Loading...
02 February 14, 2002 Citizens advisory committee / Social services transportation advisory council87464 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, February 14, 2002 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Avenue, Conference Room "A" Riverside 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 7, 2001 4. SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PROGRAM - MEASURE "A" CALL FOR PROJECTS Overview This item is to seek assistance from the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social . Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) to: 1) Review the criteria and identify additional services and/or population groups that may need specialized transit services through the Commission' s Specialized Transit Program - Measure "A" Call for Projects; and, 2) Appoint two members of CAC/SSTAC to the evaluation committee. 5. SECTION 5310 CAPITAL GRANTS REVIEW AND EVALUATION Overview This item is to seek assistance from the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) to review the applications for Section 5310 capital grants by appointing two members of CAC/SSTAC to the evaluation committee. 11.36.10 6. REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE WITH WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT Overview This item is to provide an update to the Committee on the Commission' s development of a new internet web site and to formally request the future assistance of CAC members in evaluating the site before it becomes accessible to the general public. 7. UPDATE ON THE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROCESS (CETAP) Overview This item is for the Committee to receive and file an update on CETAP. 8. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS - This item provides the opportunity for the Committee Members to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Committee activities. 9. ADJOURNMENT The next scheduled meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee is Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 11:30 a.m. • S-1tiL,i4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANPSORTATION COMMISSION CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE / SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL NAME SIGN IN SHEET J DATE: f'P brua Imo% l r ,900A AGENCY / CITY TELEPHONE Sovv / l�/ (7&7) 7 -6yo6) C.� Ge)(\e.re)c Cam\ 1P (-5.COA-, �e�n �arY �•Venero-b(e l.(�1�✓vto�� S•A-e,."ctve4Aes \c� (c169.)6,,S---3tAg 3 (goal ) 8q3-3,/g5 5Jnt:ne, 1cbtA54._ ('tw) 3y3-3y� s u--0) Y 6wsleit C9o9) 67V. 3 q7% 2( [' �l>?ss�°i0 F:\USERSIAGENDAICAC Sign In.doc RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE / SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Minutes November 7, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER The Citizen' s Advisory Committee / Social Services Transportation Advisory Council was called to order Chairperson Judy Nieburger at 12:01 p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, 3560 University Avenue, Riverside, California 92501. Present Absent Bill Densmore Peter Benavidez Kerry Forsythe Grant Bradshaw Judylynn Gries Jim Collins Chris Millen Phil Stack Pat Murphy Mike Wertz Judy Nieburger Fortunato Penilla Andrea Puga Cindy Scheirer Sherry Thibodeaux Mary Venerable *Excused Absence 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bill Densmore expressed his concern about the function of the Committee and its responsibilities, especially if the items presented are for receive and file. He suggested that information items could be sent via e-mail or fax. Naty Kopenhaver .stated that the recommendation may be changed by the Committee. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes will be approved at the Committee's next meeting to allow time for review. Citizen' s Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council November 7, 2001 Page 2 4. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Eric Haley, Executive Director, provided a legislative update, highlighting ACA 4 which dedicates state sales tax revenues collected from motor vehicle fuel sales to transportation programs, with 40% of the revenues for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), 20% to cities for streets and roads, 20% to counties for road purposes, and 20% for the Public Transportation Account (PTA). The potential opposition to this measure is the Califomia Teachers Association who views the General Fund as their area of interest. Bill Densmore asked if the State's current fiscal problems will have an effect on this revenue stream. Eric Haley responded that due to the timeframe that this measure will take effect, the State should be out of the current cyclical downturn. Andrea Puga questioned the potential impact CNG fuel will have on sales tax revenues. Eric Haley responded that CNG fuel will initially have a very minor impact on revenues but will have an increasing impact as the number of CNG vehicles increase. 5. MULTI -USE LANES Gary Green, Caltrans District 8, gave a brief overview on the policy in which High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes are determined. HOV is a Transportation Control Measure for reducing mobile source emissions through reduction in vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, vehicle hours traveled, traffic congestion, vehicle idling or vehicle use. There is a demonstration project on Route 14 where HOV lanes are open to non -car pools during non -peak hours. The Route 99 lanes in Northern California are open for mixed -use and all of the new HOV lanes planned in Northern California will be open for mixed -use.. An operations report will be due in January 2002 to the legislature to evaluate the effectiveness of those lanes. In Riverside County, Route 91 is one route that might be of interest for mixed -use operation. The main decision point would be how the route operates. If the route operates well with mixed -use, there may be an opportunity to convert it for that purpose. Judylynn Gries asked how an HOV lane is determined as mixed -use. Gary Green responded it would depend primarily on how the route operates. The decision would be based on operation analysis. • Citizen' s Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council November 7, 2001 Page 3 6. PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY'S REQUEST FOR A•SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN AMENDMENT TO IMPLEMENT FIXED ROUTE SERVICE. Les Nelson, City Manager for the City of Blythe, said that during the SRTP preparation they indicated that they were going to look at implementing a fixed route. The feasibility study indicated that a fixed route was feasible. Because they were unable to contract with Sunline to implement the service, they acquired a van through a lease purchase that they use in the dial a ride service for the fixed route service. The fixed route service was initiated six weeks ago and they have made minor adjustments. The request they are making today is to amend the SRTP for funds for capital equipment and operating assistance. M/S/C (Murphy/Forsythe) to approve the amendment to Palo Verde Transit Agency's SRTP. 7. STATUS OF VETERAN'S EXPRESS SERVICE IN BLYTHE Les Nelson reviewed the status of the Veteran's Express Service, indicating that the express service was for medical appointments to and from Loma Linda. They have evaluated this need and they now have a local doctor certificated with the Veteran's Administration. He is providing medical services to over 100 local veterans in the area. They will be requesting approval to retain the $10,000 allocated by RCTC to acquire two vehicles and use at least one vehicle for trips to and from Loma Linda. M/S/C (Venerable/Densmore) to receive and file the report on the Veteran's Express Service. 8. ANNUAL REPORT PUBLICATION John Standiford presented the Commission's Annual Report. This year, the report was published in the Sunday edition of the Press Enterprise, Californian and Desert Sun. The report details activities and accomplishments of the Commission over the past year as well as provides information on how transportation funds are expended. This year, the publication detailed the Route 74 Lake Elsinore to Perris safety project, the Route 86 Eastern Coachella Valley project, partnerships with transit providers, commuter assistance programs, call boxes, and the SAFE Program. Citizen' s Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council November 7, 2001 Page 4 9. CALL BOX PROGRAM AND UPDATE Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, gave a brief summary of the SAFE program stating that in 1986 the Board of Supervisors and a majority of cities approved the resolution to form the SAFE. The program is funded by a portion of vehicle registration fees and annually generates about $1.1 million in funds for call boxes and provides the matching funds for the Freeway Service Patrol program. As of September 2001, over 1000 call boxes were installed covering over 657 miles of freeways in Riverside County. Boxes are placed at. intervals of 1 /4 mile in urban areas and 1 mile in desert areas with cellular service. Staff is currently working on a 10-year strategic plan and looking at future needs for SAFE and FSP as well as the financial stability of the programs. Accessibility is a major concern as well as site requirement changes by Caltrans. The cellular industry is migrating from analogto digital service and the carrier used by the SAFE and FSP is anxious for the programs to change to digital service. Maintenance of call boxes is an issue because Comarco is the only manufacturer and maintenance provider in the state of California. He added that use of callboxes decreased by 50% over the past five years. This may be due to increased personal cellular telephone users. Accessibility issues will be looked at and any recommendations will be brought to the committee for review such as TDY and the "Yes / No Call Box". Currently, the Commission is in the process of converting service from. the CHP to a private contractor that will provide substantial savings in the amount paid for call answering services. The call box conversions should be completed by March 1, 2002. 10. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to be held February 14, 2002 at 11:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, d.i Jeanne Brown Administrative Support Specialist 410 • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2002 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager SUBJECT: Specialized Transit Program - Measure "A" Call for Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek assistance from the Citizens . Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) to: 1) Review the criteria and identify additional services and/or population groups that may need specialized transit services through the Commission' s Specialized Transit Program - Measure "A" Call for Projects; and 2) Appoint two members of CAC/SSTAC to the evaluation committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Staff will seek Commission approval to release a Call for Projects for the Western Riverside County Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program covering fiscal years 2003 and 2004 at the February 25, 2002 Plans and Programs committee. The Measure "A" half -cent sales tax identifies 5% of annual revenues for implementation of Specialized Transit Programs. The Commission policy apportions 2.5% of these funds for the Commuter Assistance Program and the remaining 2.5% for the Specialized Transit Program which benefits seniors, persons with disabilities and the truly needy. It is projected that $2.8 million will be available for programming over the two fiscal years. Staff will seek Commission approval to have $2.5 million available for the two-year call and request that $300,000 be set aside to support matching of Section 5310 federal capital grants for the purchase of equipment and vehicles for the elderly and physically disabled. The Commission has had a long-time commitment to meeting the special transit needs of seniors and persons with disabilities through its specialized transit grant program. In addition to traditional public dial -a -ride services, the Commission has granted funds to non-profit agencies to provide transit assistance in hard to serve rural areas for inter -community travel, and for riders having very special transit needs. These programs have been successful over the years in providing improved transit access for western county riders. Attached is a historical listing of Measure "A" Specialized Transit Program recipients. Review of prior year applications for Measure "A" Specialized Transit funds have identified the following priorities for funding: 1) Support of existing services which, if not funded by Measure "A", would leave an area and/or special population without alternate service options; 2) Support of existing services which offer an improved level of service coordination and/or high level of individualized passenger assistance; 3) Support of new services which will leverage other revenue sources and will not require long-term support from Measure "A" (more than the two-year funding cycle); and 4) Support of new or expansion of existing services, including transportation for veterans and shuttles (including, but not limited, to nutrition and medical shuttles). Staff is seeking input from members of the CAC/SSTAC in identifying any additional services and/or population groups that should be considered. The Commission is seeking applications that do not duplicate existing services. Applicants will be requested to indicate how the proposed service will coordinate trips and/or services with existing transportation providers including public and non- profit agencies. Staff is also requesting that two members of CAC/SSTAC be appointed to the evaluation committee. To avoid conflict of interest issues, CAC/SSTAC members appointed should not be serving on the boards of any transportation providers or non-profit agencies that may seek funding through this call for projects. CAC/SSTAC members appointed to the evaluation committee are requested to hold the date of April 29, 2002 to review applications and hear presentations on proposed specialized transit projects. McIe11 17d LCIZ0f12 191L'6►✓ill SZB'96es sorn0'ts °Arno'ts Witte'LS LL0'011VES S6NCsZ'4S C90'S►Z'ts 1LL'eti4S CLelet$ 965'CZCf ES1'SM 9w6sIS VOHS 1V101 9111609✓08 miscue ueo f91'96LS ',9741993$ 000139S 000'09$ • 0001WS (woes e9s'08S 992119s OLo'ZeS o86'6zis LSS'e9s 099'tzs wets%uopeuuom uopetadeual :000'9►S 004'692s 009'9ZZS 000'094 000'06t$ 00149z9 00011,19 000t91$ 009169 9►6'o04s opro9S ozeVZS &Von oz1'01.S eeN ApJIq'J wBtWMlpOpg mPO uerbpg uospiodsueil 000'849• A0PedNPlaeM>i eery U� OaiQUno�WN einweAiti to AD 001006101103 00s0Igd6U@1 *MOO= Lre0aeDs1B�R L7ue0Y11eee+lequeM1A1111194 mimesmods 01111110.491 i00G0 OOGOZS YL9'OLt'Ss 1969 1999ff►f 6t966zt 09VC9CS 6690995 066'44s 116f� 0009 0009S meta soineS 000963 Z19'O9f 098$Z9 000.614 96z91S 968'929 8►[01Z} !Igg9'Ks 09VZZ9 ee9 M osVo9S o66b►S - ZL 4b1¢ 919'OLs OeN H000011 NseM IQNdtaH e0 099'►Z eln0w0LWeWaW le�0e0 gliDA ! CPI. O 996'9$ eery Aluno3 welsom 16061S .1s _ eery Aunoa weLeem Idea L eukijd . SzBs 0000619 ueS 9If 69e'9Ls eeAl Alum*w01 elea �I� le � �A 0090661 96141.56 661,'L65 699'619 000'Z91; 000199 Z80'zes z9MP f6✓eps 96u'ess spiv own 009'LS mew eenmr S01/Weltb ePRIeNl1 P VnY1Oupla 4 mo ns oovers ocean ()was ooNtzs 0o0'9zs wows 00911f1' Ogre S • 00044s Ae6eA 0Ua01y P fiPJ ieluea wOas ZL4'0z6s 0o9'ZLs alien's oo0'Szis 000'9ZIS 000'00ts 0►L'e01S • 00o'oo/S oosla MISS 99L'99S • . Seeryxn0PNOW '�Iped'e�'1 aW/'edtiM' 40000appwnplwgwM N 110110P0009.00110109 NNued 000' a:Wo s uetJ MIe 611I0d e210N AM etC►L Mint P �A LZNN►s 000'eei 000't►} OZ1'5� L911169 696'969 SZ9V19 OW'9ts 000'1Z9 000.14 ��N diµ =mopAPJ IBt'L01 000' pgs 000'9 191$1 lYOUIne6aN teou 6Z'Zt Pent$ 99z'IL moles OVI0 pie 9P 6143 1,61'661•1 605'z61s 000'0019 000'0019 000'94 Ls 000'/6 0001396 CL0199 9z900s6 eaN 41000 110116019 10010%geual112A'V-a6'J 996'911 we'll naps C08'9Cs A8o episPA01 pockingsseupuNe elopes7_.__ mintoot ES6'6►z5 CLCYBt 009'969 OITZEs 091'zfs e�V OOl'/lf ep1SIB�WKI0J00 AWN 1V1 1V101 ZO-LD t0-00 00-66 66-96 66-16 LF95 96•66 96-96 96-66 66•Z6 Z6•1•6 t6-06 06-69 WAN301At138 WwIOJ ADN30V . • 03Aoadde 11tnoWV tiv1100 • 1013A 1V3SId ear,/ AwnoO walsaM weLBoLd vsuell pazllePadS ,y„ aLnsealeg Jo BugsIl Ieauols!H NOISSIWW00 NOI1V12i0dSNVal. A1NI103 301S213AIN • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2002 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Tanya Love, Program Manager SUBJECT: Section 5310 Capital Grants Review and Evaluation STAFF RECOMMENDATION This item is to seek assistance from the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) to: 1► Review the applications for Section 5310 capital grants by appointing two members of CAC/SSTAC to the evaluation committee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides capital grants through the Section 5310 program for the purpose of assisting private, non-profit corporations and public agencies in providing transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate. Section 5310 funds are awarded through a statewide competition. For fiscal year 02/03, approximately $9 million will be made available for transit services. The funds allow for the purchase of accessible vans and buses or other transportation related equipment to serve individuals with special needs. Section 5310 funds provides 80% of the cost of the capital project and requires the agency to provide the remaining 20% of funds. Staff is requesting that two members from the CAC/SSTAC be appointed to the review committee. _ CAC/SSTAC members appointed to the review committee are requested to hold the date of Monday, March 18, 2002 to review applications. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2002 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Advisory Council Transportation FROM: John Standiford, Public Information Officer SUBJECT: Request for Assistance with Website Development STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to provide an update to the Committee on the Commission's development of a new internet web site and to formally request the future assistance of CAC members in evaluating the site before it becomes accessible to the general public. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: For a number of years, the Commission has relied on a relatively simple internet web site with limited information. RCTC was one of the first transportation agencies in Southern California to place information on the internet and-devloped the site internally with a minimum level of investment. The current site provides the most basic of information and includes the posting of agendas and minutes along with copies of RFPs, a few Commission projects and the Commission's newsletter. Anyone using the site can also find direct internet links to other transportation agencies and providers including Cakrans, Amtrak and Metrolink. While the current internet site is helpful, there have been quantum leaps in technology and internet use since its initial development. It is now very common for public agencies to maintain complex web sites with a wide range of information. The public now relies on using the internet to obtain public information without having to contact agencies by phone or by mail. Given these expectations, it is incumbent on the Commission to embark on a major expansion of its internet information offerings and has taken a number of steps to accomplish this goal CURRENT UPDATE The Commission issued a Request for Proposals for the design, development, installation, testing and activation of a web site. The successful proposer will also be required to provide on call maintenance and programming support services to ensure the successful operation of the site. The intent is to develop a state-of-the-art internet site that will be helpful to the public in obtaining information on the Commission, and in the future, doing business with the Commission. In addition to providing information to county constituents, the site would also provide the public with the opportunity to communicate directly to the Commission through forms and e-mail on important issues. A well -planned and developed web site will be able to provide up-to-date informationon the Commission itself, Commissioners, agendas, programs and services. When fully developed, it will become a valuable reference to the public, other government agencies and the news media. The deadline for receiving proposals took place on Feb. 4, and the Commission was deluged with responses. A total of 26 proposals were received from bidders throughout the nation and will be evaluated by a team of Commission staff and Commissioners. This evaluation will examine each proposer's qualifications an staffing, proposal completeness, scope of work, references and the overall cost proposal before selecting a contractor. Once the contractor is selected the actual development of the web site will take place and will include information from every Commission activity. CAC MEMBER ASSISTANCE Well before the final work product is completed and the web site is made accessible to public there will be a period of testing and evaluation. This if often referred to as Beta testing, and presents an excellent opportunity for members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee to provide needed input before the site is launched. Of particular interest will be suggestions and criticisms regarding the operation of the site, the information provided and its ease of use for the general public. . Beta testing of the website is projected to take place in late May and early. June prior to the public unveiling of the site in late June. The Commission invites and respectfully requests the participation of any CAC members who might be interested in being of assistance on this project. The viewpoints and advice of the CAC are highly valued and would be most helpful to the ongoing effort of providing better information to the public. • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: February 14, 2002 T0: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service • Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and Programming SUBJECT: Update on the Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to provide an update to the Committee on CETAP. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Internal Corridors: We have been working very diligently with our Resource Agency partners to reach the necessary agreements to allow us to proceed with the development of the environmental documentation for approval of the internal transportation corridors under both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy. Act (NEPA). A Tier I Environmental Impact Report (State) and Environmental Impact Statement (Federal) (EIR/EIS) will provide documentation sufficient for preserving right-of-way for the preferred alternative within the Winchester to Temecula Corridor and within the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor. The environmental documentation must follow the NEPA/404 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Integration Process. This is a coordinated process involving Ca!trans, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure the integration of NEPA and Section 404 (b)(1) of the federal Clean Water Act. The MOU requires that the Corps, USFWS, and EPA review and concur on a project's purpose and need, evaluation criteria, and alternatives before proceeding with an EIS document. For the last 18 months we have been working with these agencies to provide them the information needed to allow them to render the necessary concurrence. Public Sawing Meetings One of the first steps in completing the Draft Environmental Documents for the CETAP internal corridors was the public scoping process. Two scoping meetings were held in August, 2001, and comments were invited from all interested parties in order to ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed improvements is addressed. Copies of the scoping information was provided to the CAC at your last meeting. The public suggested a number of new or modified alternatives during the scoping period. In some cases, the alternatives suggested were considered and eliminated earlier in the CETAP planning process. Some of the suggested new alternatives are already being studied through other planning efforts (SR79 Realignment Study) or are in direct conflict with the work underway in the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). RCTC, Ca!trans, FHWA, and the RCIP consultant team staff reviewed each of the suggestions received from the public and concluded that the range of alternatives currently under consideration (8 Build Alternatives plus a No Build Alternative in the Winchester to Temecula Corridor and 14 Build Alternatives plus a No Build Alternative in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor) is sufficiently broad to address proposals made during the scoping process. No new alternatives were recommended for inclusion in the Draft EIR/EIS The comments received during the Scoping Process provided valuable insight into the issues and concerns of potentially affected agencies, groups, and individuals and will be considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR/EIS for both corridors. Moreno Valley to San Bernardino County Corridor: In December 2001 the Commission took action to enable the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County CETAP Corridor consultant team to initiate preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the corridor, to serve as a basis for early right-of-way preservation. The EIR will define the location and type of facility and allow for the preservation of right-of-way for the preferred alternative. Alternative 1 was selected as the preferred alternative as recommended by the Moreno Valley -San Bernardino County CETAP AdHoc Policy Committee. Alternative 1 has as its focal point a new multi -modal limited access facility that connects the 1-215/SR60 junction in the cities of Moreno Valley and Riverside with the California Street corridor in the cities of Loma Linda and Redlands. This alternative is the most expensive of those evaluated because it relies almost entirely on the construction of a new facility and tunnel through Box Springs Mountain. The exact length, alignment, and cost of the proposed facility will require more detailed engineering studies, but is likely to approach $1 billion (there are two variations to this alternative which have minor differences in alignment; both require tunneling). Alternative 1 has been shown by analysis to provide the greatest transportation benefit. This new facility will have environmentally sensitive design features that support wildlife movement and reduce environmental impacts. Additionally, the new facility not be open to truck traffic. A number of arterial improvements will be made on the remaining alternatives as a way to provide further mobility and safety benefits. Earlier this year two public meetings were held to obtain input from citizens on possible transportation alternatives for this corridor. Many participants expressed the need to retain the rural character of the area and voiced the need to restrict. local access to new roadways. It was noted that new roadways should be viewed • 3 • • as connectors to improve traffic movement and safety, not as opportunities to develop more of the Reche Canyon area. The need to include design features that support wildlife movement and reduce environmental impacts were noted as critically important. The Moreno Valley -San Bernardino . County CETAP AdHoc Policy Committee (AdHoc Committee) has been meeting over the past year to provide guidance on the work for this CETAP corridor. Members of this Committee include Commissioners Busch, Buster, Flickinger, Hunt, Moore, and Mullen. SANBAG ,representatives include Deirdre Bennett, Colton; Herman Hilkey, Grand Terrace; Bob Ziprick, Loma Linda;. Gary George, Redlands; Susan Lien, San Bernardino; Dick Riddell, Yucaipa and Dennis Hansberger, County District 3. A Technical Advisory Committee comprised of staff from each of the represented jurisdictions, SANBAG and RCTC supports the Policy Committee. Orange County to Riverside County Corridor: Unfortunately our work efforts on the Orange County to Riverside County Corridor are moving slowly. Officials from Orange County have stated while they recognize a need to improve mobility between the two counties, their priority at this time is to make improvements to the SR91 freeway. There have been many newspaper articles regarding this corridor and public interest appears to be high. Unfortunately, many of the articles have incorrectly reported that RCTC has already decided on a preferred altemative through the Santa Ana Mountains. The decision on .a preferred alternative cannot be decided until we forge a partnership with Orange County and work through the required public process to identify the alternatives to be studied in the EIR/EIS process. We are hopeful that discussions on this corridor will accelerate during 2002. The new OCTA Chairman, Supervisor Todd Spitzer, has expressed a desire to focus on transportation improvements between our two counties. We have had excellent working relationships with OCTA in the arena of transit; planning is underway to initiate new express bus service between our two counties in the next year. Additionally, new train service from Riverside/Corona to Fullerton and Los Angeles will begin in May 2002. OCTA is working to ensure good bus feeder service from their stations so train riders can reach their final destination in a timely manner.