTF & STA Budget Adjustment: Yes GLA No.. LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS Western County Bus: 601 62 86101 - P2210: $43,628,538 601 62 86101 - P2210: $ 270,000 (Interim funding for Beaumont) 601 62 86102 - P2210: $0 1Nestern County Rail: 601 62 86101 - P2213: $8,695,550 601 62 86102 P2213: $ 500,000 Coachella Valley: 601 62 86101 - P2211: $ 10,807,349 601 62 86102 - P2211: $ 5,465,749 Palo Verde Valley: 601 62 86101 - P2212: $ 784,489 601 62 86102 - P2212: $ 142,127 STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS Western County Bus: 241 62 86102 - P2201: $2,727,055 Coachella Valley: 241 62 86102 P2202: $4,775,420 Palo Verde Valley: 241 62 86102 - P2203: $ 396,132 *Budget Adjustments: LTF 601 62 86101 P2213: $ 17,000 601 62 86102 P2211: $609,200 STA 241 62 86102 ;P2202: $474,800 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 6/25/07 Attachments: 1) -City of Corona SRTP 2) City of Corona Action Plans 3) PVVTA SRTP 4) PVVTA Action Plans 5) Resolution No. 08-002 6) Section 5307 Program of Projects 7) TDA spreadsheets (LTF & STA) Agenda Item 9 36 Draft Short Range Transit Plan Update Fiscal Years 2007/2008-2009/2010 • Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Service Characteristics Service Information: Corona Dial -A -Ride Service. Information: Fixed Route 'Corona Cruiser' 3 6 3. Rider Characteristics 9 4. Passenger Amenities 10 5. Service Related Issues 10 6. Regional Services and Adjacent Transit Systems 13 7. Public Participation 14 8. Key Performance Indicators 15 9. New Service Implementation and Evaluation 15 10. Regulatory and Compliance Requirements 15 Exhibit A: Corona Cruiser Service Area Map 16 Exhibit B: Dial -A -Ride Service Area Map 17 Table 1: Fleet Inventory 18 Table 2A: Fixed Route SRTP Service Summary 19 Table 2B: ADA-Paratransit SRTP Service Summary 20 Table 3: SRTP Route Statistics 21 Table 4: Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2007/08 22 Table 4A: Capital Project Justification for FY 2007/08 23 Table 5: Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2008/09 & FY 2009/10 24 Table 5A: Capital Project Justification for FY 2007/08 25 Table 6: Progress to Implement Triennial Performance Audit 28 Table 7: Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) Review 29 SRTP Performance Report 30 Table 8: Highlights of SRTP for Presentations...... ...... 31 38 1. INTRODUCTION The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) evaluates current transit system performance, projected demographic changes, capital and operating funding needs, likely funding from federal, state and local sources, and other factors to create a reasonable projection of conditions over the next three years. System Overview The City of Corona operates a general public demand responsive Dial -A -Ride (DAR) service designed to provide curb to curb transportation for area residents and a fixed route system `Corona Cruiser.' Corona Cruiser operates along two routes, Blue Line and Red Line within City limits (Exhibit A). As of January 1, 2006, City of Corona population is estimated at 148,345 and the area within the Cityboundary measures 39.1 square miles. DAR Service Area serves a population of 160,000 within 40.53 square miles area that includes City of Corona and the adjacent unincorporated Riverside County areas of Home Gardens, El Cerrito, and Coronita, and popular satellite destination points in City of Norco (Exhibit B). The City has operated the DAR service since April 1977. Corona Cruiser fixed route service began on February 5, 2001. Service has been operated by private contractor since its inception. Services During the first nine months of FY2006-07 the City's transit system experienced a two percent (2%) drop in total ridership compared to previous FY2005-06. However, planned ridership is expected to increase from projected ridership of 203,500 in FY2006-07 to 210,000 in FY 2007-08. Expected increase in ridership reflects improvements in operations that have taken place during the third quarter of FY2006-07. DIAL -A -RIDE (PARATRANSIT) FARES PER RIDE FARE TYPE FY 2003/2004 FY 2004/2005 FY 2005/2006 FY 2006/2007 General $2.00 $2.00 $3.00 $3.00_ Students $1.00 $1.00 $1.50 $1.50 Seniors (60+) $1.00 $1.00 $1.50 $1.50 Persons with Disabilities $1.00 $1.00 $1.50 $1.50 Medicare Card Holders $1.00 $1.00 $1.50 $1.50 Children (46" tall or under) Free Free $0.50 $050 Buddy Fare N/A N/A 'h off fare % off fare CORONA CRUISER (FIXED ROUTE) FARES PER RIDE FARE FY 2003/2004 FY 2004/2005 FY 2005/2006 FY 2006/2007 General $1.00 $1.00 $1.25 $1.25 Students $0.75 $0.75 $1.25 $1.25 Seniors (60+) $0.50 $0.50 $0.60 $0.60 Persons with Disabilities $0.50 $0.50 $0.60 $0.60 Medicare Card Holders $0.50; $0.50 $0.60 $0.60 Children (46" tall or under) Free Free $0.25 $0.25 a DAY PASS FARE TYPE FY 2003/2004 FY 2004/2005 FY 2005/2006 FY 2006/2007 General $2.50 $2.50 $3.75 $3.75 Students $2.50 $2.50 $3.75 $3.75 Seniors (60+) $1.25 $1.25 $1.85 $1.85 Persons_ with Disabilities $1.25 $1.25 $1.85 $1.85 Medicare Card Holders $1.25 $1.25 $1.85 $1.85. Children (46" tall or under) N/A N/A N/A N/A 31 DAY PASS FARE TYPE FY 2003/2004 FY 2004/2005 FY 2005/2006 FY 2006/2007 General N/A $34.00 $43.00 $43.00 Students N/A $26.00 $32.00 $32.00 Seniors (60-) N/A $16.00 $21.00 $2100 Persons with Disabilities N/A $16.00 $21.00 $21.00 Medicarei,Card Holders N/A $16.00 $21.00 $21.00 Children (46" tall or under) N/A N/A N/A N/A Current Fare Structure was implemented in July 18, 2005 Metrolink passengers ride free on Corona Cruiser and Corona DAR with a proof of a valid Metrolink ticket or pass. Per a MOU with the City, Metrolink reimburses the City for the free trips provided by the City to Metrolink passengers. Population Served The U.S. Census Bureau indicates that from 2000 to 2005, Corona added 23,379 people reaching a population of 148,345. Corona, like most Southern California cities, is an ethnically diverse community with a make up of Caucasian (39.5%), Hispanic (40.9%), Black (6.9%), and Asian (9.2%). According to the 2005 Demographic, Economic and Quality of Life Data Report, the City's average household income of $81,701 was well above the $66,986 for Riverside County. Corona's residential home market is increasingly made up of high -end homes with median pricing for new homes at $630,150 and top prices over $1,000,000. The City's demographic characteristics are indicators of the potential demand for transit services in future years. The City's changing demographics _ will be incorporated into new transit -related strategies that will be developed for .the City's transit system. City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 40 0 Fleet Characteristics The City's Transit System operates nine DAR gasoline powered vehicles. All DAR vehicles are ADA compliant with wheelchair lifts and tie -down, stations. The City also operates five fixed route vehicles. All fixed route buses are CNG powered. These transit vehicles are equipped with bicycle racks and are ADA compliant. All CNG vehicles are fueled at the City's CNG station. Attached .Table 1 describes the fleet inventory. in April 2007, two new DAR and five new fixed -route Corona Cruiser transit vehicles replaced buses that had reached the end of their service life. The City's Transit Services Program procured larger and more comfortable buses for fixed route service to better serve the needs of its transit patrons. „ Facilities The City's contractor operates from the City's Corporate Yard facility located at 730 Corporation Yard Way, Corona, CA 92880. Corona's transit system is centralized at this facility with Administrative and Dispatching offices, vehicle storage, and CNG and Gasoline fueling stations. The City of Corona general public access CNG fast -fill fueling station' is located at the City's Corporate Yard complex: This facility became fully operational on September 2, 2003. _s 41 City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 2. SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE: System -wide ridership in FY2005-06 was 205,875. For FY2006-07, ridership is _projected _ at 203,500, which represents a 1.2% drop in ridership. However, planned ridership for FY2007-08 is expected to be 210,000, which represents a three point two percent (3.2%) increase from projected ridership for current Fiscal Year due to improvements made by Contractor during the third quarter of Fy2006-07 to recruit and maintain staff needed to meet regular demand for transit services. A. SERVICE INFORMATION — Dial -A -Ride or Demand Response DAR provides service to the general public, seniors, persons withdisabilities and individuals certified for complimentary paratransit service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Service hours for the Corona Dial -A -Ride are: Monday - Friday 6:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Saturday 8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m. Sunday N/A Corona Dial -A -Ride: ADA Complementary service hours are: Monday - Friday 4:30 a.m. — 9:15 p.m. Saturday 7:30 a.m. — 7:30 p.m. Sunday N/A Corona Dial -A -Ride service does not operate on the following holidays: January 1, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Passengers are requested to call from one to fourteen days in advance; however; same day service may be accommodated if space is available. The general public DAR service operates in the City of Corona and within the unincorporated Riverside County areas of Home Gardens, Coronita, and EI Cerrito. Service to satellite points in the City of Norco includes the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the Department of Public and Social Services (DPSS), Riverside Community College (RCC), Target store, and the California Rehabilitation Center (C.R.C.). During FY2005-06, a total of 58,892 passenger trips were served by DAR service. Of the total passengers served, 40,348, or sixty-eight point five percent (68.5%) was represented by combined group of seniors, ADA certified and persons with disabilities, which represents a 4.8 % decrease from FY2004-05. Projected ridership for FY2006-07 is estimated at 55,000. During the first eight months of fY2006-07, a total of 36,615 passengers were served by DAR, of this total to City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 • date, 33,165, or seventy-nine percent (79.0%) is represented by combined group of seniors., ADA certified and persons with disabilities. A general public DAR service is required to meet a minimum 20 percent (20°/°) farebox recovery. The City of Corona makes up the farebox recovery deficiency through the City's local funds. The City of Corona provides. general public with this service,because there are areas in the City that are not currently served by any transit service. In FY2005-06, DAR ridership was 58,892. For FY 2006-07, ridership is projected at 55,944 which represent a decline of 5.0% in ridership from prior Fiscal Year. However, ridership for FY2007-08 is planned at 60,000, which represents a nine percent (7.2%) increase in ridership from current Fiscal Year due to operational improvements put in place by Contractor to ensure service is adequately staffed to meet the needs of our riders. B. SERVICE INFORMATION - Fixed Route `Corona Cruiser' Corona Cruiser Blue Line Sery Monday-- Friday 4:49 a.m. — 8:21 p.m. Saturday 7:50 a.m. — 7:09 p.m. Sunday N/A Frequency Every Hour Corona Cruiser Red Line Servi Monday - Friday 5:04 a.m. — 9:00 p.m. Saturday 8:07 a.m.. — 7:05 p.m. Sunday N/A Frequency Every 54 minutes Corona Cruiser service does not operate on the following holidays: January 1, Memorial Day, July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Blue Line serves the McKinley Street retail area then travels on to Magnolia Avenue and Main Street to River Road area. This route passes by many trip generators such as hospitals, medical facilities, public service agencies, library, Civic Center, and commercial/retail areas. This route also serves County area of Home Gardens. Red Line connects the densely populated residential areas of West Corona with commercial areas along Sixth Street and the Ontario Avenue/California Avenue retail area and the south along Ontario Avenue/Temescal Canyon Road to serve county area of El Cerrito and The Crossingsshopping complex at Cajalco Road/Temescal Canyon Road area. Bus deviation up to one half mile is available with two hours advance notice. Similarly, upon request .from the passengers, who have difficulty walking, a courtesy drop-off is facilitated at the same bus stop that they originated their trip. City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 43.. During FY2005-06, Corona Cruiser served 146,983 passengers or an average of 12,249 passengers per month which represented a decrease of 15,440 passengers or nine point five percent (9.5%) decrease in ridership from FY2044- 05. During the first eight months of FY 2006-07, Corona Cruiser has served _ 91,904 passengers or an average of 11,488 passengers per month which represents a six point three percent (6.3%) decrease in total ridership for the same period from previous FY 2005-06. Fixed route ridership for FY 2006-07 is projected at 137,000, which reflects a 6.8 % decrease in ridership from FY2005-06.However, ridership for. FY2007-08 is planned to increase from 137,000 in FY2006-07 to 155,000, or 11.6% from projected. ridership for current Fiscal Year. Systemwide Improvements During FY2005-06 the City's Transit Services implemented new transit technologies that include a scheduling/dispatching application and installation of Automatic Vehicle Locator/Mobile Data Terminals (AVL/MDT) system in all 14 transit vehicles operated by the City's transit services. In addition, the system will include 1a stand alone on -board digital video surveillance and recording system. The vision of the City is to implement the best available technologies with the purpose of achieving the following goals: • Enhance customer satisfaction • Increase overall safety and security • Enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of transit services • Better .manage the system's on -time performance. 44 City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 3. RIDER CHARACTERISTICS Results from on -board transit survey conducted in April 2003, indicate that a typical Corona Cruiser rider: • Is most likely a female (74%) • Is likely to be Hispanic (69%) • Has a relatively low total household income of under $20,000 (62%) • Is traveling to work (35%) • Does not have a car available for this trip (90%) • Gives the Cruiser a "Good" rating overall 7.9 on a scale from 1 to 10. Following is the rider characteristic information derived from the types of fare collected for. FY 2005-06 RIDERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS FY2005-06 General 46.70% 13.17% & t:s Students 6.39% N/A Seniors 15.45% 7.40% Persons w/Disabilities 1.96% 34.04% ADA Certified 1.96% 27.39% Children 10.21 % 0.59% Metrolink . 2.11 % 17.35% Cruiser Transfers 5.14% N/A RTA Transfers 5.33% N/A Attendant N/A 0% Buddy Fare N/A 0% Major Destinations Major trip destinations within City of Corona include commercial/retail areas along McKinley Street, Sixth Street, medical facilities along Magnolia Avenue, regional transit facilities and retail services on Main Street, and shopping complex at Cajalco Road/Temescal Canyon Road: 4 City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 4. PASSENGER AMENITIES Bus Stops: By the end of June 2007, all bus stops will have benches or shelters. Kiosks that house the Cruiser's route map and schedule have been installed at all Corona Cruiser bus stops. There are a total of 33 bus shelters citywide; of the total, 23 are at Corona Cruiser bus stops and the remaining are at the RTA bus stops in the City. 5. SERVICE RELATED ISSUES Fixed Route `Corona Cruiser' On -Time Performance In the past, the most frequently cited service -related issue identified by Corona Cruiser riders, was the fixed route's systemi on -time performance. However, on - time performance in FY 2005=06 was 97.926/0 and for the first eight months of FY 06-07on-time has been maintained at or above 986/0. Corona Dial -A -Ride Dispatching/Scheduling Application In a continuous effort to improve DAR operations, reservations, and maximize the efficiency of available resources; the City procured new dispatching and . scheduling software application developed by RouteMatch Software, Inc. This application was fully implemented in June 2006. Corona Dial -A -Ride — Transition Training Program To address declining fixed route ridership, the Transition Training Program will be further enhanced. Staff will conduct outreach campaigns at community events, busy shopping centers, Metrolink stations, etc. to increase public awareness of the convenience of the fixed route bus system as compared to DAR service. Currently, DAR patrons are routinely encouraged to take advantage of the fixed route system as being reliable and convenient way to get around the City at half the cost of DAR service, without the necessity of making advance DAR reservations. Systemwide Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL)/Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) Digital Onboard Video Surveillance/Recording System New transit technologies were fully deployed in June 2006. The AVL/MDT and Onboard Video Surveillance/Recording System equipment was installed in all 14 transit vehicles. As a part of the AVL/MDC implementation program, an interface ; was developed to make real time wireless communication between the vehicles and the new dispatching and scheduling software possible. City of Corona r Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 • • The operational and user -related benefits associated with deployment of enhanced transit technologies has resulted in system improvements in the following areas: • Dispatching and scheduling capabilities • Security for passengers • Adherence to schedule — improved system -wide on -time performance • Accurate, up-to-date in -vehicle information • Efficient use of available resources — potential to increase 'vehicle' productivity by facilitating more trip combinations which will result in reduced waiting time Customer communications Farebox Recovery Since inception of fixed route service in February 2001, route changes have been implemented in July .2002, July 2003, and September 2004. These changes extended Corona Cruiser's exemption from minimum required 20 percent farebox recovery ratio. However, exemption expired on June 30, 2006. A fixed route service is required to meet a minimum 20 percent (20%) farebox recovery. As is the practice with DAR service, the City of Corona is committed to make up any future farebox recovery deficiency for fixed route service by using the City's local funds. Activities during the remaining of FY2006-07 and FY2007-08 to enhance Corona Cruiser ridership will include: o Ongoing participation at community events like Senior Health Fair; Cinco de Mayo Parade, Independence Day Parade, Day of the Child event; etc, to make public aware of `Corona Cruiser' and DAR services. o Continue with training program to transition Dial -A -Ride clients to fixed route system, including distribution of free trial passes. o Distribute Corona Cruiser information at various locations throughout the City, including schools, local businesses, City of Corona Library, Senior Center, and the City Hall o , Develop outreach campaigns at Metrolink stations, encouraging passengers to ride Corona Cruiser more often. o Provide free service on day after Thanksgiving, as means of promoting fixed route's ridership. Marketing Strategies The City's Transit Services Program will market fixed route's system on a continuous basis to effectively address service and systemwide ridership. In FY2007-08 City staff and contractor will continue to work together in attracting new riders and disseminating information at various locations throughout the City. As a first step in developing comprehensive marketing strategies, a set of revised City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 priorities will be used to direct the implementation plan These priorities may include re -alignment of Corona Cruiser routes to better serve the needs of transportation users to/from major activity centers within the City. Prioritized marketing efforts will be used to: • Target potential ridership. • Disseminate transit information to current and potential riders. • Focus distribution of Corona Cruiser and DAR brochures to locations frequently visited by potential riders. • Provide transit information to schools, hospitals, community centers, etc. • Promote transit patronage through various incentives, including free transit passes and prizes. • Advertise transit services through various City publications. As part of these ongoing marketing strategies, City staff will continue to coordinate with RTA staff for future route planning to promote transit service area coverage in the City of Corona. City of Corona , Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 • • 6. REGIONAL SERVICES AND ADJACENT TRANSIT SYSTEMS A member of the City Council sits on the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) governing boards and committees, as well as the Western Riverside. Council of Governments (WRCOG)- committees. The Corona Public Works Director is a member of the RCTC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that meets monthly to make. recommendations to the Commission on transportation related matters. The Transportation Planning staff participates in the: advisory meetings;_ such as RTA's Transportation NOW meetings and WRCOG Clean Cities , Coalition meetings. Transit transfers are coordinated with fixed route service to Riverside and the Norco Dial -A -Ride administered by RTA. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), between the two agencies was adopted in January 1994 to identify the transfer policy. The transfer arrangements are in conformance with the rules and regulations adopted by the Commission. Corona has a transfer agreement with Metrolink, which enables City of Corona transit riders to ride free of charge on either the DAR or Corona Cruiser when connecting to and from Metrolink. A MOU between the City of Corona and RTA allows joint use of Compressed Natural Gas refueling station for area transit vehicles at the City's Corporate Yard facility located at 730 Corporation Yard Way, Corona, CA 92880. 4 ,_ City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 . PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Transit Services The City of Corona offers many opportunities for public participation. Phone numbers for the Contractor's Project Manager and City Transportation Specialist_ have been posted inside all DAR and Corona Cruiser buses, inviting public input on both services. Customers may also provide their comments through email system designed with their needs in mind. The public is welcomed and encouraged to contact City staff with comments, questions, compliments, and complaints. All complaints are investigated and corrective action is taken, if necessary. Public comments also serve as an important input to identify the need for service improvements; whether it is a need to improve customer service or operations. During FY2006-07 Transportation Project Manager, staff and Contractor have been involved in informational meetings with: service groups, such as senior groups to provide information and offer transit training. Comment cards with pre -- paid postage are placed in all of the DAR vehicles, for public comments and suggestions related to the DAR service. City staff communicates regularly with RTA staff and Metrolink staff concerning route and schedule changes. City staff delivers brochures and posters to various locations throughout the City such as senior citizen apartments, Parks and Recreation facilities, Corona Public Library, and employment agencies. City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 8. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS The City's Transit Services system meets one of two Mandatory Performance Indicators (with local contribution, the system meets minimum 20 % farebox ratio); and five of six Discretionary Performance indicators as shown on Table 7 — Service Provider performance Targets Report for FY2006-07. The City is expecting an increase in the cost of contractual services. Current contract for purchased transportation services expires on October 31, 2007. 9. NEW SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION Performance of the City's transit system is regularly monitored to ensure all route and schedule changes are implemented in concert with new ridership trends, including changes related to RTA and Metrolink service. 10. REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS American "with Disabilities Act (ADA) Reduced fares for seniors and ADA certified/persons with disabilities are set at half the base fare. All transit vehicles purchased for fixed route Corona. Cruiser and DAR services meet all Federal and State requirements, including ADA. DAR offers priority service to ADA certified passengers and provides ADA Complimentary Para -transit service with service hours that match the fixed route~ service hours. The City's transit system maintains a zero denial policy to ADA certified passengers. Title VI In compliance with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no person, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, is excluded from participation in, or is denied the benefits of, or is subjected to discrimination within the scope of services offered by the City of Corona Transit System. Alternatively Fueled Vehicles (ROTC Policy) All Corona Cruiser (CNG powered) and DAR (gasoline powered) buses are in compliance with RCTC Policy. 51 City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 di. -son AA Joj ueld psueal e6ue�[ pogs �e�a euoao0 }o 410 vas xcwxnuw • IEOCS NEXIV3S WITALCAN W11dSCH TWO IOW WD',t.Y IS.:3+hrtMG+ C i1l1011 r1N 1 HMV 1111 s1snN VA m N1RNE11 ;510.11C.d nift}IIN,I 1110M.L ItlWN nYmreNJ '4.1", /A11.an1h �N 6,40.1214.01.0111' C 3111001 Y1N i 31AO11 Y111 00 J`hY1 C911s i 311fOm V111 -saunN sns ran ants sire ?lrwrax gas 7rd'1 irns 5"311fON sns'Naslfm rico 17 ©maoa T osaantto d;!q!uX3 a2ugli 01/600Z — 80/LOOZ Ad tuolop Jo X1D Mine lINt9Gli!3fi VIMOO p i,-80OZ AA Jo; ueid lisueal e6ue d uala euwoo o AI °OM MUI10+e111 0u0100 URA 4lioN MIS Ws It (*Wgi 13 . 100.3 was uone4 514040141 e+0103 AAA anio cogs !spice 0 sc+e APIS 04u$Y0 Widows sekilim040 e141 Q quo M1lkuleM ellouder( ti DAM Ails Q 4.11eA yes ie raw elloueNVI 000d*.1. a 0 waPPIN 0 $ad =MIS 4 eutuca w� ti ^0,3- M,.I 3 01d31 AtutOuoasuiwa olkuNIp0 . t (Arta) BelameA Ja►o y Jo lumweoea sum was W1:1) eee1100 eptuwutl moos /ems 'z amtid p lueutpedea S1NIOd 11.1113 .YS 00140N mom UORIZIMINOW roputOrti atom Naf ed010 AilmoloS Wog Q 1 Aus0 rO,ues era kann time, euasoo k vissioN Peo41 t WOW { Witt lialnati VOA aPitheArd PAlune0 Mlv moo$ ni W41', "Y e314108 wfl(NS Mn ndi SOMCFS AMP* Wag* q4303'1 AiNnoo_ 20NY 80 01 . OWN Milt 3101Alin atf_Tria 01100 utid l!streii aueli Intis OI/600Z - 80/LOOZ AA .0,0, Jo xi.! City of Corona FY 2007/08 — 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY Year Built Manufacturer Model, _ . Seats Lift- Equip? Type of Fuel Own or Lease FR Vehicle DAR Vehicle Support Vehicle Active/ Reserve/ Rehab* Total Vehicle Miles**. Total Veh. Sys. Failures Year to Replace *** ': t� ; BUSES 9446 2004 Goshen 20/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 70,687 3 2009. , 9447 2004 Goshen 20/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 84,392 2 2009 .` '''' 9448 2004 Goshen 18/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 72,679 4 2009 �.' a� 9449 2004 Goshen 18/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 90,616 4 2009 ,fin E' 9450 2004 Goshen 18/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 77,515 2 2009 h ;z ;, 9451 2005 ElDorado National 18/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 31,749 0 <, f � ?i }� b ; 1. Mr �� k, 9452 2005 ElDorado National 18/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 21,823 2 9453 2007 ElDorado National 24/2 Yes CNG Own 1 A 2,030 0jl� 9454 2007 ElDorado National 24/2 Yes CNG Own 1 A 1,560 0 ?; r i 9455 2007 ElDorado National 24/2 Yes CNG Own 1 A 1,585 0'Z;. 9456 2007 ElDorado National 24/2 Yes CNG Own 1 A 1,571. 0r ' i.✓ 9457 2007 ElDorado National 24/2 Yes CNG Own 1 A 1,667 0 9458 2007 ElDorado National 18/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 1,760 0 , 9459 2007 ElDorado National 18/2 Yes Gasoline Own 1 A 1,744 0 TOTAL: BUSES 5 9 VANS AN_ D MINI -BUSES F''' 7 i , , ew,- z. . S,,, ,F3,`t�s s. r a t s TOTAL: VANS AND MINI -BUSES SUPPORT VEHICLES s �, >f lt= a , TOTAL: SUPPORT VEHICLES *A -Active, R - Reserve, MR - Major Rehab. **Use NTD Data from prior year NTD Data from previous RY2006 did not include mileage information for buses 9453 - 9459, because all new buses (five fixed route and two DAR) were delivered during the second half of FY2006-07. ***If ear to re lace has assed, need ex•lanation of wh vehicle was not replaced • City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-1 a • Q .-200Z Ad Viol ueld psue.l _a6ue.� 1.10yS �aa euwoo to R etii 0 Vtartt OVIV 5 IMI "tt=tt Oral.' IS irMotAb Sktt /WOW Ai serial! :IN weld Usua1`a"u PoSS solzoor m ;' so utjd aue-8 �xoc�S 901.$011,t!4� ueId psueli aSuell pals 0i/600Z - 80/LOOZ Xd vuoioD 3o Xl!D t S tri1a0 WSW ,f Itt1/4:01N 04-$Ooz Jed aol ueld iisueal ebue� lJoyS 4e.a euoioo tr0 4 4,614.4 rzx 1.4`exs 1. 44' t VMS. roccecal 0"'!t V TIES l046:4 POW*U 0110106 trot trzt Lit$ . 01 ! 4$ 0444.111 Q" C9f r; CiS `ter veld Op tOcg r[tt M 13$ 4Q./9 7 ools:m %O Asa � $14110; 41 swooll u+eki Wizen. alkue'd 440.145 nf.zooz Jl • • City of Corona FY 2007/08 — FY 2009/ 10 Short Range Transit Plan Table 3 - SRTF Route Statistics City of Corona --3 FY 3007/08 All Routes Data Elements itoita4t. Day. type Peak Pa:seagar Revenue beldries _ Passe men Mites !burs Tate tweaua< total Operably Paseaper Net Pburs Wes Mlfsa Cost ftevaaue Subsidy COliaLuit "total COkZN6R 'total CC414t 8'Y Taal 4 9 4. 69,140 232,360 9;.4a1..0 9,4110 101,2460 107,151.0 8853.600 559,35E 3404,25C 50,000 30CM? 1.4,004 15,510.0 180,1306.0 140000.t1 68.21.633 9104,370 9>14,843 19,360 30,11/0 9.05.4 9,3d2b 101,551.0 10,5610 9663;600 02.1e0 $481,410 Bairicaoraaidaroara 33.... 14000 895,38, 33,0/0 3S,334,0 383,151.0 404,3110 $1,.928,8Y3 . Slt8,300 11:460,513 boats flay "we Operatiap Cad Per Mammon liner Opssatlnp Cast Per Cost Per bore/sue Mile Panama,. Fatf rtnanceIHr9iCat7)ta Para bar kereeary Ratio Tablbe 3 - SR7P Route Statistics City of Corona -- 3 FY 2M/08 Ail ROAM Subsidy re: Subsidy Per SubskiyPer Subsidy Per Pomo Nor Rove nua Ravin ow Po:somen passengers Puma war (Mile Hour Mile Par Horn Per Mite Cen.aUllS 'fatal CbitOrdi IWO C1tititab .: ,'total 0184 955.41. KM 58.60 33.. $tr.99 OM 9$3.51 9416 7.4 O.t$ 14.S6 0160 11984. 611,91 4 94t191 93.3743 a..13 0.45 9645 1343% Z.% $352 $30.39 94.74 65 0.84 Sends* MwxiderUtak . $37,62 S&03 Old IZ6Jtr. $9.00 51.98 150.10 5438 6.3 0.56 City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 57 City of Corona FY 2007/08 — FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2007/08 Project Description Capital Project Number (1) Total Amount of Funds LTF STA Measure A Section 5307 - Riv- San. Endo Section 5307 - Temecula/ Murrieta Section 5307 - Hemet/San Jacinto Section 5307 - Los Angeles Section 5307.Indo- Cathedral City -Palm Springs Section 5309 Section 5311 CMAQ TUMF Fare Box Other 17) FY08.Operabng Assistance - Dial -A -Ride FY08.Operating Assistance • Fixed Routs FY08 - Operating Assistance - Preventive Maintenance (3) $704,813 $1,042,200 5182,000 w $583,690 833.780 $182,000 $106,770 S141.530 534.153 566.910 Subtotal; Operating 31,928,813 31,579,450 S248,300 S101,063 FY08 - Bus Stop Amenities and Replacement of Equipment Corona 08-01 350,000 350.000 Subtotal: Capital $50,000 $1,579,460 $50,000 Total: Operating & Capital $1,978,e13 $1,579,450 350,000 A $248,300 $101,063 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A • Capital Project Justification (2) Source of other funds includes other permitted revenues Ilke bus shelter. advertising revenue, interest earnings and the remaining City's contribution from local source to achieve 20% farebox ratio.. (3) $182,000 capitalized preventive maintenance; Based on allocation of $117,000 to Dial -A -Ride (9 buses) and $65,000 to Fixed Route (5 buses) City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Phan for FY 2008-1,0 • Table 4A Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona-08-01 PROJECT NAME FY 08 Bus Stop Amenities and Replacement of Equipment PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project provides funds for: 1) Corona Cruiser fixed route bus stop amenities such as shelters, concrete pads_ , benches, signs, poles and kiosks, and 2) Replacement and upgrade of various asset items owned bythe transit system such as Hardware/Software, Phone System, Radio/Communication system, Office Equipments, and Bus Accessories PROJECT JUSTIFICATION From time to time, need arises to replace the abovementioned items on an unplanned basis due to varieties of reasons like breakdown, damage, vandalism, old age, obsolescence, need to upgrade to enhance productivity and efficiency, as wellas need to provide bus stop amenities to improve fixed route service. Availability of funds in a timely manner is crucial to replace such items in the interest of efficient transit operations as well as to continue to improve transit services byproviding additional bus stop amenities. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA: $50,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED. -- INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER FTA Grant # RCTC Grant # Description Unexpended balance City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY 2008-10 City of Corona FY 2007/08 — FY 2009/10 Short Range Transit Plan Table 5 . Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/10 Project Description Capital Project Number (t) Total Amount of Funds - LTF STA Measure A Section 5307 • Rlv- San. Bndo Section 07 53- Temecula/Hemet/San Murrieta Section 5307 - Jacinto Section 5307 - Los Angeles • Section 5307 - Indo- Cathedral City -Palm Springs Section 5309 _._.: Section 5311 CMAO TUMF Fare Box Other (2) FY 09.Operating Assistance • Dial -A -Ride $7B1,780 E607,490 _ $105.574 $69.71 FY 09 - OperatingAseistance • Fixed Route $1,062.840 831,806 - _ 8139.620 $92,41. FY 09.Opereting Assistance - f1fi2.o00 $36,400 145,600 Preventive Maintenance (3) FY 10 - Operating Assistance • Dial -A -Ride E820,870 E638.649 5109.333 $72.88 FY 10.Operating Assistance • Fbred Route E1,115,980 EB7a,430. $144.930 $96.62 FY 10 • Operating Assistance - $182,000 $38,400 145.600 Preventive Maintenance (3) Subtotal Operating $4,145,470 $3,025,175 $291,200 $499,457 3331,6: FY 09 -Bus Stop Amenities and Corona 09-01 $50,000 S50,000 Replacement of Equipment FY 10 -Replacement of Dial A- Corona 06,02 $380.000 $65,000 $315,000 Ride Buses FY 10 -Bus Stop Amenities and Corona 10-01 $50,000 $50,000 Replacement of Equipment Subtotal: Capital $480,000 $65,000 $100,000 $315,000 Total: Operating $ Capital 44,625,470 $3,090,175 $100,000 $608,200 $499,457 $331.,6: (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Source of "other" funds Includes other permitted revenues Ilke bus shelter advertising revenue, interest earnings, and the remaining City's contribution from "Local' sources to achieve 20%.fare box ratio. (3) Capitalized preventive maintenance: Based 'on allocation of $117;000 to Dial -A -Ride (9 buses) and $65.000 to Fixed Route (5 buses) City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY2008-10 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona-09-01 PROJECT NAME FY 09 - Bus Stop Amenities and Replacement of Equipment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project provides funds for: 1) Corona Cruiser fixed route bus stop amenities such as shelters, concrete pads, benches, signs, poles and kiosks, and 2) - Replacement and upgrade -of various asset items owned by the transit system such as,Hardware/Software, Phone System, Radio/Communication system, Office Equipments, and Bus Accessories PROJECT JUSTIFICATION From time to time, need arises to replace the abovementioned items on an un-planned basis dueto varieties of reasons like breakdown, damage, vandalism, old age, obsolescence, need -to upgrade to enhance productivity and efficiency, -as well as need to provide bus stop amenities to improve fixed route service. Availability of funds in a, timely manner is crucial to replace such items in the interest of efficient. transit operations as well as to continue to improve transit services by providing additional bus stop amenities. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA: $50,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE - ,OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED — INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER' FTA Grant # RCTC Grant # Description Unexpended balance City of Corona Short Range Transit Plan for FY2008-10 Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona-09-02 PROJECT 'NAME FY 09— 5 Replacement Dial -A -Ride Buses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION In Western Riverside County for City of Corona — Purchase -5 replacement Dial -A -Ride 16-18 passenger buses w/ Lifts. Replace 5 gasoline powered Dial -A -Ride buses with 24-28 foot long gasoline powered buses (Gross OEM Vehicle Weight of 14,050 Lbs) with 16-18 passenger seats, 2 wheelchair positions, lift, fare box, security cameras, digital head signs and ,all other necessary accessories, communication equipment, and paint and graphics:. These buses will be ordered during second half of FY 08/09, with delivery anticipated within six months of the order. These replacement buses will be used for existing Dial -A -Ride service. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Existing revenue vehicle fleet unit numbers 9446, 9447, 9448, 9449 and 9450 are 2004 model year Dial -A -Ride buses. In 2009, at the time of delivery of new buses, these light duty existing buses will be five years old and will have in excess of 150,000 miles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA 5307: $ 315,000 LTF: $ 65,000 Total: $380,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER FTA Grant # RCTC Grant # Description Unexpended balance City of Corona Draft Short: Range Transit Plan for FY2008-10 3 2 Table 5A; Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER Corona-10-01 PROJECT NAME FY 10 - Bus Stop Amenities and Replacement of Equipments. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project provides funds for: 1) Corona Cruiser fixed route bus stop amenities such as shelters, concrete pads, benches, signs, poles and kiosks, and 2) Replacement and upgrade of various asset items owned by the transit system such as Hardware/Software, Phone System, Radio/Communication system, Office Equipments, and Bus Accessories PROJECT JUSTIFICATION From time to time, need arises to replace the abovementioned items on an un-planned . basis due to varieties of reasons like breakdown, damage, vandalism, old age, obsolescence, need to upgrade to enhance productivity and efficiency, as well as need to provide bus stop amenities to improve fixed route service. Availability of funds in a timely manner is crucial to replace such items in the interest of efficient transit operations as well as to continue to improve transit services by providing additional bus stop amenities. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA: $50,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE - OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED --- INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER FTA Grant # RCTC Grant # Description Unexpended balance 63. City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY2008-10 TABLE 6 — PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Prior Audit Recommendation Action(s) Taken And Results1 (Covering FY 2003/04 - FY 2005/06) 1. Include City staff in the calculation of full time equivalents (FTE). We will ensure that all future reports include City staff in the calculation of full time equivalents (FTE). 2. Explore developing a monthly pass outlet program. The feasibility of developing a monthly :pass outlet program will be further explored in FY2007-08. 3. Work with the contract operator to electronically submit the monthly performance report that is compatible with the City computer system. During FY2007-08, City staff will work with Contractor to develop electronic version of monthly report that is compatible with the City's computer system. 4. Conduct route by route analysis to evaluate service productivity and performance measures as the routes lose their farebox exemption. A comprehensive evaluation of Corona Cruiser routes is scheduled for completion by December 2007. 1 If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY2008-10 64 • .tereAstaxg fiterstassaruisten Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report Fy 2006/07 Short Range Tram it Plan Review City of Oirrotia Data lirisamersts FY 200610 7 Plan _ PY 2006/07 Target FY 2006/07 Year to Date Through March Year tr5 Date Perfumeries: Scorecard Uri ' Messenger 'Tape 217,400 Pestaver Wes 943,490 Water:end Wade Annum Mears 33,596.0 Teta Mara Which Rennin Mlles 42 , .0 Tiart Actuig Vele* Wes 460,740.0 Teta Cietarang ibTonstes $4,90:,' SCO Teta Peuengee Fere Pewee $234,1C0 Net Operating bowies $4569.400 Performs ace Inaloatere liteathetters 1. Deentatio Cot Per Revenue Mar $5383 <---, 553.55 55943 Pais to Meet Tema 2. ebcat ttietoveetrftrdio ale% ),, 20.00% 20.06% Steels tweet Diecretiorservt 3. Steady Per Peseerger 57.n ».. 53,43 and ,. 3731 $7.06 Meet Target 2- Peseenper Mile 51,56 >. and = 52.22 $1.76 Heels Target 3. WOO* Por Hour $454$ :-. S35.75 and -r a 547.135 547.19 PteeN Tweet 4. &sandy NW Mite 53,52 ,i,•-• 52.6,4 end <-. $1.57 $3.80 Faits to Meet Target 5. Peti4mOstre Per Revenue Meer 6.5 > = 5.6 and <= 7.5 6.7 Meets Target 6, Peeteriesei Per Reasseue Mho 0.50 _ •,-. 0.43 end e ,.. 0.59 0.54 Meets Tweet Piabos Not.met release at et 6 Cesuabeary Peibm.X.tmlnatri Predieetarity Perrowneems Sierrunerys target meet 2 of 2 Mendatery itideetere. (Retin City Centre Puretr ctter pernittagi vensmota ere useetc, mikete the deference to meet resridatint 20% Partner Remo/ egstek) Mattli 3 Of if 0400000e, 0444** Ceradtionear merle RCTC Plegran, Service Peeved*,Vaintnentir . , + TrarreFratiftWeeitPle* - Alva of 1 City of Corona Short Range Transit Plan for FY2008-10 6,59- FY 2007/OS - SRTP Performance Report Service Provider; City of Corona Perforrrust►cst Ta►s t FY.2006/07 Period .Year-to-ti MlitiPaseergers FY 2 7/06 Plain FY' 2:007/013 Target Pia Perror m�i+ee Statetard 101 L3 210,000 Rene i tisrigerMlies 404,73i 995467 Name Reatraee.Hours 1.4,645 33,477 fief TOW #twras 15.b35 .35,354 Nene Revue es 163,76$ 303,352 Nem Tie1tal Mires 192,644 404,71$ Mane Operating Oasts g1147,743 #1.,920,613 Nene PateetigerRsemus $100,669 $326,293 None Operating &WO $736477 $1,542,520 IY,,,,e OperstinigOgees :Per Pirrone Maur SV.1.1 $57.:2 cwS 1,9a. Mee Target epeeist* Cast Per Revenue 146: 54.61 $4!.03 Nome OfWitirva t Rdf Plue,19g, $4,37 39.fS tier* Farsh=Steta.e y Rita 12,9% 20.0% s w 207Jrit Meets Target Sdirsidp Per Passenger S7.29 $7.35 a i,, s6.50 anti a-- SO..?ti9 Meets Target ,'Sr1es* Per `Pbsseeage r Nib Si S3 $1.72 r. $1.64 and <. $2.22 Meets Target its* Per Reverses Maur S49.77 640.06 .. ,, 04.00 and <= $54S2 Meets Target Subs* Per Raman Mt S4.02. $4.02 $3.54 and ... $4,09 Meep Target Paeacngers Per Resolve Hew 642 6.Y7 ? - 3.70 aria <_: 7.71 Metz Target Passengers Per Rama Mile 0.53 4. a = 0.46 aria a=. 0.62 Meet Tame City of Corona Draft Short Range Transit Plan for FY2008-10 • Table 8 — HIGHLIGHTS OF SRTP FOR PRESENTATIONS • City of Corona provides general Public Dial -A -Ride and fixed route service known as Corona Cruiser with two routes; Blue Line and Red Line. • During FY2007-08, continue to maintain current levels of service, but considering changes if necessary to better serve the transportation needs of our users. • System -wide transit ridership has consistently grown for the past years, except for the current Fiscal Year when ridership has declined due to operational problems experienced by Contractor that negatively impacted the number of passengers carried during the first six months of FY2006- 07. • During summer 2007, City of Corona will release RFP for transit services. Current contract expires on October 31, 2007. 6:7 _.. City of Corona Short Range Transit Plan for FY2008-10 • OFFICE OF: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (951)279-3763 (951) 279-3627 (FAX) mariaa(a)ci.corona.ca.us June 13, 2007 PW-057-07 Transportation 400 SOUTH VICENTIA AVENUE, P.O. BOX 940, CORONA, CALIFORNIA 92878-0940 CORONA CITY HALL - ONLINE, ALL THE TIME (http://www.discovercorona.com) Tanya Love Transit Program Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission RE: Corona's Transit Services: FY2006-07 Productivity Improvement Program Dear Tanya: In response to your reply email dated June 4, 2007, l am submitting the revised draft Action Plan for Corona's transit system to meet the Commission's Productivity Improvement Program (PIP). Background: Based on results of first nine months of FY2006-07 PIP targets, Corona is not meeting its target for Operating Cost per Revenue Hour of $53.65. Corona's year to date information reveals an actual cost of $59.03, which represents an increase above approved target for current Fiscal Year. Failure to meet target for Operating Cost per Revenue Hour in current FY 2006-07, which is based on FY 2005-06 third quarter actual performance data, is the result of information incorrectly reported in Trans Track for that specific period. Total monthly expenses in TransTrack for the first nine months of FY2005-06 in the amount of $1,056,191 is $334,222.25 lower than actual operating expenses in , the amount of $1,390,413.25; therefore, assumption used to estimate operating cost per revenue hour changed results from $44.43 ($1,056,191/*23,770.78) to $58.49 ($1,390,413.25/23770.78). * 23,770.78: indicates the total ,number of revenue hours (Dial -A -Ride and Fixed Route) for the first nine months of FY2005-06. Corona's Draft Action Plan: Beginning with fourth quarter of FY2006-07, city of Corona staff will closely monitor the status of established performance indicators to ensure that all operational and financial information is regularly tracked and compared against established criteria, in order to avoid any deviation from performance targets that could negatively impact our position to secure funding for our transit services. In addition, draft Action Plan will incorporate a regular review, analysis and evaluation of all eight performance indicators to maintain the integrity of our transit services. Please provide your advice on the issue, if you see the need to implement additional measures to come into compliance with the Commission's PIP. Respectfully, Maria `Sole' anguiz, ABD GAGODocs 20071Letters 2007TW05707MA.doc 68 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Fiscal Year 2008-2010 • Short Range Transit:Plan • • TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Introduction Page 3 Fare Structure Page 5 Marketing Program Page 7 Maintenance Program Page 7 Passenger Amenities & Transit Centers Page 8 System Map Page 9 Service Characteristics Page 10 Rider Characteristics Page 12 Service Related Issues Page 13 Regional Services & Adjacent Transit Systems Page 13 Public Participation Page 14 Key Performance Indicators Page 15 Regulatory & Compliance Requirements Page 15 Alternative Fueled Vehicles Page 16 Blue Route 1 - City Circulator Page 17 Gold Route 2 - PVC/Mesa Verde/Hobsonway Page 18 Red Route 3 - Express Service to CA State Prisons Page 1.9 Dial -A -Ride Services Page 20 Desert RoadTrip / Reimbursement Program Page 21 Data Tables (Start) Page 22 70 • • INTRODUCTION Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) between the City of Blythe and the County of Riverside. PVVTA services began on January 24, 1978 and will be celebrating 30 years of service in. January 2008. The Board of Directors is comprised of. five representatives, three of which are appointed by the City of Blythe- and two representatives who are appointed by the County of Riverside. PVVTA is administered by, the General Manager, who is also the City Manager of the City of Blythe, and is appointed by the PVVTA Board of Directors. PVVTA is funded by the State of California Transportation Development Act (TDA)`. ,Funding is administered by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (ROTC), the "regional transportafion planning agency for Riverside County. MISSION STATEMENT The mission statement of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency is to provide the residents and visitors of the Palo Verde Valley with a public transportation system that maximizes passenger use, comfort, convenience, safety and satisfaction while efficiently using financial resources to benefit the community. VISION STATEMENT The vision statement of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency is to provide a transit service that allows anyone to go anywhere in the community easily and efficiently to improve the quality of life within the community. LOCATION & DEMOGRAPHICS Geographically, the Palo Verde Valley is located approximately. 120 miles east of Palm Springs, California and 147 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona. The valley :is approximately 178 miles from the Inland Empire: The Palo Verde Valley population varies greatly by season. The Valley's permanent population is approximately 28,800 residents. Each winter, approximately 74,000 seasonal residents return to the valley. Population growth in the valley is increasing at an average of _ about 2% per year. 71 The Transit Services The PVVTA provides a multitude of services such as the senior, persons with disabilities, and general public Dial -A -Ride service within the City of Blythe and surrounding unincorporated County areas in the Palo Verde Valley. The Dial -a -Ride service operates Monday -Friday from 6:00 am to 4:00 pm. Unincorporated communities served include Ripley and Mesa Verde. PVVTA provides three deviated fixed routes in the Palo Verde Valley which serve Blythe, Mesa Verde; Palo Verde College, California Department of Corrections facilities. and limited service to Ehrenberg, Arizona and Ripley. ADA Para -transit is also provided after hours on the Fixed Routes through the route deviation service. The routes can deviate up to 3/4 of a mile . away from the actual route. The service hours for the Fixed Route system are; Monday - Thursday ,frorn 5:40 am to 10:30 pm (possible reduction of evening service in FY 2008/See Gold Route 2, page 18 for more details); Friday, from 5:40 am to 7:35 pm; and 8:00 gm to 5:30 pm on Saturday, Sunday and limited holidays. Weekend service in generalis carefully being analyzed for cost versus productivity implications. Weekend ridership is generally about 50% of what the routes carry for Monday through Friday. if the weekend ridership falls below 40% compared to Monday - Friday, staff would approach the Board of Directors. about: service discontinuation. Finally, Desert RoadTRIP provides transportation reimbursement to individuals unable to access PVVTA Dial -a -Ride or Fixed Route services. PVVTA services are known to the general public under the :marketing name "Desert Roadrunner'. The PVVTA's transit services are provided under contract to Transportation Concepts of Irvine, California. Transportation Concepts has been providing transit service for PVVTA since October of 2003. PVVTA also has an agreement with the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities to administer the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (Desert RoadTRIP) that has been in place since .July 1, 1995. Fare Structure PVVTA's fare structure is sensitive to the local economy while attempting to maintain the: mandated 10% Farebox Recovery Ratio. The schedule includes full fare and discounted ride tickets. PVVTA implemented a modest fare increase on July 1, 2004, in conjunction with the elimination of transfers and the implementation of long term passes for convenience to the frequent rider. In fiscal year 2005/06, PVVTA eliminated some of the long term passes that were being under-utilized and reinstated the 20 ride passes that were eliminated in the prior year. PVVTA will not propose a fare increase in fiscal year 2007/08, but will analyze the fare structure and propose a fare increase in FY 2008/09 if necessary, in order to maintain the; Farebox Recovery Ratio. Prior to any proposed increases, PVVTA would hold a ;.public hearing in order to receive public input. 4 72 • � FARE STRUCTURE • 5 FISCAL YEAR 2007/2008 Local Fixed Routes in the Palo Verde Valley (Routes 1 & 2) . Category FY 2006/07 EXISTING FY 2007/08 NO CHANGE General Public (ages 5-59 years old) $1.25 $1.25 Seniors (age 60 years old & persons with disabilities) .60 cents .60 cents Children under 5 up to three children FREE FREE Additional Children $1.00 $1.00 Route Deviations .75 cents .75 cents 1:0-Ride GoPass $12.50 $ 1 2.50 20-Ride GoPass $25.00 $25.00 - 31=Day GoPass $35.00 35.00 Seniors & Persons With Disabilities 31-Day GoPass $20.00 20.00 . Summer Youth GoPass (June 1 -August 31) $30.00 30.00 Shop, Save & Get Home Free* (Big Kmart, spend $30.00) FREE FREE Expresso Fixed Route to California Department of Corrections (Route 3 Category FY 2006/07 EXISTING FY 2007/08 - NO CHANGE Express Fare - (Everyone, Age 5 & up) $2.75 $2.75 Children under 5 up to three children FREE FREE Additional Children $2.75 $2.75 Route Deviations .75 cents .75 cents Express 31-Day GoPass $100.00 $100.00 Express 10-Ride GoPass $27.50 $27.50 Express 20-Ride GoPass $55.00 $55.00 *Stop, Save & Get Home is funded by Big Kmart **Upcharge for GoPass is paying the difference between the GoPass and base fare. 73. FARE STRUCTURE FISCAL YEAR. 2007/2008 Dial -A -Ride (Within 3/ of a mile of fixed route). Category FY 2006/07 EXISTING FY 2007/08 NO CHANGE General Public (ages 5 and up) $2.25 $2.25 Transfers to Fixed Route FREE FREE Children under 5 up to three children FREE FREE ,. Additional Children $2.25 $2.25 Shop, Save & Get Home Free* (Big Kmart, spend $30.00) $1.75 $1.75 10-Ride GoPass $22.50 $22.50 Dial-A=Ride (Outside % of a mile of fixed route (Includes Ripley weekdays} Category FY 2006/07 EXISTING FY 2007/08 NO CHANGE General Public (ages 5 and up) $2.75 $2.75 Transfers to Fixed Route FREE FREE Children under 5 up to three children FREE FREE Additional Children $2.75 $2.75 Shop, Save & Get Home Free* (Big Kmart, spend $30.00) $2.00 $2.00 10-Ride GoPass $27.50 $ 27..50 *Stop, Save & Get Home is funded by Big Kmart **Upcharge for GoPass is paying the difference between the GoPass and base fare. 74 • MARKETING 11) The following marketing efforts are utilized to promote ridership growth. 1. Continuation of the marketing program which includes brochures, flyers, advertisements in local newspapers, community transit fairs, participation in community events, and website promotional materials. 2. Continuation of public outreach program, which includes meetings with schools, employers, senior service programs, persons with disabilities programs, social service .. agencies, the general public, city departments and other organizations who benefit from public transportation in the Palo Verde Valley. 3. Continuing the Mobility Training program to teach the public about public transportation, including those with disabilities. 4. Continue to offer information on Rideshare programs available to residents and visitors of the Palo Verde Valley. 5. Enhance and continue the Shop, Save & Get Home Free program with local businesses within the Palo Verde Valley. &come to Blythe! Serving Our Well Shaw you around Coe u 760-922-114 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Pao - etd EM 0 MIA is once ate, the itininst Y0411 C:o fuss los uni ted Oriel Oe aB peter! Rotttttertnle basest &Mg tbe"moselllft of fume. Auer, S Avge t. lasses can be purchased of the Driest Itoadumer Oft* US W. AAuapby foe moor dsto Os *sae tvM 922-1140 Don't be stuck at home . MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PVVTA operates vehicles using gasoline and diesel. The fleet (see Table 1) consists of 6 active transit vehicles and 3 active support vehicles. Most of the vehicles are interchangeable between fixed routes and dial -a -ride. The retired vehicles will be declared surplus property and sold at a City auction. PVVTA is looking to purchase two Compressed Natural Gas buses in FY 2007/08; one 22 passenger bus and one 30 passenger bus. PVVTA adheres to all Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and California Highway Patrol (CHPP) mandated Preventive Maintenance Inspection criteria and is very proactive in maintenance efforts. PVVTA maintains its vehicles under contract with the City of Blythe Central Garage located . at West 14th Avenue and Main Street. The buses are also parked overnight at this secured 0 location. ' 7 75 BUS STOP AMENITIES AND TRANSIT CENTER A Transfer Center has been developed in front of Greyhound located at Rice Street and Lovekin .Boulevard and Blythe City Hall located at North Broadway and Barnard Street. The three deviated fixed routes have timed transfers to facilitate transfers between routes at both locations. Passengers however can transfer at any location in the valley where two routes intersect and share the same stop. PVVTA has added benches and shelters throughout its system and is working with the City of Blythe Public Works Department and Planning Department to require bus turnouts and shelters as Conditions of Approval with new developments. A Transit Facilities Standard Manual has been adopted by the PVVTA's Board of Directors and is currently being used by the City of Blythe Planning Department and County of Riverside Transportation Department. ‘f:1, ,,,t1 8 76 Desert Roadrunner o SYSTEM MAP Desert oadrunn6 System Mop Dever! koadromme Service +e Mythe City limps 4.0kbp*trii ipol40 MOW Palo lAitvir RIVERSIDE General public passengers that travel within 3/ of a mile of the fixed route transit system cannot use Desert Roadrunner Dial -A -Ride. These. passengers must use Desert Roadrunner fixed routes. Desert Roadrunner Dial -A -Ride within the % of a mile areas are only for seniors (age 60 years or older), persons with disabilities and ADA eligible users. SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS PVVTA operates three deviated fixed routes and a general public/ADA paratransit demand responsive -service with same day - scheduling capabilities. The system is known as Desert Roadrunner. PVVTA has extended service to Mesa Verde area and to Ripley on weekends only. Service operates Monday -Friday from 6:00 am to 4:00 pm. No service is offered on New. Years Day, Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, :'Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. Desert Roadrunner deviated Fixed Route operates on three routes. 1. `'Blue Route 1 - City Circulator 2. Gold Route 2 - Palo Verde College/Mesa Verde/Hobsonway 3.. Red. Route 3' - Blythe via Hobsonway to California Department of Corrections facilities. Local peak hour circulator: The deviated Fixed Routes operate seven days a week. The routes operate on 60 to 120- minute headways between the hours of 5:40 am to 10:30 pm (possible reduction of evening service in FY 2008/See Gold Route 2, page 18 for more details), Monday through Thursday, 5:40 am to 7:35 pm, Friday and 8:00 am to 5:30 pm on Saturday and Sunday. There is no service on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor. Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day. Sunday level of service on Gold Route 2 operates on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, President's Day, Veterans Day and Christmas Eve. ADA paratransit after hours is provided on the fixed routes through the route deviation service. The routes candeviate up to 3/4 of a mile away from the actual route. PVVTA's Desert RoadTRIP program currently provides reimbursement to individuals who do not have access to local transportation. Desert RoadTRIP will continue to be marketed and promoted in conjunction with the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities to persons who are seniors (age 60 years or older), persons with disabilities and truly needy who live outside Dial -A -Ride service area, such as Lost Lake, resort communities along U.S. Highway 95 and Desert Center. 10 78 • PVVTA. utilizes four Park-N-Ride lots at the following locations in conjunction with local businesses and property owners: • Todd Park, Barnard Street @ Main Street - 33 spaces • Sears, Hobsonway @ 7th Street - 80 spaces • Greyhound, Rice Street @ Lovekin Boulevard - 37 spaces • Big Kmart, Hobsonway @ Carlton Street - 59 spaces Currently all the Park-N-Ride lots are being used by carpoolers, vanpoolers and transit users. Transportation Concept's staff randomly sample counts vehicles utilizing the Park-N-Ride lots. In the future, PVVTA will seek to add more Park-N-Ride lots as demand dictates. Transportation Concepts, PVVTA's service contractor issues monthly ridership reports for all services to allow the General Manager and Board of Directors to monitor performance on'a current and timely basis. The following pages are a synopsis of PVVTA'stransit services. The Partnership to Preserve. Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities, PVVTA's service contractor for Desert RoadTRIP issues quarterly reports covering the statistics of the Desert RoadTRIP program. This allows the General Manager and Board of Directors to monitor Desert RoadTRIP on a current and timely basis. In FY 2006 Desert Roadrunner Dial -A -Ride service averaged 1200 passengers per quarter, for a total of 4,797 -passenger trips in FY 2005/06. Desert Roadrunner deviated Fixed Route service, which began operation in August of 2001, averaged 11,568 passengers per quarter. A total of 46,274 passengers were reported in FY 2005/06. PVVTA's Desert RoadTRIP carried 0 1,901 one way trips and over 80,455 miles of travel. The average trip length was 42.3 miles at a cost of 111.33 per trip. 79 RIDER CHARACTERSITICS The last PVVTA Ridership Profile survey was conducted in 2005 and the 2007 survey is currently being conducted. The 2005 profile indicates that 32% of all Dial -A -Ride passengers are persons with disabilities; 35% are seniors aged 60 years and older and the remaining 33% are general public passengers. Sixty-eight (68%) of all riders on the deviated fixed route ride the bus more than twice a week; 50% of all Desert RoadTRIP passengers are persons -with disabilities, 45% are seniors (age 60 years and older) and the remaining 5% are law -income general public passengers who have no access to alternative transportation. PVVTA BLYTHE CALIFORNIA Trip generators on Desert Roadrunner include retail shopping areas along Hobsonway Blvd., as well as Riverside County Department of Social Services, Palo Verde Hospital, Enrenberg Arizona, Palo Verde College, United States Postal Service Office and Kmart Shopping Center. Work, school and shopping are the dominant reasons for trips, followed by social services, health care and recreation. 12 80 • SERVICE RELATED ISSUES As with other transit agencies, PVVTA is constantly trying to maximize services with available funds, while adhering to. regulations, mandates and performance requirements. Consistent with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan, PVVTA's goal is to increase annual ridership. However, it is difficult to achieve the goal due to the ease of driving (e.g. little traffic) and parking within the community. Most of the existing subdivision areas in the Palo Verde Valley are being retrofitted to include public transportation amenities. Palo Verde College built a new campus six miles away from the urban core of the City of Blythe and provides 1,200 free parking spaces. In Fiscal Year 2008, staff will continue its efforts to maximize ridership within the constraints of the TDA mandated Farebox Recovery requirement. Existing services and fares will continue to be monitored by staff for efficiency. If necessary, changes in service configurations or service hours (late hours and weekend service) may occur in order to bring.:sewice costs in line with the mandated 10% Farebox Recovery Ratio. During the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing in March of 2007, one individual provided comments regarding service needs in the Palo Verde Valley area. Her comment was :focused on route deviations and transfers between Fixed Route and Dial -a -Ride. PVVTA will work with Transportation Concepts (Contractor) in analyzing .and developing a possible route .that would .provide more frequency on' Hobsonway, as well as analyzing, the feasibility of implementing a subscription service to Ripley. _ REGIONAL SERVICES &ADJACENT TRANSIT SYSTEMS PVVTA is the only public transit operator in the City of Blythe and the Palo Verde Valley. However, inter -city service to the Palo Verde Valley is provided by Quartzsite Transit Services, which has a deviated fixed route that comes to Blythe every Tuesday; La Paz County Transit which has a deviated fixed route from Ehrenberg to Blythe every Monday and Wednesday and Greyhound which provides intercity bus service between Blythe and Los Angeles, CA or El Paso, TX with intermediate stops in Riverside County such as Indio, Palm Springs, Corona and Riverside. PVVTA has established a cooperative service agreement with La Paz County Transit and Quartzsite Transit Services. • 13 81 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The PVVTA will continue to implement its public outreach plan which includes comment ;cards, a direct way to telephone, email, mail, fax a comment, complaint or suggestion to the Transit Operator. PVVTA also actively participates in community events with local organizations. The PVVTA encourages public participation at the PVVTA Board of Directors meetings, which are held at least quarterly, PVVTA Transit Advisory meetings held every other month, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) meetings, which are held monthly, RCTC Technical Advisory Committee, which are held monthly and RCTC Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee meetings which are held three times per year.. Should there be a need to increase fares, in order to maintain the mandated farebox ratio, PVVTA's Board of Directors will conduct a public hearing in order to receive public input. Desert Roadrunner Transit Information Center provides Dial-a=Ride in -formation, reservations, cancellations, Fixed Route schedule information, Desert RoadShare information, and referrals to Desert RoadTRIP. Desert Roadrunner also offers 24 hour pre-recorded information via the., telephone system. Hours of operation for the center are Monday though Friday from 6:00 am to 4:00 pm,_and closed on weekends and major holidays. PVVTA has made a commitment to provide reliable, responsive information to the ;public and be proactive in responding to customer comments, complaints and suggestions. PVVTA's website at www.paloverdevalleybus.com provides route and schedule information, information about the transit agency and links to other transit providers. Customers are able to e-mail comments, complaints, concerns and suggestions through the website. 14 82 • • KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PVVTA adheres to RCTC Performance Standards and reports quarterly to the RCTC. These reports include the transit operators report and the capital project tracking report. PVVTA is required to meet several standards for its services, including the mandated 10% Farebox Recovery Ratio and operating cost per revenue hour. Key indicators for demand responsive and fixed route service are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 7- Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) Review, also shows the performance indicators that PVVTA proposes to meet in Fiscal Year 2007/08. PVVTA's goal is to meet all the required performance indicators and will closely monitor the system in order to make sure those performance indicators are met. PVVTA also tracks on a monthly basis, farebox recovery ratio and passengers per hour as basic performance criteria. Services are in three categories based on population densities: Local Services, Commuter Services and Dial=A-Ride. REGULATORY &COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. tt buses a. accessible t so its with Isabi Li ties. ADA PVVTA complies with ADA regulations and all transit buses are accessible to passengers using assist devices. ADA users are prioritized for reservations on Desert Roadrunner Dial -A -Ride and for deviations on Desert Roadrunner fixed routes. To be defined as an ADA, eligible user, passengers must `fill out a Desert Roadrunner Dial -A -Ride certification application, have theirdoctor verify the disability and submitted the application to the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency for review. All bus stops for the fixed routes are planned with ADA accessibility in mind. Title VI PVVTA is not obligated to meet Title VI requirements since the agency does not receive federal funds. 15 E Rl N B. 1 ANSPORTAT1ON ASS CI .T 83 ALTERNATIVE FUELED VEHICLES PVVTA in partnership with the City of Blythe and County of Riverside, is looking to construct a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) facility. AB2766 grant funding has been awarded to the City of Blythe in the amount of approximately $375,000, for the construction of this, CNG fueling station. In Fiscal Year 2005/06, PVVTA budgeted $25,000 for this project and in' Fiscal Year 2007/08 is budgeting $255,587 toward construction of the project. The City of 'Blythe Redevelopment Agency and the County of Riverside will also contribute $100,000 each, therefore, making available $855,587 to construct a CNG commercial quality fueling station. Staff believes the project could ultimately cost $1 million, but will move forward towards construction on an incremental basis. In order to start and help with the process . of. constructing a CNG fueling station, Mohave Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) hired a consulting firm by the name of Gladstein, Nandross & Associates to help the City find potential sites for the fueling station. Once a site has been identified, staff will continue to move forward with this project. 16 84 BLUE ROUTE 1 • CITY CIRCULATOR SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF BLYTHE • Blue Route 1 serves the growing community of Blythe providing riders access to many civic, educational and county sponsored public social service offices within the City of Blythe. Destinations on Blue Route 1 include: Blythe City Hall, Big Kmart, All Star Cinemas, Albertsons, Rife Aid, Palo Verde Hospital, Palo Verde Unified School District schools, Employment Development Department, Department of Motor Vehicles, Post Office, Blythe Central Garage and Public Works Department, California Highway Patrol, Senior Nutrition Program, Palo Verde Valley District Library, and various other shopping locations within the community. The route can deviate for passengers up to 3/4 of mile with a 30 minute in advance reservation. Connections to Gold Route 2 (Palo Verde College/Mesa Verde/Hobsonway) and Red Route 3 can be made at various locations within Blythe and at the on street TransferCenter at Rice Street @ Lovekin Boulevard and at Blythe City Hall. Connections to Greyhound can also be made at the Transfer Center. Blue Route 1 operates in a clockwise loop type of route providing a 60 minute frequency with one bus, six days a week. Blue Route 1 operates from 64.0 am to 7:00 pm, Monday Friday, 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on Saturday. No service is provided on Sunday, New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2008 No immediate changes are proposed this fiscal year, but staff continues to monitor the Saturday service for efficiency and cost effectiveness. 2009 Proposed changes this fiscal year could include increasing scheduled frequency. 2010 Possible increased frequency. • 17 85 GOLD ROUTE 2 PALO VERDE COLLEGE/MESA VERDE/HOBSONWAY PALO VERDE COLLEGE/MESA VERDE TO BLYTHE MARINA/EHRENBERG Gold Route 2 provides riders access between the City of Blythe and Palo Verde College. Selected trips are provided to Mesa Verde and Ehrenberg, Arizona. On weekends and some holidays,this route also serves Ripley. This feeder route provides connections to many civic, educational and county sponsored public social service office, Blythe City Hall, All Star Cinemas, Big Kmart, Albertsons, Rite ,Aid, Palo Verde Hospital, Colorado River Fair, Employment Development Department, Blythe Airport, Blythe Energy, Blythe Recreation Center, Palo Verde Valley District Library, Palo',; Verde College Spring Street Campus, Palo Verde College main campus and variousother shopping locations within the community. The route can deviate for passengers up to 3% of mile with a 30 minute in advance reservation. Connections to Blue Route 1 (City Circulator) and Red Route 3 by Desert Roadrunner (Red Route 3) can be made at various locations within Blythe and at the on street TransferCenter at Rice Street @ Lovekin Boulevard and at Blythe City Hall. Connections to Greyhound can be made at the Transfer Center at Rice Street @ Lovekin Boulevard. Gold Route 2 operates on a two way route providing an 80-90 minute frequency with .one bus, seven days a week. Gold Route 2 currently operates from 7:00 am to 10:30 pm , ` Monday -Thursday, 7:00 am to 7:35 pm on Friday, 8:00 am to 5:30 pm on Saturday and Sunday. No service will be provided on New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Sometime between July - September 2007, staff will analyze the ridership of the Gold Route , in particular the ridership after 8`:;00 p.m. to determine whether is cost efficient and feasible to continue service after 8:00 On. Any proposed reduction in service hours will be presented to the Board for approval prior to implementing. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2008 Provide better frequency by short turns to out laying areas. Reduce evening service and close monitoring of the Saturday and/or Sunday ridership in line with mandated performance standards. 2009 Strongly consider separating Mesa Verde and Ehrenberg service from this route and. develop . a new route to meet the demands of these growing communities. 2010 No anticipated changes this fiscal year; will continue to monitor service. 18 86 • • RED ROUTE 3 EXPRESS SERVICE TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE PRISONS The Red Route provides premium commuter service between Blythe and Chuckawalla Valley & Ironwood State Prisons, Monday through Friday with two AM and two PM trips. This route, serves four Park-N-Ride lots, travels down Hobsonway to Mesa Drive then travels via Interstate 10 to the prisons. During the midday, when the route is not operating, if demand warrants, Desert Roadrunner Dial -A -Ride may provide service to and from the prisons. The Red Route operates from 5:40 am to 7:30 am and again from 3:30 pm to 5:30 pm, Monday -Friday with no service on Saturday and Sunday. No service is provided on New Years Day, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Connections to Blue Route 1 (City Circulator), Gold Route 2 (Palo Verde College/Mesa Verde/Hobsonway) can be made at various locations within Blythe and at the on street TransferCenter at Rice Street @ Lovekin Boulevard and at Blythe City Hall. Connections to Greyhound can be made at the TransferCenter at Rice Street C Lovekin Boulevard. Special fares are charged on this route. All passengers pay $2.75 one way. There is 10 and 20 ride GoPasses available as well as a $100.00 31-Day GoPass which gives you unlimited rides on all Desert Roadrunner buses for the month. If an emergency arises during the midday, passengers can use Desert Roadrunner Dial -A- Ride. with their 31-Day GoPass. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2008 May change hours of operation to recapture lost ridership, or may add two additional trips to the express portion of this route to utilize and expand the local service and to enhance the Blue Route during peak hours. Lost ridership was primarily due to a change in the work schedule at the Correctional Facilities, therefore, riders are now utilizing private transportation. 2009-2010 Add additional trips on the route, as demand warrants additional service. DIAL -A -RIDE DESERT ROADRUNNER DIAL -A-RIDE Desert Roadrunner Dial -A -Ride provides demand responsive service within the City of Blythe and surrounding unincorporated county areas such as Mesa Verde, Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, Ironwood State Prison and Ripley. Desert Roadrunner Dial -A -Rid_ e goes from as far north as 2nd Avenue, to as far south as 28th Avenue, to as far west as Ironwood; State Prison, to as far east as the Colorado River. Seniors (age 60 years old and older), persons with disabilities and ADA eligible passengers -are eligible for dial -a -ride throughout the entire service area. These categories of passengers also are required to fill out certification application to determine eligibility of service. 'Once certified, a card is issued to the applicant. General public passengers (ages 5-59 years old) are eligible for Dial -A -Ride service imareas where there is no fixed route service (basically outside 3/, of a mile from the fixed route). Desert Roadrunner Dial -A -Ride operates from 6:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday -Friday with no service on Saturday and Sunday. No service is provided on New Years Day, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, :Veterans Day., Thanksgiving Day Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. After Dial -A -Ride hours and on weekends and some holidays, ADA paratransit service is provided on .Desert Roadrunner Fixed Route since they deviate up to % of a mile. Same day reservations are allowed, if a passenger calls at least two hours in advance. Reservations could be made from one to seven days in advance. RECOMMENDATIONS 2008 Staff is recommending reduced service to -and -from Ripley (26 mile round trip). Due to low ridership, consideration will be given to opening up the Dial -A -Ride for general public, with priority for ADA and Seniors. Staff will analyze the cost of providing the service and the ridership, sometime during the first quarter of FY 2008 and make a recornmendation to the Board. 2009-2010 Performance will dictate if further changes are necessary. 20 88 Desert RoadTRIP TRANSPORTATION REMBURSEMENT PROGRAM PVVTA's Desert RoadTRIP program currently provides reimbursement to individuals who do not have access to local transportation. Desert RoadTRIP will be marketed and promoted in conjunction with The Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities to persons who are seniors (age 60 years or older), persons with disabilities and truly needy that live outside Dial -A -Ride service area, such as Lost Lake, resort communities along U.S. Highway 95 and Desert Center. Desert RoadTRIP participants can travel up to 460 ;miles a month including using Greyhound (690 miles for a family). This equals to $147.20 per month ($220.80 for a family per month). Volunteer drivers will continue to be recruited in order to guarantee that Desert RoadTRIP users have escort transportation. PVVTA is also a partner in the Volunteer Driver .Corps program. Desert RoadTRIP is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2008 Look for a co-sponsor to partner with the cost of providing the service. 2009-2010 0 No changes recommended at this time. 21 89 PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY FY 2007/08 FY 200911 0 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN TABLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY Year Built Manufacturer Model Seats Lift- :^ Equip? TypeFR of Fuel Own or Lease - Vehicle DAR - Vehicle Support Vehicle Active/ . Reserve! Rehab* Tots! Vehicle Mlles*.* Total Veh. Sys. failures - Year to Replace *** ° �;�� %ll��. � , '� ,�,.' BUSES 1997 El Dorado Aerotech 16 Yes Diesel Own Interchangeable Reserve 208549 0 Retire El Dorado Aerotech 16 Yes Diesel Own Interchangeable Reserve 166379 0 Retire Iiirt'01111997 1999 El Dorado Aerotech 16 Yes Diesel Own Interchangeable Reserve 240022 2 2008 IMAM: 2002 .. El Dorado AeroElite 22 _ Yes Diesel Own Interchangeable Active 171691 3 200$ ���N,, 113; q i �,t 2003 Freightliner Trolley 28 Yes Diesel Own X ^ Active 126900 1 2013 ` Niig;4W O ,YYtV f`, 2004 El Dorado Aerotech 18 Yes Diesel Own Interchangeable Active 144516 1 2010 @' )aii�+4Y1� tub S i�:��lr;, ' _ 2004 El Dorado Aerotech 18 Yes Diesel Own Interchangeable Active 140267 2 2Q1Q {gee-; ��=Ta,M� `;��tihimon��a£ 2006 El Dorado Aerotech _ 16 Yes Gas Own Interchangeable Active 32224 0 20110 ' 'iv:, _ K.���'���r_f TOTAL:_BUSES 8 VANS AND MINI -BUSES -SUPPORT VEHICLES 1991 Chevrolet. Van 6 No Gas Own Reserve 198852 0 7.. Retired ��,�;�;�r�s:; '�' 2001 Ford E350 15 No Gas Own X Active 92313 1 20Qg ,, T hti, rt � 2003 Ford _ Crown Vic 6 No Gas Lease X Active 129954 0 2009 .1, 1,05 �� 2004 Chevrolet Venture 5 Yes Gas Own X Active 50455 0 201 p -V- tikt 1170A. � :i,. �irrY.i, ffn �.�.1c - ' Init ,is �. - - .'^Y 14}i?.��i rr �` �5��j1 z�$; ,,i ,, zl: i,"�SVrhS���p `(fk ,,A., ,, . TOTAL: VANS AND MINIBUSES -SUPPORT VEHICLES 4 *A - Active, R - Reserve, MR - Major Rehab. **Use. NTD Data from prior year ***If ear to replace has • assed, need ex s lanation of why vehicle. was not replaced .q�(1 rq,.'• s � ` sy� ��_ S,.r 'n� .,.� � �',�r�yJ,���y kin �.ay�r �: �: 'iirr �, uzy �{�' t �g awpy, 7.�j� r•r .. `S `. f�r-, -.,v fi /rF .r', s�.f F4 a., �r i3 a,. 411.A,,,A, '�9tOr�,{'sO;, ,'!�I"•'±j'�Y''e01 ' ***** Thievehicle was retired in 2006 but put back int service when the leased Trolley was returned.. The Trolley was never replaced, therefore, it needs to be replaced in FY08. ***" Retired Vehicles will be declared surplus property and sold at auction. Revised; 5/23/2007 Table 1 Fleet Inventory.xls • rJo t eeed 8T'0 T'Z TL'S$ 66'£9$ TL'S$ STIES %£E'OT LE'TL$ O'SSO'T£ O'LLE'0£ O'ZTL'Z LL£'OE ZLS'S TSS'£LT$ 000'0Z$ TS5'£6I$ ST'O Z'Z 60'b$ 6L'6S$ TO'b$ 8T'LZ$ %£Z'ZT Zt'89$ O'bZ9't,Z O'£80'bZ Z'8t79'T t78s'PZ 9Z9'£ i bS`86$ 9£L'ET$. ant ueid lenPV sib pa£ 80/LOOZ L0/900Z Ad sa4nob ueid 41sueal afiueN Voys 80/LOOZ A,1 8T'0 T'Z 6£"S$ 8£'09$ 6£'S$ 6£'6Z$ %L9.OT 6S'L9$ 8T'0 Z.Z 68'S$ S6'ZL$ Z£'9$ 06'Z£$ %ZZ'OT 9Z' T 8$ WOST'O£ 8'9Sb'LZ 0'Z6V6Z TOT8`9Z O'E£91Z Z6V6Z Z661i,Z OTt/S L6L'b 6T'0 s•z 'WO TL'£9$ T 617$ 8S'SZ$ %TrOT 96'OL$ O'90Z'T£ O'90L'O£ 0.89£1Z EZL'0£ L68'5 9L6'8St$ 9£$'LSt$ LS8'OSt$ • 000163 £L6'L3 69I1L3 9L6'LLt$ 608/S43 M11393 ueid L0/900Z A Pa3iPnV 90/SOOZ Ad • LoozIals H,,JeffeueW pealsuati •sapow iiea rod sem aeo (q) •sapow l!pb aoi sanoy up" (e) (q) allW anuanall rad aa6uassed (e) rnoy anuanab lad aa6uassed (q) al!W anuanaa aad Ap!sgns (e) rnoy anuanab aad AplsgnS a11W aa6uassed .dad ApisgnS ra6uessed'Jed Aplsgns ogeN liana) xogareA . rnoy anuanarad ;scoff 6uiaeaad0 sanSfaapeaeo wueuthnied saliW aPILRA len4DV lelo 1. (q) sap) anuanall apigaA lenpy Ielol (e) srnoy anuanall aloluaA lenpv pawl sal!W ra6uass2d sdpi ra6u9ssed paXWlun sonspapeny3 aupeaadp (salp!sgns) sasuadx3 6unerad0 aaN. anuanalf aaej aa6uassed lelol sasuadxa 6ui4erad0 iplol nee lepueum TaaId anoy->iead s3pspepeietj0 paid pa4Il}nd so/toot Ad ortit swo) uago �t 1.1t+no) ova ri • +r- tt; rj tveisisia tviety Irw.aptivson Gowalu an Fleet Characteristics Peak -Hour Fleet Financial Data Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) Operating Characteristics Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehide Revenue Hours (a) Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b) Total Actual Vehicle Miles Performance Characteristics FY 2004/05 Audited 3}i:' til c.0 N Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a) Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b) Passenger per Revenue Hour (a) Passenger per Revenue Mile (b) (a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes. TransTrack Manager"' 5/29/2007 $562,988 $41,282 $521,706 i( 37,275 173,702 9,284.0 173, 688.0 202, 794.0 $60.64 7.33% $14.00 $3.00 $56.19 $3.00 4.0 0.21 FY 2005/06 Audited r 4. 1 f, $573,168 $57,881 $515,287 Sj ti rr. Table 2 _- PVVTA-BUS ..a S/ZTP Service Sumrrrary FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan All Routes rS ti 46,274 215,637 8,934.0 162,901.0 194,482.0 $64.16 10.09% $11.14 $2.39 $57.68 $3.16 5.2 0,28 FY 2006/07 Plan l ,... _... 4. $632,599 $65,500 $567,099 'stir t+ A t fir! 48,882 181,900 11,320.0 181, 900.0 207,300.0 $55.88 10.35% $11.60 $3.12 $50.10 $3.12 4.3 0.27 FY 2006/07 3rd Qtr Actual i $375, 068 $37,267 $337,801 iti;., . 30,519 148,322 6,609.3 125,158.0 148,740.0 $56.75 9.93% $11.07 $2,28 $51.11 $2,70 4,6 0.24 FY 2007/08 Plan 4 $679,938 $69,000 $610,938 47,200 162,606 10,543.0 162,606.0 173,196.0 $61.49 10.14% $12,94 $3.76 $57.95 $3.76 4.5 0,29 Page of 1 .T V- - , A.., • Rktrioit Goal Trfaspaivilos (arinhihn Fleet Characteristics Peak -Hour Fleet Financial Data Total Operating Expenses Total Passenger Fare Revenue Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies) Operating Characteristics Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a) Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b) Total ,Actual Vehicle Miles Performance Characteristics CA) Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Farebox Recovery Ratio Subsidy, per Passenger Subsidy per Passenger Mile Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a) Subs* per Revenue Mile (b) Passenger per Revenue Hour (a) Passenger per Revenue Mile (b) (a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes. e Table 2 -- Pa o Verde Valley Transit Agency -- SRTP Service Summary FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan All Routes FY 2004/05 Audited TransTrack Manager"' 5/29/2007 , $731,014 $58,451 $672,563 43,172 204,425 11,652.0 204,394.0 234,000.0 $62.74 7.99% $15.58 $3.29 $57.72 $3.29 3.7 0.21 1.01PM, FY 2005/06 Audited $748,977 $75,8541 $673,123 51,071 240,629 11,097.5 189,711.0 221,938.8 ; , , $67.49 10.12% $13.18 $2.80 $60.66 $3.55 4.6 0.27 FY 2006/07 Plan $810,575 $84,500 $726,075 54,292 211,392 13,953.0 211,392.0 237,450.0 $58.09 10.42% $13.37 $3.43 $52.04 $3.43 3,9 0.26 FY 2006/07 3rd Qtr Actual $487,345 $51,003 $436,342 34,145 172,907 8,257.5 149,241.0 173,364.0 $59.02 10.460/0 $12.78 $2.52 $52.84 $2.92 4,1 0.23 FY 2007/08 Plan $873,489 $89,000 $784,489 ;... 52,772 192,983 13,255.0 192,983.0 204,251.0 $65.90 10.18% $14.87 $4.07 $59.18 $4.07 4.0 0.27 Page 1 of 1 680108L$ 000'60 68b'£L8$ O'TSZ'bOZ TSS'£L1$ 000'03 TSS'£6T$ 0'5501E 8LZ'LET$ SOS'ST$ £9CZST$ 0'01,Z'0£ ZT8'893 09E'0£$ ZLt'663 0'ZT9'96 814'1b03 SE ea$ £86'113 0'bb£`9b Ap►sgng anuaealf }sa3 s*I114 1a1,1 Ja6uassed 6upendp le;ol sa4n011 Ill 80/LOOZ s -- Axla6y wueu AalleA apaan sled soJ. spejS amo2J d11/5 £ aJ9P1 O'£86'26T O'LLE'0£ O'9t.CEZ O'OZE'b6 O'0lr6'bb sal! W anuanau O'OLE4t 0'55Z'Et E96`Z61 ZLL`ZS 5 O'Zb8'Z O'ZIL`Z LL£`0£ ZLS'S T O'ZLS'£ O'OL£`Z 917£'EZ 000'£T 2 0.'9£8'b 0.9£9`b OZ£'t,s 00Va T 0'0Z9'E 0'S£S'£ 01,6'» 008191 T mop vnop - sal!W S.1a6uassed sa13148A Teaol anuaAaw Jaauessed )Iead s;uauuan elea steaol aapluad aNAaag AeppaM 1230.1. fool Ie1ol adds Aeq �/q-b1Md Z-V.Uvld T-VIAAd # axnc8 siotan°) towijabost imelopplug riot aSed cddrn/s ,„,101:e11ew 11,212{Lsur1,L LZ'0 01, LO'b$ 91'65$ LO'b$ L91,1$ °/a81'01 53'91$ £S14 06'59$ sip#ol+aPinom aoiaaag 9I'0 T'Z 1L'SS 66'£9$ IL'S$ SI'I£$ %E£'0T bL'b£$ L£'9$ L£'IL$ AePraM WO-V1Md 95'0 S'S 88'S$ Z6'LS$ 98'S$ 9S'01$ %bT"OI SL'II$ b5'9$ LV179$ R401 £-d.LMd 9V° 9'£ S8'Z$ 96'LS$ S97$ SYSI$ %bI'OI 6I'LIS LT'£$ OS'179$ poi Z'VIAAd L£'0 9'47 9S'b$ S6'LS$ 9S'17$ 6T'ZT$ %6T'OT LS'ET$ LO'S$ 6i,1/9$ poi. I-b1Md 01114 lad anoi4 gad GM rnoH ailW aa6uessed °pet Ja6uassed sow anusmall X1034 anuanali adh Aea #; Holt sia6uassad sJa6uassed anuanali anuanal} JoEvossed aad Aplsgng A-10A02031 aad Isoa Jad 3503 Jad;so3 lad Aplsgns ied Aplsgns aad Aplsgns xogaae3 6uneaadp 6upesedp ti N sJo4ea!pu; aoueuuoPad sa�nob iiy 80/Looz Ad s -- A.lue5y AeHen eru8/1 o;ed son S amoZI d t 2'S - £ °WI • .00**),Alovataliouvotpubsi •..., g:, f4i�`SYt 1 N oa TABLE 3A- INDIVIDUAL ROUTE DESCRIPTION Line # Route Description (Area Served 1 Gold Route 2 - provides riders access between the City of Blythe and Palo Verde College. Selected trips are provided to Mesa Verde and Ehrenberg, Arizona. Route also serves Ripley area. Gold Route 2 operates on a two way route, providing an 80-90 minute frequency with one bus, seven days a week. This route can also deviate for passengers up to 3/4 of a mile, with a 30 minute in advance reservation. 2 Blue Route 1 - provides riders access to many civic location within the City of Blythe. Destinations on Blue Route 1 include: City Hall, K-Mart, Palo Verde Hospital, Employment Development Department, Palo Verde Unified School District, California Highway Patrol, Albertsons, Rite Aid, Post Office, etc. rn Blue Route 1 operates in a clockwise loop, providing a 60 minute frequency with one bus, six days a week. This route can also deviate for passengers up to 3/4 of a mile, with a 30 minute in advance reservation. 3 Red Route 3 - Expresso provides commuter service between the City of Blythe and the California State Prisons, Monday through Friday with two AM and two P.M trips. This route serves four Park-N-Ride lots, travels down Hobs.onway to Mesa Drive, then travels to the State Prisons, via Interstate 10. I fV co • PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY FY 2007/08 SUMMARY OF FUNDS REQUESTED SHORT RANGE 'TRANSIT PLAN Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2007/08 -, Section Section Section 5307 - Indo- Capital Section 5307 • 5307 - Section Cathedral • Project Total Amount 5307 - Riv- Temecula/ Hemet/San 5307 - Los Cily-Palm Project Description Number (t) of Funds LTF STA Measure A San. Bride Murriela Jacinto Angeles Springs. Section 5309 Section 5311 CMAQ TUMF Fare Box Other (2) Operation assistance $ 873,489 5784,489 $ 69,000 $ 20,000 Subtotal: Operating $873,489 $784,489 $0 $69,000 ` •, $20,000 CNG Bus Replacement. $ 112,317 $ 112,317 _ FY08-1 Diesel Particulate Filter FY08-2 $ 9,810 $ 9,810 Bus Stop Amenities FY08.3 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 CNG Bus Replacement FY08.4 $ 140,545 $ 140,545 CNG Fueling Station FY08-5 $ 255,587 $ 255,587 Subtotal: Capital $538:25W $142,127 $396,132 $0 Total: Operating_8, Capital $1,411,748 $926,616 $398,132 $0 50 $0 $0, $0 $0 SO SO SO $0' $69;000 $20,000 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A • Capital Project Justification (2) Please Identify source of "Other funds. Other Funds Include: Newspaper Revenue Shelter Advertising Revenue Contribution/City of Blythe Revised 5/24/2007 Summary of FY 2007/08 Funds Requested,xis Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 2007/08 Funds Requested) FY08= 1 PROJECT NAME CNG Bus Replacement PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replace an Intermediate size diesel bus with a 22 passenger plus wheel chair CNG Bus. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) This bus would replace a 2002 Eldorado Aeroelite diesel bus which currently has 171,691 miles and is five years old. The vehicle will soon exceed its life expectancy and is scheduled for replacement in the ,Fiscal Year 2008. The replacement vehicle will be a 22 passenger plus wheel chair, CNG fueled vehicle.. This vehicle is interchangeable and will be used for Dial -a --Ride and Fixed Route vvithin the Palo Verde Valley. The City of Blythe is currently pursuing the construction of a CNG Fueling Station in the valley, therefore, PV!/TA will now start to replace gas and diesel buses with CNG buses. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $112,317 LTF Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED — INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER Unexpended balance on similar project is $20,023 which will be applied toward the purchase of this vehicle. Total cost of the CNG Bus is $132,340. -30- 98 Table 4A Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 2007/08 Funds Requested) FY08-2 PROJECT NAME DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification of Eldorado Aerotech Bus PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) The California Air Resource Board has implemented new fleet rules that require public transit to reduce the amount of diesel particulate and NOX. In order to do this the bus must be modified. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $9810 TDA Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE— OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED -- INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER None. -31- Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY.2007/08 Funds Requested) FY08-3 PROJECT NAIVIE Bus Stop Amenities PROJECT DESCRIPTION Will purchase advertising bus shelters and benches which will be placed at ;bus stops throughout the Palo Verde Valley. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) This project:: has been ongoing and the Agency will continue until we have placed benches or shelters with benches at our bus stop locations. These amenities will provide passenger comfort while waiting for a transit bus. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $20, ao0 LTF Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED -- INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER Prior year projects are in the process of being completed, therefore, we do not expect to have an unexpended balance at year end. -32-- 100 • Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 2007/08 Funds Requested) FY08-4 PROJECT NAME CNG Intermediate Size Bus PROJECT DESCRIPTION Replace a Trolley that was on a Lease/Purchase in FY 2005 and sold in FY 2006. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital. Projects) This bus would replace a Trolley that was purchased and sold in 2006. The Trolley did not meet our current needs therefore it was sold and never replaced. However, a retired bus was brought back into service in order to continue to service our transit needs. We are looking to purchase a medium duty CNG bus, 30 passengers with, two wheel chairs. The City of Blythe is currently pursuing the construction of a CNG Fueling Station in the valley, therefore, 'PVVTA will now start to replace gas and diesel buses with CNG buses. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $140, 545 STA Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE -- OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED — INCLUDE.. FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER None. -33- Table 4A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 4 — Summary of FY 2007/08 Funds Requested) FY08-5 PROJECT NAME CNG Fueling Station PROJECT DESCRIPTION Contribution towards the construction of a commercial quality CNG Fueling Station. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) There is a need for a CNG Fueling Station in the Palo Verde Valley. Currently, there is a no commercial quality fueling station -located .in the area, therefore, making it impossible to operate CNG buses. The City of Blythe is currently pursuing the construction of a CNG Fueling Station with a projected completion date in early 2008. There are several funding sources for this project. PwTA's funding contribution equals about 25% of the total cost of the project. PVVTA will initially be using the fueling station about 25 % - 30% of the time. The percentage of usage will increase as PVVTA increases its CNG fleet PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $255,587 STA Funds $125,000 AB2766 Grant Funding through the City of Blythe $250,000 MDAQMD Grant Funding $100,000 County of Riverside $100,000 City of Blythe (Redevelopment Agency) PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH (.UNEXPENDED BALANCE — OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED — INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER Prior years unexpended balance is $37,705 (LTF Funds). These funds will be applied toward the total cost of this project, -34- 102 Table 5 • Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2008/09 and FY 2009110 • PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/1d SUMMARY OF FUNDS REQUESTED SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN • [Please show in actual dollar amounts: $100,000, 51,583,000, etc. ^ Section Capital Total Section Section 5307 - Section 5307 - Section 5307 - India. Cathedral Project Amount of 5307 - Riv. Temecula/ Hemet/San 5307 • Los City -Palm Project Description Number (t) Funds LTF STA Measure A San. Bndo Murrieta Jacinto Angeles Springs Section 5309 Section 5311 CMAQ TUMF Fare Box Other l2, Operation Assistance FY09 $ 634,892 $ 745.892 � $74 OOOR $15 000 Operation Assistance FY10 $ 859,939 $ 759.159 $77,780 $13,000 Subtotal: Operating $1,694,831 A $1,515,051 $0 $151,7130 $28,000 Replace Vehicle (Van) FY08-1 $55,000 $55,000 , Replace Vehicle (2 Buses) FY10-1 $300,000 $300,000 Replace Vehicle (Van) FY10-2 ` $55,000 $55,000 Subtotal: Capital $410.000 5110,00E $300,000 $0 50 Total: Operating & Capital _ $2,104,831 51,628,081 $300,000 50 $0 SO $4, SO SO $0 50 SO $0' $181,780 $28,000 (1) Number should tie to Table 4A - Capital Project Justification (2) Please identity source of "Other" funds. Other Fun 11 Inggsi : Newspaper Revenue Sheller Advertising Revenue Contribution from City Revised 5/24/2007 Summary of Funds Requested FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 .xls Table 5A Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/10 Funds Requested) FY09-'1 PROJECT NAME Replace the 2001 Ford Ilan which is currently used as a support. vehicle. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This van will need to be replaced in fiscal year 2009 at which time it will be eight years old. This vehicle has already exceeded its life expectancy and desperately needs to be replaced. This support vehicle currently has 92,313 miles. PVVTA will not purchase a replacement van until all available options have been explored. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects In order to continue to maintain good and reliable transit service, this vehicle must be replaced due to its age and mileage. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCE'S (REQUESTED) $55,000 LTF Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE -- OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED — INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER None. 104 • • Table 5A — Capital Proeect Justification PROJECT NUMBER (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/10 Funds Requested) FY10-1 PROJECT NAME Replace two. Intermediate size buses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION These buses would replace two 2004 El Dorado Aerotech, 18 passenger buses which currently has 144,516 and 140,267 miles and are currently three years old. These vehicles will have exceeded their life expectancy in fiscal year 2010. These replacement buses will be used for Dial -a -Ride and Fixed Route within the Palo Verde Valley. The CNG Fueling Station should_ be complete by the time these buses need to be purchased, therefore, PVVTA will purchase. CNG buses. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) n order to continue to maintain good and reliable transit service, these vehicles must be replaced due to age and mileage. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $300,000 STA Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER None. -37- Table 5A — Capital Project Justification PROJECT 'NUMBER (should tie to Table 5 — Summary of FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/10 Funds Requested) FY10--2 PROJECT NAME Replace the 2004 Chevy Van which iscurrently used as a support vehicle. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This van will need to be replaced in fiscal year 2010 at which time it will be six years old and will have exceeded its life expectancy. This support vehicle currently has 50,455 miles. PVVTA will not purchase a replacement van until all available options have been explored. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION (refer to Commission policy entitled "Justification Requirements for Capital Projects) In order to continue to maintain good and reliable transit service, this vehicle will need to be replaced due to its age and mileage. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) $55,000 LTF Funds PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE -- OR PROJECTS APPROVED BUT NOT YET ORDERED — INCLUDE FTA GRANT NUMBER AND RCTC'S CAPITAL GRANT NUMBER None. -38- 106 recommendation is no longer relevant. -39- TABLE 6 PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUNT Prior Audit Recommendation (Covering FY 2004 -- FY 2006) PVVTA should continue on building the relationship with Palo Verde College to promote greater transit usage. Include an allocation of City staff and mechanic in the Full-time Equivalent count. Action(s) Taken And Results (1) Staff has already approached Student Services at Palo Verde College to make a Student Pass along with the ASB Card Staff will continue on building .that relationship with PVC: City staff and the mechanic position have not been included in the State Controller's Report as part of the Full -time -Equivalent count, but will be counted in all future reports. Consider charging a different fare for general public Dial -A -Ride from the senior/disabled fare. Staff will analyze and consider this option. This may be a way to keep the Dial -A -Ride. service into Ripley on Monday through Friday. Work with the Contractor to include in the monthly operations report performance data that show "Year -to -Date, as well as "Same Month One Year Ago", information. This information should be shared with the Agency's Board on a regular basis. PWTA should coordinate with the transit contractor and CHP to schedule regular inspections, due about the same time each year. These reports will be added in Fiscal Year 2007/08 and presented to the Agency's Board as well. All this data is currently tracked and available. to staff, but a report will have to be formatted in order to present it to the Board. (1) If no action taken, provide schedule for im'ple The transit contractor currently schedules the CHP inspections and does so around the same time each year. The problem is that the CHP has a nine month back log due to the size of the district and priority to the border zones. Blythe Scales, Winterhaven Scales, Calexico Border, Yuma Border, and all agriculture businesses are in this district, therefore, the back log and difficulty in scheduling a regular inspection. mentation or explanation of why the Aiv[tsfdlt tam Trcrsaprluliaa Cbnanias?aa Data Elements Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets Report FY 2007/08 Short Range Transit Plan Review Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency FY 2007/08 Plan FY 2007/08 Target Unlinked Passenger Trips 52,772 Passenger Miles 192,983 Total 'Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours 13,255.0 Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles 192,983.0 Total Actual Vehicle Miles 204,251.0 Total Operating Expenses $873,489 Total Passenger Fare Revenue $89,000 Net Operating Expenses $784,489 Performance indicators Mandatory; 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2, Farebox Recovery Ratio Discretionary: 1. Subsidy Per Passenger CO 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 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 Performance Indicators Productivity Performance Summary: Service Provider Comments: TransTrack Manager'"' 5/23/2007• $65.90 10.18% $14.87 $4.07 $59.18 $4.07 4.0 0.27 <= $68.32 > = 10.000/0 >= $10.86 and <= $14.70 >_ $2.14 and <= $2.90 >= $44.91 and <= $60.77 >= $2.48 and <= $3.36 >= 3.5 and <= 4.7 >= 0.20 and <= 0.26 FY 2007/08 Year to Date- Year to Date Performance Through. March Scorecard Page 1 of I • Table 8 — HIGHLIGHTS OF SRTP FOR PRESENTATIONS_ • Transit service continues to be provided by contract with Transportation Concepts. No proposed fare increase on both Dial -A -Ride and Fixed Route in FY 2008 > Some emphasis will be placed on situating passenger amenities (e.g. benches, shelters, trash receptacles) at strategic locations. Transit turn -outs now an active consideration with City and County Conditions of Approval with new development. > Transit management will focus on system productivity, mindful of TDA requirements relative to Farebox Recovery Ratios. > Agency will actively continue to pursue additional funding for Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fueling station, in partnership with City of Blythe and County of Riverside. > With the construction of a CNG fueling station, the Agency will now start purchasing CNG vehicles. Operating & Financial Data FY02/03 FY03/04 FY0405 FY05/06 FY06/07 Projected FY07/08 Planned Systemwide Ridership 30085 36046 43173 51071 54292 52772 Operating Cost Per Revenue Hours $42.46 $67.24 $62.56 $67.49 $58.09 $65.90 Comments: Productivity Performance Summary: PVVTA's proposed 2007/08 SRTP, meets 2 of 2 mandatory indicators and meets 2 of 6 discretionary indicators. Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 125 West Murphy Street, Blythe, CA 92225 Telephone: (760) 922-1 1.40 FAX: (760) 922.-0491 www_paloverdevalleybus.com To: Tanya Love, RCTC Subject: PVVTA PIP Non -Compliance Action Plan Date: May 29, 2007 PVVTA PIP Non -Compliance Action Plan According to the 3rd Quarter data and projected end of the year statistics the Agency will. NOT meet the following Discretionary PIP targets for FY 06/07; Passengers per Revenue Hour, Passengers per Revenue Mile, Subsidy per Passenger Mile and Subsidy per Passenger. The Agency currently meets only two of the required three Discretionary Performance Indicators. a .. In planning for the FY 07/08 SRTP three of these PIP targets may be corrected by the cut of unproductive service. There will be .projected reduction of 80 service hours and 600 re venue miles monthly from unproductive fixed route service. Also, there will be limited trips to outlaying areas with a shift of 20 service hours redirected to local group trip scheduling resulting in a reduction of 300 revenue miles monthly. These changes would be demonstrated in the first quarter of FY07/08 As for the Subsidy per Passenger, Agency staff will study the feasibility to increasing General Public fare on the Dial -A -Ride and/or incorporate zone fares into the current fare schedule in calendar year 2008. Also, in reviewing expenditures, it was noted that June expenditures are always significantly • higher than the other months and that is due to expenditures being accrued in one month and paid in the following month. At year end (June) all invoices pertaining to the fiscal year must be paid in June, therefore, the expenditure total for that month is almost double. Our PIP targets are calculated on data for the first three quarters of the fiscal year, which in this case would not be reflected accurately due to the higher expense in the fourth quarter. In order to correct this problem so that PIP targets are calculated correctly, staff will track the expenditures closely and adjust the expenditures so that they are charged out in the proper month, and therefore, reflecting more accurate numbers. With this correction, the calculation of our PIP Targets should now be more realistic and accurate. A Joint Powers Agency Between the City of, Blythe and County of Riverside Board of Directors: Robert Crain, Chairman Alfonzo "Sonny" Hernandez, Board member Roy Wilson, Board member Lincoln Edmond, :Board member Joseph DeConinick, Board member Les Nelson, General Manager 110 • RESOLUTION NO. 08-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS ,WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is designated the regional entity responsible for the allocation of State Transit Assistance Funds within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission has examined the Short Range Transit Plans and Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, all proposed expenditures in Riverside County are in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the level of passenger fares is sufficient for claimants to meet the fare revenue requirements of Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.4, 99268.5, and 99268..9, as applicable; and • WHEREAS, the claimant is making full use of federal funds available under the Federal Transit Act; and WHEREAS, the sum of the claimant's allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority regional, countywide, or area -wide public transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the public transit operators have made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99244; and WHEREAS, the claimant is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license; and WHEREAS, operators are in full compliance with Section 18081.1 of the Vehicle Code, as required in Public Utilities Code Section 99251. 111 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Riverside County Transportation Commission to allocate State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 2007/08 as detailed in Attachment 2: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11 cn day of July, 2007. Terry Henderson, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harrison, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 112 ATTACHMENT 6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2007/08 URBANIZED AREA: RIVERSIDEISAN BERNARDINO Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Bus Rail Apportionment $8,147,671 $4,760,510 Carryover $5,654,648 $11,214,464 Total Funds Available $13,802,319 $15,974,974 Less Current Requests $7,471,842 $1,452,661 Balance (Projected) $6,330,477 $14,522,313 Sub Area Allocation Corona, City of $0 Riverside, City of $495,000 Riverside Transit Agency $6,976,842 RCTC's Commuter Rail $1,452,661 TOTAL $8,924,503 FEDERAL DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS TOTAL AMOUNT SHARE_ PROJECT TYPE RECIPIENT Riverside, City of 1) Preventive maintenance $ 100,000 $ 80,000 Capital/Operating SCAG 2) Replacement of 5 (LPG) Alternative Fuel Medium Duty DAR $ 500,000 $ 415,000 Capital SCAG . TOTAL: City of Riverside $ 600,000 $ 495,000 3) 4) 0 5) 6) Riverside Transit Agency Paratransit vehicle procurement (42 replacement) & (5 expansion) $ 3,090,800 $ 2,565,364 Capital SCAG Refurbish 5 CNG trolleys $ 570,225 $ 456,180 Capital SCAG Support vehicle procurement $ 340,340 $ 272,272 Capital SCAG Capital maintenance spares $ 445,822 $ 356,658 Capital SCAG 7) Bus shelter maintenance equipment $ 38,650 $ 30,920 Capital SCAG 8) Bus stop shelters and amenities (Transit Enhancement) $ 375,480 $ 300,384 Capital SCAG 9) Shop toots & equipment 10) Capitalized tire lease $ 26,409 $ 21,127 Capital SCAG $ 227,000 $ 181,600 Capital SCAG, 11) AC/Heat units - Riverside $ 30,000 $ 24,000 Capital SCAG 12) Office furniture $ 7,000 $ 5,600 Capital SCAG 13) Facilities improvement - Hemet & Riverside. $ 137,500 $ 110,000 Capital SCAG 14) GFI fareboxes (53) $ 796,237 $ 636,990 Capital SCAG 15) Direct TV & Wifi on CommuterLink buses 16) Office equipment - IT 17) COP debt service $ 290,215 $ 232,172 Capital: SCAG $ 185,783 $ 148,626 Capital SCAG $ 2,033,781 $ 1,627,025 Capital SCAG 18) Coin counting machine $ 9,905 $ 7,924 Capital SCAG TOTAL: Riverside Transit Agency $ 8,605,147 $ 6,976,842 19) 410 TOTAL: RCTC's Commuter Rail SCRRA Rehab/Renovation - FY 08 RCTC's share $ . .1,452,661 $ 1,452,661 Capital SCAG TOTAL: RCTC Rail $ :1,452,661 $ 1,452,661 GRAND TOTAL $ 10,657,808 $ 8,924,503 Approved: 7/11/07 (Pending) 1 1 3 Riv-San UZA FY 2007/08 6/19/2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2007/08 URBANIZED AREA::; HEMET/SAN JACINTO RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment Carryover Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) Total Funds Available Less Current Requests Balance (Projected) NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 1) TOTAL: Approved: 7/11/07 (Pending) Operating assistance TOTAL AMOUNT $ 44,045,085 $ 44,045,085 114 $1,639,472 $0 $0 $1,639,472 $1,639,472 $0 FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT $ 1,639,472 Operating Ca[trans $ 1,639,472 Hemet/San Jacinto FY 2007/08 6/18/2007 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION . PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2007/08 URBANIZED AREA: TEMECULA/MURRIETA RECIPIENT: RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Total Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment $2,272,609. Carryover $1,787,762 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) $0 Total Funds Available $4,060,371 Less Current. Requests $4,060,371 Balance (Projected) $0 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Capitalized preventive maintenance $ 4,671,829 $ 3,737,463 Operating/Capital SCAG 2) Operating assistance $ 322,908 $ 322,908 Operating SCAG TOTAL: $4,994,737 $4,060,371 Approved: 7/11/07 (Pending) 115 Temecula/Murrieta UZA FY 2007/08 6/18/2007 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FTA SECTION 5307 FY 2007/08 URBANIZED AREA: INDIO/CATHEDRAL CITY/PALM SPRINGS RECIPIENT: SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Total. Apportionment (Projected based on prior year actuals) Apportionment $3,241,472 Carryover $508,115 Transfer of Funds (CMAQ) $0 Total Funds Available $3,749,587 Less Current Requests $3,749,587 Balance (Projected) $0 TOTAL FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNATED NUMBER PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMOUNT SHARE TYPE RECIPIENT 1) Capitalized preventive maintenance Fixed route vehicles - 16 bus replacement Transit enhancements $1,582,283 $1,051,000 Operating/ SCAG Capital $6,549,617 $2,649,297 Capita! SCAG $400,000 $49,290 Capital SCAG TOTAL: $8,531,900 $3,749,587 Approved: 7f 11 /07 (Pending) 116 Indio/CoachellalPalm Springs UZA FY 2007/08 6/18/2007 ATTACHMENT 7 LPL LOOZ/81/9 slx'uolle3011d d1S dll 80-LOOZAd/80L0 swJod Ueld dl8S/11 'LOOZ 'AquaeIdes Is) lsn6ny 'link col moo 6141eaado 6uuenoo palsanbai 000'OLZ$10 6ulpunj wualul we�6oad luewenadwp AllnllonpoJd 10/900Z Ad Lipm eouelldwoa-uou of enp ueld uollob' pue dnds to uolleldwoo Bulpued wowneag to eyl Jot palsenbai uoileoolle lenuue oN 918`LOL`9 $ 9Z61546'£9 $ arZg4 LZl'Zbl 6bl`59b'S 6bL'S9b'S 000`005 000.00S 80/LOOZ lid 68b'b81 68b'b9L 6b£'108`06 6b£'L08'0l 055`569'8 OSS'S69'8 8£V8Z9'£t► SL8'S9E'8E 6lL'bZ9'Z OSb'6LS'l $ b6b'8S0' l 80/LOOZ old spunA lel!ae0 dll spund bupeJedp All : e4o N •slsoo 6ugeiado }o aieys s,0i021 sl Ogg'969'9$ lunowe ley) jo :d18S 3o £algal gad W 9£'L£$ le palewllsa ale slsoo 6unwedo sme8 ialnww00 f Z08`EZO`OL $ VEZ`Zbti`£9 $ 9£0`9£VEEL $ 663,`060`£b $ /19`SIb£`06 1�d101 Athm Amnon 90'9Z6 9l9'9Z6 860'£1Z'94 860'£LZ'9l OSVS6 4'6 099'961.'6 8£91M9`£b 9L8'99£'8£ 6lL't7Z9'Z OSb'6L9' 4 b6b`890' l Z£4`S8b Z£ 6'98b 8SL'6S£`84 89L'69£'8 6 99Z'ZLZ`L 4 99Z'ZLZ'LL 810'S6VLZ 91•6'L96'bZ 000'Z68 £9£'66£ $ O08`9b0' 6 80/LOOZ old 2l0d SNO LV001ld 11SNV211 d11 030N3WW039N 8171' 41441. 6SV8£S 68Y£L8 8bL' l 6b' 6 69Z'9£9 6817`£L8 9S8`Z£91,£ £LS'£9Z`174 £8Z'69£'OZ 998'Z£9'17£ £LS'£9Z'b6 £8Z'69£'0Z 948'2.917'9Z 99ZtaL4 OSVS6911 948'L9V9Z 99Z'ZLL'L4 099'969'9 949`£Z6'OL 06L'£Z£`£9 66L'91.9'£ £68'8L6'6 . $ b6Z'1704'Z A311VA 30113A 01Vd :1V101 loue6y llsueil lapen apwan oled . A311VA V113H0V00 :1V10.1 loua6y Vsueil aununs. :.11V21 2131f1WW00 - 3a1S213A121 N2131S3M :1V101 01u1104901) yeb Jainwwo0 9,01023 4Z£'94S`04. S6Z'LOb'09 S118.301S213AIN N2131S3M :1V101 6Z£'1.90'6 69b'ZLZ'b9 000'009 614'940'£ 000'09 £ l8'BZ6' 1. $ 000'966 $ b6Z'691; $ S3f1N3A3N All S1S00 S1SOO 1VlidbO. S1SOO ONI1V213d0 NON 031VWI1S3 1V101 031VINI1S3 031VWI1S3 031`dW1153 loua6y psueil aplsJanw seolnaaS ieloads aplsianiN eu01oo io A10 6wuueg Jo /tic V3NV 1N3WN0Ii210ddV7A0N3OV :SONMA N011t/1Z10dSNb211 -1V301 SNOI1V0011V 11SNVN180/LOOZ Ad ONIONI1A 10V 1N31Ald013A3a NOI1V1bOdSNH211 NOISSIWW00 NOI1V1210dSNV2I1 A1Nf100 301S2l3A111 •wea6oid luewenoldwl APRonpad LO/900Z old yl!M eoueOwop-uou of enp ueld uol}oy pue dniS uolIeldwoo 6ulpued Wowneeg }o AijO eye.101 pe}senbai uopoolle oN 1N L09`868'L $ - $ Z£ 6'96£ Z£ l'96£ OZV'S11`ti OZb'4LL't • SS0`LZL'Z 990'LL9' l 000'99 000'0S 000'9l6 $ - 90/LOOZ AA 90/LOOZ AA spund spund ylS 6u4eaad0 dlS Z£ 6'96£ Z£ 6'96C OZVSLL'b OZb'9LL't Z£ 6'96£ N I•'96£ OZ17'SLL`b OZb'9LL'b A311V+A 30113A OlVd �"Id101 itoueby ilsudal AelleA epien oled A311V+A V113140V00 r1V101 Aoueby ilsueil euliuns �IV+2i a3lnwwoo MIS213AIN N2131S3M �'1tJ101 (�1u!Ioa�eW) Ilea aelnwwo0 s,010a SSO`LZL'Z - SSO`LZL'Z - Sn9 - 3aIS2GAI2I Nb31S3M :11f10.1. 990'22.9' 6 990'LL9' I- Aoua6y #1sue.il eplsienla 000'S$ 000'98 seovueS lepeds eplsianN 000'09 000'09 euoJoo to Alio 000'966 $ $ 000'91.6 $ $ 6uluues }o An 80/LOOZ A3 saNn3 S1S00 1V1Idd0 S1S00 110d SNOI1d0011b N3A0 ANNVO VlS 031V INI1S3 ONI1db3d0 11SNV N1 d1S d1S a31VWLIS3 a3aN3WW003N V lS 031VW11S3 V alVr 1N3WN011210ddH/A0N3OV �SaNfl3 33NV1SISSV 3.1V1S SNOIltJ0011V 11SNV2{180/1003 Ad ONIONnA 10d 1N31Ald013n3a NOI1V1NOdSNVILL NOISSIWW00 NOI1V'1210dSNb211 AiNn00 301S1:13n121 AGENDA ITEM 10 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 25, 2007 TO: Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Request for Fiscal Year 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan Amendment and Allocation of Funds for the City of Banning's Municipal Transit System STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Allocate additional operating funds of $39,461 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Funds to the city of Banning's Municipal Transit System (Banning); 2) Amend Banning's FY 2006/07 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) to reflect the additional operating funds; and 3) Forward to the Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During Banning's mid -cycle budget review process, Banning's staff determined that transit expenditures were slightly higher than originally projected through the agency's SRTP cycle. The increased operating costs are due as a result of driver shortages, resulting in increased overtime pay, the cost of paying various accrual payoffs to the transit director who retired earlier in the fiscal year, as well as lower than anticipated passenger fare revenue. Banning's staff is .requesting an additional allocation of $39,461 to cover the .anticipated expenditures. There are adequate,. Western Riverside LTF funds available to cover the request. Based on third quarter performance for FY 2006/07, Banning is in compliance with the Commission approved Productivity Improvement Program. Financial. Information a In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2006/07 Amount: $39,461 Source of Funds: Local Transportation Funds - Western Riverside Apportionment Budget Adjustment:: N/A , - GLA No.: 601 62 86101 P2210 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \.414"4,4,1 Date: 6/25/07 Agenda Item .10 119 • AGENDA ITEM 11 • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 25, 2007 TO: Plans and Programs Committee = FROM: Brian Cunanan, Staff Analyst Robert Yates, Program Manager THROUGH: Stephanie Wiggins, Regional Programs Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/08 Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests for State Route 60 and State Route 91 Corridors STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Authorize payment of $1, 645/month per buspool for the period July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 to the existing Riverside, Corona and Mira Loma buspools; 2) Require subsidy recipients to meet monthly buspool reporting requirements as supporting documentation to receive payments; 3) Direct staff to develop an expanded buspool program along the 1-15corridor to San Diego; and 4) Forward to Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As part of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides fundingsupport to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their commutes along the SR-91 and SR-60 corridors. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 or $25/seat/month in support of commuter buspool operations. In July 2004, the Commission set the subsidy rate to $35/seat/month ($1,645/month) to help offset increases to operational costs during the previous 14 years. To provide additional guidance, the Commission also: established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff ` to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 or below and seek direction regarding the continuation of the.buspool's subsidy. Like all commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation, the Measure A $35/seat/month 'subsidy is administered as a "user side subsidy. " The Commission's subsidy is an Agenda Item 11- 120 important factor that makes buspools an attractive alternative for these commuters with roundtrip commutes in excess of 100 miles. Also, the Commission's subsidy remains cost-effective compared to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 80%. While the monthly cost of each buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy reflects a subsidy rate of 16%. Average IVlonthly Buspool Fare Per Rider $215.00 RCTC Subsidy Per Seat $35.00 16% Unlike some ;of the other Commission approved ridesharing incentives, which have a limited term, the buspool subsidy is on -going. To renew its annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to: • 'Request in writing, continuation of funding from the Commmission for the new fiscal year; 'Consistently meet minimum ridership requirements; and Submit monthly ridership reports throughout the year. The three existing buspools have completed all the requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including the submittal of monthly ridership reports and annualfunding continuation requests. They have consistently exceeded ` the minimum ridership level of 25 riders per month and have collectively averaged 40 riders/month/buspool this current FY. Buspools Corona Mira 'Loma Riverside Average Riders/Month' 42 38 40 Roundtrip Distance ---1 10 mi ---123 mi ---13 5 mi 1,1.97,654 1,194,512 1,388,803 Annual One-VVay Trips Reduced 21,736 19,360 20,636 66,012 Estimated Pounds of Emissions Reduced 3,780,968 Miles Saved 61.,732 Trips Reduced In reducing the number of vehicles on SR-91 and SR-60 during peak periods, the buspool program saved nearly 3.8 million miles and 66,000 pounds of vehicle emissions in FY 2006/07. The buspool subsidy proves to be an effective use of Measure A commuter assistance funds and a budget of $ 130,000 is proposed for FY 2007/08. Based on the established monthly $1, 645/month per buspool subsidy policy, the funds will support the continuation of the three existing buspools plus two new start-up buspools. Agenda Item 11 121 • New Opportunities for Expansion to San Diego In addition to supporting a total of five- buspools, staff has included funds in the commuter assistance program budget for FY 2007/08 to support an initiative to expand the program and increase participation. This concept entails revising the definition of a buspool to include larger vans/smaller chassis buses that can be driven by anyone who is certified to do so within the buspool. Currently, buspools operate with a buspool coordinator and a bus driver provided ` by the coach operator. Under the expanded definition of a buspool, these positions are. not required and may remove some of the traditional obstacles to participation. Staff is currently working with San Diego Association of Governments on a survey targeting Riverside to San Diego. County vanpool drivers to gauge their acceptance level of this concept. Once completed, staff will report on the survey results and provide recommendations for the next steps. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2007/08 Amount: $130,000 Source of Funds: Measure A funds Budget Adjustment: No GLA No.: 226 41 81030 P2109 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Agenda Item 11 122 Date: 6/25/07