Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06 June 8, 2011 Commission90964 RECORDS Riverside County Transportation (omission MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, June 8, 2011 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside I& COMMISSIONERS (41'. Chair - Greg Pettis First Vice Chair - John J. Benoit Second Vice Chair - Karen Spiegel Bob Buster, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Bob Botts / Don Robinson, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Barry Talbot, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Steve Nolan, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson / Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Michael Wilson, City of Indio Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Melissa Melendez, City of Lake Elsinore Darcy Kuenzi / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Marcelo Co / Richard Stewart, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik / William Kroonen, City of Palm Desert Steve Pougnet 1 Ginny Foat, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris Scott Hines / Gordon Moller, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Scott Miller / Andrew Kotyuk, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Raymond Wolfe, Governor's Appointee Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. 11.36.00 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 8:41 AM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC June Commission Agenda - IPad Users Attachments: Conflict of Interest Memo.pdf; Conflict of Interest Memo.pdf Importance: High The June Commission Agenda for the !Pad Users is available. Please copy the link below: http://www.rctc.org/downloads/current/agenda _i_pad. pdf In addition, attached is the conflict of interest memo and the form for your review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Respectfully, Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Tara Byerly From: Tara Byerly Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 8:45 AM To: Tara Byerly Subject: RCTC June Commission Agenda; Importance: High Good Morning Commission Alternates: Attached below is the link to the June 8, 2011 Commission Meeting Agenda. Please copy the link and paste it into a web page http://www.rctc.org/downloads/current/agenda 2011 06.ndf Tara S. Byerly Senior Administrative Assistant 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 (951) 787-7141 1 Riverside County Transportation Conarission TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager DATE: June 1, 2011 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest Issues -Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of June 8, 2011 The June 8, 2011 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items which may raise possible conflicts of interest. A RCTC member may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 8F - On -Call Construction Coordination Public Outreach Services Consultant(s): Green Com, Inc 1650 Iowa Ave., Suite 160 Riverside, CA 92507 Dennis B. Green, President Westbound Communications 625 The City Dr., Suite 360 Orange, CA 92868 Carrie Gilbreth, Sr. V.P. & GM Agenda Item No. 8H - Graphic Design and Communication Services Consultant(s): Geographics 4178 Chestnut Street Riverside, CA 92501 Dawn Hassett, Managing Partner " " " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item fisted on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, June 8, 2011 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission 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 Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three 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. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission 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 Commission 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 Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 8, 2011 Page 2 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 11, 2011 6. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 1 1) Receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 201 1 /12; 2) Forward to the Commission to close the public hearing to receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 201 1 /12; and 3) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2011/12. 7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS - The Commission 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 Commission subsequent to the ; posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission 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. 8. 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. 8A. APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 Page 4 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve Resolution No. 1 1-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2011/12". 8B. FUND BALANCE POLICY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 10 1) Adopt Resolution No. 11-007, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Fund Balance Policy"; and 2) Adopt the Fund Balance Policy. " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 8, 2011 Page 3 8C. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 15 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 201 1; and 2) Approve a budget adjustment to decrease debt proceeds by $15 million, decrease debt service interest expenditures by $1 million, and increase debt service principal expenditures by $17,284,000 for a net increase in FY 2010/11 expenditures of $1,284,000. 8D. QUARTERLY SALES TAX ANALYSIS Page 23 Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4 (Q4) 2010. 8E. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UTILITY AND PRIVATE USE LICENSES ON COMMISSION PROPERTY Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 31 1) Approve the revisions to the RCTC Right of Way Policies and Procedures manual to include the policy recommendations for utility and private use licenses on Commission properties; 2) Authorize staff to move forward with negotiation of market value rates on utility and private use licenses; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute utility and private use licenses and agreements. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 8, 2011 Page 4 8F. AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION PUBLIC • OUTREACH SERVICES Page 41 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call construction support services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $445,000; a) Agreement No. 1 1-31-128-00 to Green Com, Inc; and b) Agreement No. 1 1-31-129-00 to Westbound Communications; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to execute task orders awarded to these consultants under the terms of the agreements. 8G. AUTO CENTER DRIVE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 63 • 1) Allocate $16 million in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to the city of Corona (Corona) in support of the Auto Center Drive grade separation project to front Proposition 1 B Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) funds; 2) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-67-131-00 with Corona for reimbursement of TCIF/CMAQ funds; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 8, 2011 Page 5 8H. GRAPHIC DESIGN AND COMMUNICATION SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 66 11 Award Agreement No. 11-15-067-00 to Geographics for the provision of graphic design and communications services on an as -needed, time and expense basis, pursuant to its proposed fixed unit rates, for a two-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $2 million; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 81. AGREEMENTS WITH C.T. GEORGIOU PAINTING CO., BROCK SERVICE CALIFORNIA, AND U.S. NATIONAL CORPORATION TO PROVIDE ON -CALL PAINTING SERVICES FOR COMMISSION -OWNED COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS Page 88 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call painting services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $750,000; a) Agreement No. 11-24-056-00 with C.T. Georgiou Painting Co.; b) Agreement No. 11-24-112-00 with Brock Service California; and c) Agreement No. 1 1-24-113-00 with U.S. National Corporation; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 8, 2011 Page 6 8J. AGREEMENT WITH A.J. FISTES CORPORATION TO PROVIDE SERVICES • ASSOCIATED WITH THE REFURBISHMENT OF STATION PLATFORM TACTILE WARNING SURFACES AT THE RIVERSIDE DOWNTOWN, LA SIERRA, AND WEST CORONA COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS Page 110 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 1 1-24-064-00 to A.J. Fistes Corporation for services associated with the refurbishment of station platform tactile warning surfaces at three Commission -owned commuter rail stations in the amount of $143,685, plus a contingency amount of $14,369, for a total amount not to exceed $158,054; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8K. FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 133 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required fare box recovery ratio; and 2) Approve the FY 2011/12 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 17.04% for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and 17.80% for the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 8, 2011 Page 7 8L. MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT FUNDS AS CAPITAL MATCH FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 SECTION 5310 PROGRAMS Page 137 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate Measure A Specialized Transit funds of $80,835 to provide the required capital match for the FFY 2008/09 Section 5310 program as follows: a) $1 1,470 to Care -A -Van Transit Systems, Inc. (Care -A -Van); and b) $15,943 to Care Connexxus, Inc. (CCI); c) $6,767 to Peppermint Ridge; d) $46,655 to Valley Resource Center for the Retarded, Inc. (VRCR); 2) Approve agreements with the following FFY 2008/09 Section 5310 grant recipients for Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County as follows: a) Agreement No. 1 1-26-1 14-00 with Care -A -Van for $11,470; b) Agreement No. 11-26-115-00 with CCI for $15,943; c) Agreement No. 11-26-1 16-00 with Peppermint Ridge for $6,767; and d) Agreement No. 1 1-26-1 17-00 with VRCR for $46,655; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. 8M. FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2009/10 — 2010/11 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION'S SECTION 5310 CAPITAL GRANT APPLICATIONS Page 140 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the FFYs 2009/10 — 2010/11 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the local review committee (LRC); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 11-008, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan", certifying that the projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan; and 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 8, 2011 Page 8 8N. FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES • PROGRAM FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Page 146 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 11 Approve the FY 201 1 /12 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program recommended funding of $1,094,143; and 2) Authorize staff to fund unfunded projects in rank order through the 70"' percentile using project savings and returned allocations. 80. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 151 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2► Adopt the following bill positions: a) AB 1229 (Feuer) - Support; b) SB 545 (Anderson) - Monitor; c) SB 862 (Lowenthal) - Monitor; d) SB 867 (Padilla) - Monitor; e) S. 826 (Feinstein) - Support; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to modify or communicate changes, as necessary, on bill position on pending legislation that are consistent with the Commission's approved legislative platform. 8P. BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS INITIATIVE Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 159 1) Enthusiastically endorse Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA's) Breaking Down Barriers report; 2) Direct staff to actively engage in advocacy efforts to legislate the recommendations from the report; and 3) Adopt a support position on any legislative proposal that implements the recommendations from the report. • • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 8, 2011 Page 9 8Q. TRANSPORTATION FINANCE LEGISLATION Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 226 1) Adopt as a policy principle that expansion and enhancement of existing credit assistance programs such as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) is preferred over the creation of a national infrastructure bank; 2) Adopt a support if amended position on H.R. 1123 (Richardson); and 3) Adopt proposed amendments to H.R. 1123 as principles for any future legislation relating to the TIFIA program. 9. FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 - FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Page 237 Overview This item is for the Commission to review and approve, in concept, the FY 2011 /12 - FY 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the Commission's Commuter Rail program. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 8, 2011 Page 10 10. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO INTERSTATE 215NAN BUREN BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE PROJECT Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 242 1) Allocate $7,589,337 in Surface Transportation Program (STP) federal funds from unallocated grade separation funding, and reprogram $2,410,663 in STP project savings from the 1-10/Date Palm Drive interchange to the county of Riverside (County) to complete a funding shortfall for the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project; 2) Replace unobligated STP grade separation funding with federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds; 3) Reallocate $10 million in Measure A Economic Development funds from the Jurupa Road grade separation project to the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project to front unallocated Transportation Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) funds; 4) Approve Agreement No. 08-31-124-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 08-31-124-00, with the County to reflect the $10 million of additional Measure A funding from the Jurupa Road grade separation for the I-215Nan Buren Boulevard interchange project; 5) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-67-130-00 with the County for repayment of the fronted TCIF funds, and that the Commission receive priority for repayment in the event there are project savings on the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange; and 6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements on behalf of the Commission. 11. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 12. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda June 8, 2011 Page 11 • 13. CLOSED SESSION 13A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) Case No. RIC 532489 14. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, July 13, 2011, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. • • RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION COMMISSIONER SIGN -IN SHEET JUNE 8, 2011 NAME AGENCY E MAIL ADDRESS ri ,-^ fi l! C/ a� %, Clv6,54 % /o r j2.J b 8 i\-- ,—h-:.. /� / v l�+ sr ` l c II .e ..73 ,4ix GPI ������ 47:iC i�7 tk stR•,.,-1 A, 11:474-vvr At ND 2 W t1-:'4/!'v /- sYo r �'�� � � 671 6 g5s rr V i2- A-/ / � � Zrt L R gusei.( p��iei s ` 0..) W 60,t,--, / <114 c✓d.4. Critj.Z44,- d-17- r el"' V IA 4y_iz-- (----7 5-74, e lAsz____, iJ C��L 14c6( c E�ir7`Sn�- C: Tv ` r/ltC,n4c-/--r-�/(2.44c J ' C_OQQ�/Y NAY 1e1 ]..+ 7-4j ��/(f��Y /4i'L« ow, 4 Gr • 6 �T(�4/ 4C' S eerie -CA, i ,i, t ct� n___, L nfJ � l 1-1. �— �tiVp 10 (\/lL ��` o v a S 0. i/\� TEN 01 r o0✓lrFp. l J' 5�evcn (-erv►a,� �AAls 2 Coal,hc( J� t i Y +`Q., m tk S �� .1 Q, ��P � t e 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ROLL CALL JUNE 8, 2011 County of Riverside, District I County of Riverside, District II County of Riverside, District III County of Riverside, District IV County of Riverside, District V City of Banning City of Beaumont City of Blythe City of Calimesa City of Canyon Lake City of Cathedral City City of Coachella City of Corona City of Desert Hot Springs City of Eastvale City of Hemet City of Indian Wells City of Indio City of La Quinta City of Lake Elsinore City of Menifee City of Moreno Valley City of Murrieta City of Norco City of Palm Desert City of Palm Springs City of Perris City of Rancho Mirage City of Riverside City of San Jacinto City of Temecula City of Wildomar Governor's Appointee, Ca!trans District Present j;r0 )71 /1;% ,J;V �,. a -Er 8 " AGENDA ITEM 5 " MINUTES " " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON MINUTES Wednesday, May 11, 2011 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Vice Chair John J. Benoit at 9:33 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At this time, Commissioner Bob Buster led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Marion Ashley Ben Benoit John Benoit Bob Botts Daryl Busch Bob Buster Mary Craton Joseph DeConinck Berwin Hanna Douglas Hanson Jan Harnik Terry Henderson Steven Hernandez 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Scott Hines Darcy Kuenzi Bob Magee Scott Matas Glenn Miller Steve Pougnet Adam Rush Larry Smith Karen Spiegel Jeff Stone John F. Tavaglione Raymond Wolfe Ella Zanowic Roger Berg Marcelo Co Rick Gibbs Scott Miller Greg Pettis Ron Roberts Anne Mayer, Executive Director, presented a 10-year service award to Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager/Clerk of the Board. " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 2 Frank Schiavone, former councilmember for the city of Riverside, expressed strong concern for the amount being offered for the Feola Automotive Repair property located at 6691 Indiana Avenue in the city of Riverside, owned by Jenny Park. He believes the offer is insufficient and cited his reasons for his statement. This is in relation to the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle project. Jenny Park, Feola Automotive Repair owner, also expressed strong concern for the amount being offered for Feola Automotive Repair property. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 13, 2011 M/S/C (Henderson/Craton) to approve the minutes of April 13, 2011, meeting as submitted. Abstain: Pougnet 6. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager, presented the proposed Budget for FY 2011/12, and discussed the following areas: • Budget process; • Commission policy goals; • FY 2011/12 Budget considerations; • Budget summary; • Sources by breakdown and comparison; • Expenditures by department; • Expenditures breakdown by department and comparison; • Capital department expenditure highlights; • Functional expenditures breakdown and comparison; and • Next steps. Vice Chair Benoit opened the public hearing at this time. No comments were received from the public and the Vice Chair announced the continuance of the public hearing to the Commission meeting on June 8, 2011. In response to Commissioner Karen Spiegel's clarification about the merit salary increases, Michele Cisneros replied merit salary increases were suspended for FYs 2009/10 and 2010/11 and will be suspended for FY 2011/12. Administrative and floating holiday hours have been eliminated since FY 2008/09. • • • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 3 Commissioner Spiegel then referred to the functional expenditures breakdown and asked about the personnel salary and benefits, which increased 3% for FY 2011 /12. Michele Cisneros replied the 3% increase is due to the vacant finance and the new capital projects positions that will be filled in FY 201 1 /12. Commissioner Marion Ashley referred to Table 18 - Highway, Regional Arterial, and Rail Programs FY 201 1 /12 of the Executive Summary and stated he owns property within 500 feet of the Interstate 215 Corridor Improvement (Central segment)/Scott Road to Nuevo Road project and asked legal counsel if he can vote on the Budget for FY 2011 /12. Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, replied yes and explained it is a planning document and not specific to a particular project. In response to Commissioner Ashley's request for additional clarification, Steve DeBaun replied if the item were related to right of way or making a decision to move forward with a project, then it is recommended to abstain. Commissioner Terry Henderson commended Michele Cisneros for the budget presentation. Commissioner Buster commended staff for an excellent budget document, noting there are major projects are underway, which is important for the future of Riverside County. Commissioner Adam Rush concurred with Commissioner Henderson's comment and asked from a staffing prospective in the next five years, if the current staff can accommodate additional project delivery. Anne Mayer replied significant staffing changes are not anticipated over the next five years. She discussed the 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan and the organizational assessment that was completed in 2006, as well as the finance and capital projects positions. She explained staff absorbs the workload through the use of consultants. M/S/C to continue the public hearing for the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12 to the Commission meeting on June 8, 2011. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 4 7. ADDITIONS/REVISIUNS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Paul Rodriguez, an Urban Crossroads principal, referred to Agenda Item 8F, "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Program Update"; and discussed the developer reimbursements and the differences between Eastern and Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) programs. He expressed concern there is no process for programming future and anticipated reimbursements and highlighted there are a number of details related to administering the TUMF program and he will continue to work with staff to identify positive solutions. Anne Mayer explained staff will continue to update the Commission as there are millions of dollars worth of need in the TUMF Regional Arterial program, but only $215,000 is projected for developer reimbursements for FY 2011/12. Anne Mayer stated staff will continue to work with Urban Crossroads, and Western Riverside Council of Governments regarding this specific issue. Ken Seumalo, Director of Public Works for the city of Lake Elsinore, expressed support for Agenda Item 81, "Amendment to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Regional Arterial Agreement for the Railroad Canyon at Interstate 15 Interchange Project in the City of Lake Elsinore" and expressed appreciation to Commission staff for its assistance. Commissioner Bob Magee concurred with Ken Seumalo's comments as this action will enable the city of Lake Elsinore to complete the environmental process necessary for the ultimate improvement of the I-15/Railroad Canyon Road interchange. Commissioner Jan Harnik referred to Agenda Item 8N, `List of Pre -Qualified Firms and Agreements for On -Call Goods Movement Consultant Services", and asked for clarification about the impacts to the Panama Canal. Tanya Love replied the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are projected to be at capacity by 2035, however, the impacts are uncertain. Staff will continue to monitor this issue. • • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 5 M/S/C (Kuenzi/Spiegel) to approve the following Consent Calendar items: Abstain on Agenda Item 8C: Ashley, Benoit, Stone, and Tavaglione Abstain on Agenda Item 80: Smith 8A. ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY REVIEW 1) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-004, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Regarding the Revised Investment Policy'; and 2) Adopt the Annual Investment Policy. 8B. AGREEMENTS TO THOMPSON, COBB, BAZILIO & ASSOCIATES, P.C., AND MACIAS GINI O'CONNELL LLP FOR AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE MEASURE A RECIPIENTS AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIMANTS 1) Award Agreement No. 11-19-063-00 to Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C. (TCBA) to perform audit and related services pertaining to the Western County Measure A recipients and Transportation Development Act (TDA) claimants for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in the amount of $576,400, plus a contingency amount of $57,600 for additional services that may be required due to additional recipients or claimants to be audited, for a total amount not to exceed $634,000; 2) Award Agreement No. 11-19-103-00 to Macias Gini & O'Connell (Macias) to perform audit and related services pertaining to the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley (Eastern County) Measure A recipients and TDA claimants for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in the amount of $443,740, plus a contingency amount of $44,260 for additional services that may be required due to additional recipients or claimants to be audited, for a total amount not to exceed $488,000; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. • " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 7 8H. COST PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 1) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-31-090-00 with Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD), to participate in costs of utility relocations and associated work to be performed in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Reach 9 Phase 2B (R9Ph2B) bank protection project in advance of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP) in the amount of $1,663,433, plus a contingency amount of $436,567, for a total amount not to exceed $2.1 million; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for the project. 81. AMENDMENT TO TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL AGREEMENT FOR THE RAILROAD CANYON AT INTERSTATE 15 INTERCHANGE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 1) Approve Agreement No. 10-72-016-01, Amendment No. 1 to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial Improvements Agreement No. 10-72-016-00, for the Railroad Canyon/ Interstate 15 interchange with the city of Lake Elsinore (Lake Elsinore) in order to authorize staff to complete the project approval and environmental document (PA&ED) phase with the remaining $52,000 of the $1 million TUMF funds allocated to this phase and to increase the PA&ED phase funding amount by $206,000 to $1,206,000; 2) Approve Assignment and Assumption Agreement No. 11-31-107-00 with Lake Elsinore to facilitate the assignment of the Lake Elsinore agreement (No. 1877) with SC Engineering to continue and complete the PA&ED services associated with the I-15/Railroad Canyon interchange project in the amount of $192,000, plus a contingency amount of $32,000, for a total amount not to exceed $224,000; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 8 3) Approve Agreement No 11-31-107-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 11-31-107-00, to facilitate changes to the Lake Elsinore agreement that are necessary to ensure that the language included therein is consistent with the Commission's standard professional services agreements; 4) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission; and 5) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements with Caltrans to reflect non -funding changes related to the project on the behalf of the Commission. 8J. AGREEMENT WITH AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES TO PROVIDE ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE, INSPECTION, AND REPAIR SERVICES FOR COMMISSION -OWNED COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS 1) Award Agreement No. 11-24-054-00 to Amtech Elevator Services (Amtech) to perform elevator maintenance, inspection, and repair services at the Commission -owned commuter rail stations for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $123,656; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. 8K. AGREEMENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 1) Approve Agreement No. 11-45-105-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in an amount not to exceed $1,577,721 in state funding for FY 2010/11; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8L. AWARDS FOR FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL TOW TRUCK SERVICE 1) Award Agreement No. 1 1-45-053-00 to Tri-City Towing Service for tow truck services on Beat No. 2 of the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $950,000; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 9 2) Award Agreement No. 11-45-060-00 to Roy & Dot's Towing for tow truck services on Beat No. 25 of the FSP program for a three- year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $1,425,000; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. 8M. UPDATE ON THE INLAND EMPIRE 511 SYSTEM AND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ITERIS, INC. FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR INLAND EMPIRE 511 1) Approve Agreement No. 09-45-067-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 09-45-067-00, with Iteris, Inc. for operations and maintenance services for the Inland Empire 511 (IE511) system in an amount not to exceed $1,503,056; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 8N. LIST OF PRE -QUALIFIED FIRMS AND AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL GOODS MOVEMENT CONSULTANT SERVICES 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call goods movement support services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $1,250,000; a) Agreement No. 11-67-101-00 with Cambridge Systematics; b) Agreement No. 11-67-098-00 with InfraConsult; c) Agreement No. 1 1-67-099-00 with Iteris; d) Agreement No. 11-67-100-00 with MIG, Inc.; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements; and 31 Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission. • Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 10 80. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: • AB 427 (Perez) - Monitor; • AB 296 (Skinner) - Oppose; • SB 693 (Dutton) - Support In Concept; • SB 468 (Kehoe) - Oppose; and • AB 1134 (Bonilla) - Support. At this time, Commissioner Steve Adams left the meeting. 9. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 /12 Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager, announced John Fenton, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) for Southern California Regional Rail Athority (SCRRA) and SCRRA staff members were available for questions. Sheldon Peterson presented the Metrolink Budget for FY 2011/12 and highlighted the following areas: • A map of the Metrolink system; • Average weekday system ridership; • Average weekday ridership for the Riverside Line, Inland Empire -Orange County Line, and the 91 Line; • Ridership sensitivity analysis; • 2011 operating budget; • Metrolink update - agency reorganization; safety focus; positive train control; new rail cars; express trains; and late night and baseball trains; • Budget highlights - increase in fuel costs; decrease in maintenance costs; increase in salary and fringe benefits; and recent financial audit findings; and • Commission impact. In response to Commissioner Berwin Hanna's question regarding the delivery of the new rail cars, Sheldon Peterson replied 72 new rail cars have been delivered, 12 rail cars are on the way from Korea, and 40-50 rail cars are located at an eastern maintenance facility in final assembly to be released for service in a few months. Commissioner Adam Rush explained there was significant discussion at the last Western Riverside County (WRC) Programs and Projects Committee meeting about the increase in salaries and budgets and asked what the benefits will be to the Metrolink riders and how it will be paid. • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 11 John Fenton replied there is a hiring boom in the railroad industry as it is currently at its highest time of success. He explained Metrolink needs retention money to retain key people in the organization as it is difficult to find engineering, track engineers, signal expertise, and experienced people in positive train control. He stated the funds would not be used for a cost of living increase or merit increase. He explained Metrolink reduced the operating costs by approximately $9 million and there will be an increase to 168 trains by July 1. He discussed the components for revenue growth, the three specific target marketing programs to increase Metrolink ridership, addressing the rise in fuel costs, and the increase in administrative costs to fill vacant positions. Commissioner Rush expressed concern for the 41 % increase in the salary and benefits as well as the indirect administrative costs based upon 7% revenue anticipation. He asked 1) if that translates into a significant benefit to the Metrolink riders with respect to adding these positions and finding the availability for more ridership especially from the Inland Empire into Los Angeles; and 2) if that increase is being paid for in part by offsets of approximately $1.7 million translating from the contracted costs to in house positions and the 7% revenue anticipation. John Fenton explained the total budget was basically flat from year to year from an operating expense, absorbing the largest expenses in fuel and service costs. Commissioner Buster expressed appreciation for the express train service for San Bernardino and Antelope Valley and asked if this service can be used in Riverside County. John Fenton concurred and said the future is transitioning to express trains. He explained as Metrolink begins studies to evaluate where commuters move within the communities, it can design service that will save commuters time. Commissioner Buster suggested in the near future, focus should be given to job centers and utilization of smart vehicles by commuters that arrive at a station to get to their job. Commissioner Terry Henderson expressed appreciation to John Fenton for sharing his prospective of the budget. She concurred the railroad industry is getting a great deal of attention and it has some luster on it, however, she expressed caution the luster can wear off and a retention attitude can create problems later on. She suggested being very cautious about trying to be above or over what the railroad industry is calling for because in a couple years, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 12 it may be going in the reverse direction. The Commission and Metrolink would be far better off setting the course going to the future than following others. Commissioner Bob Botts stated he would be remiss if he did not repeat his comments made at the WRC Programs and Projects Committee, which relate to the merit increases. During these difficult economic times when the cities and county are not only freezing but reducing costs, it is a challenge to support a 4% performance increase. While the desire to retain staff is understood, he expressed no industry, city, or county has any kind of increase. He reiterated there are significant concerns about the 4% performance increase. John Fenton stated Metrolink has not received an increase in three years. Technical positions have been lost, which are difficult to replace at the wages currently being paid. He explained it is critical to maintain the technical expertise needed in the railroad industry. He stated it is imperative to retain mission critical staff and be able to incentivize those staff to stay with Metrolink. He reiterated that the funds will not be used for a cost of living increase or merit increase; the funds will be used to retain mission critical staff in the organization. Commissioner Glenn Miller asked for Metrolink`s plan if it does not meet the revenue target such as a reserve or does the Commission need to approve additional funds for the shortfall. John Fenton replied Metrolink has worked diligently to put a plan in place and if that does not materialize, then there needs to be cuts in service or fare increases. Commissioner Miller explained when employees are being added by removing consultants, Metrolink is charged with long term fixed costs. He expressed his belief that there are many available people in the rail industry that would be interested in a job when most cities and communities are holding on to less and living within the means. He expressed strong concern that 1) performance enhanced raises for only a few members of Metrolink staff does not appear to be a vital asset that cannot be replaced; and 2) taking costs that the Commission could possibly not have long term ramifications for and add into a fixed cost so if Metrolink does not meet its fare goals, services will have to be cut. He expressed his belief that it is inappropriate to give staff raises before revenue goals are achieved. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 13 John Fenton replied the Macias audit identified gaps in control in administrative processes, which have now been addressed. Metrolink is building IT programs that will give greater visibility into the organization and strengthening Metrolink's grants administration to allow management of the agency at a high level. Vice Chair Benoit expressed Metrolink's path on how to compensate its employees is a unique track. He then asked for clarification regarding the elimination of the 10-trip ticket in lieu of the 7-day ticket. John Fenton replied the 10-trip ticket is the most abused ticket. Commuters do not validate the 10-trip ticket at the validator machines before boarding the trains at an estimated fare evasion of $750,000 to $2 million annually. Additionally, there is an annual maintenance cost of $300,000 for the validator machines. Anne Mayer expressed appreciation to John Fenton for attending the meeting as it gives the Commissioners the opportunity to ask questions regarding the Metrolink budget. There are very aggressive assumptions with this budget and challenges associated with it. She stated should this budget be approved, Commission staff will work collaboratively with Metrolink staff through the Technical Advisory Committee process, CEOs meetings, and daily business to ensure these revenues and expenditures are being monitored. She also reminded the Commission that it is unique in the fact that it owns all of its stations, which represents a significant amount of funding for maintenance every year. Commissioner Buster acknowledged the constrained financial times that all agencies are facing, however, the narrowness of the railroad industry and the key aspect of achieving safety on these rail lines is paramount. The particular situation of a public agency and its function must be considered as these critical budget decisions and investments are made. In response to Commissioner Spiegel's request for clarification, Vice Chair Benoit replied all three recommendations are part of this motion and the communication of the Commission's concern about the 4% performance increase has been well documented. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 14 M/S/C (Kuenzi/Spiegel) to: 1) Adopt the preliminary FY 2011 /12 Metrolink operating and capital budget; 2) Allocate the Commission's funding commitment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) in an amount not to exceed of $7,149,700 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds for train operations and maintenance of way, and $1,255,536 for capital projects to be funded by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 funds; and 3) Direct staff to communicate to SCRRA the Commission's deep concern over the 4% performance increase for Metrolink employees and the newly created in-house positions. Abstain: Ashley No: Hanna, Hernandez, Miller, Pougnet, and Rush 10. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA There were no agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 11. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 11 A. Commissioner Henderson stated the California Transportation Foundation presents the 22nd Annual Transportation Awards being held on June 15, at the Sacramento Convention Center and recognized Anne Mayer for the Person of the Year award. 11 B. Commissioner Spiegel announced: • Riverside Transit Agency has two projects that are up for finalists at the 22nd Transportation Awards; and • She rode the inaugural express train from San Bernardino to Los Angeles on Monday, May 9. 11C. Anne Mayer announced: • The California Transportation Commission meeting is being held May 11, and the approval for the SR-91 high -occupancy vehicle lane project is on the agenda; • The Unmet Transit Needs Hearing is being held at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 12, at the Banning Senior Center; and • " " " Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes May 11, 2011 Page 15 " The 1-10/Date Palm Drive groundbreaking ceremony is being held Friday, May 13 at 9:00 a.m. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 8, 2011, in the Board Room, at the County, of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 /12 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12; 2) Forward to the Commission to close the public hearing to receive input on the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12; and 3) Adopt the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The annual fiscal budget is the result of staff determining the operating and capital needs for FY 2011 /12 and identifying the resources to fund those needs. The budget process began in December 2010. The goals and objectives approved by the Commission on March 9 were the basis of this budget. The goals and objectives considered during the preparation of the budget relate to mobility initiatives, goods movement, improved system efficiencies, environmental stewardship, economic development, intermodalism and accessibility, and public and agency communications, and financial and administrative policies. On May 11, staff presented the proposed budget to the Commission. Subsequent to that presentation, staff updated the document as a result of the following changes, resulting in a net decrease of $29,532,100 to ending fund balance: Adjustments to Fiscal Year 2010/11 Projected Amounts " Net increases of $3,461,900 in reimbursements and operating transfers in less net increases of $6,055,200 in projects and operations and operating transfers out after further review and analysis of department budget worksheets. Agenda Item 6 1 Adjustments to Fiscal Year 2011 /12 Budgeted Amounts • A $225,000 increase in state reimbursements for a commuter assistance program grant; • $2.2 million decrease in Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues included in beginning fund balance; • A $148,000 decrease in investment income as a result of a net increase in revenues and the correlating increase in the estimated cash balance; • A $2 million decrease in debt proceeds due to a reduction in commercial paper notes issuances; • A $23,000 net increase in transfers in offset by a $23,000 increase in transfers out related to changes in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance (STA) funding of rail operations and analysis of the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) submissions; • A $8,442,700 increase in transfers in offset by a $8,442,700 increase in transfers out related to changes in available debt proceeds resulting primarily from release of debt service reserve fund for project costs; • A $100 increase in transfers in offset by a $100 increase in transfers out related to a change in administrative allocations; • A $155,600 increase in the annual required contribution for other postemployment retirement benefits based on a recent actuarial valuation and changes related to assumptions including the discount rate; • A $590,000 decrease in professional services related to an anticipated decrease in liquidity facility fees for the 2009 Bonds as a result of preliminary negotiations to extend the facility for an additional three years to September 2014; • A $36,500 increase in professional services related to financing costs and programming database services; • A $225,800 increase in program management expenditures for Bechtel Infrastructure (Bechtel) services based on a reconciliation to the Bechtel contract amount; • An $8,100 increase in engineering costs related to the 60/215 East Junction project; • A $2,060,000 increase in right of way costs related to the Interstate 215 Central widening project; • A net increase of $10,549,800 in STA expenditures based on the review and analysis of the SRTP submissions; • Increases of $12,143,000 in LTF expenditures based on the review and analysis of the SRTP submissions; • A $49,000 increase in planning studies; • A $75,000 decrease in debt service expenditures related to the decrease in interest cost as a result of decreased commercial paper notes outstanding; and Agenda Item 6 • 2 " " A $1,747,000 decrease in debt service expenditures related to a revision of the variable rate interest factor for the 2009 Bonds. A public hearing to allow for public comment on the proposed budget, as revised, is required prior to the adoption of the proposed budget. The public hearing was opened at the May 11 Commission meeting. After the public hearing is closed on June 8, adoption of the proposed Budget for FY 201 1 /12 will follow. In accordance with the Commission's fiscal policies, the budget must be adopted no later than June 15 of each year. Attached is the proposed Budget for FY 201 1 /12. This document contains the executive summary, as revised, that was presented at the May 11 Commission meeting; the Gann Appropriations Limit; the guiding policies related to the preparation of the budget; a summary of the budget process; fund budgets; details of program revenues and other sources; debt; department budgets; a community profile; and appendices including a glossary of acronyms, funding definitions, and program/general terms. A summary of the proposed Budget for FY 2011 /12 is as follows: Revenues and other financing sources: Sales taxes -Measure A, LTF, and STA Reimbursements (federal, state, and other) TUMF Other revenues Interest on investments Debt proceeds Transfers in Total revenues and other financing sources Expenditures and other financing rues: Personnel salary and fringe benefits Professional services Support services Projects and operations Capital outlay Debt service (principal, interest and costs of issuance) Transfers out Total expenditures and other financing uses Excess (deficiency) of revenues and other financing sources over (under) expenditures and other financing uses Beginning fund balance Ending fund balance FY 2011 /12 Budget $ 180,937,000 48,949,800 7,084,300 310,200 1,824,200 38,000,000 169,201,100 446,306,600 6,576,900 16,385,800 5,436,600 392,137,600 475,200 20,195,000 169, 201,100 610,408,200 (164,101, 6001 530,978,300 $ 366,876,700 Attachment: FY 2011 /12 Proposed Budget - Posted on Commission Website Agenda Item 6 3 6/8/2011 Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2011/12 .< 6811,. Budget Adjustments (Draft to Final) Fund Balance FY 2011/12 Ending Fund Balance (as reported s/11/11) $ 396,408,800 Projected FY 2011 Adjustments: Decrease in state and local reimbursements (840,000) Increase In professional and support and project operations (1,753,300) Budget FY 2012 Adjustments: Increase In state reimbursements ,000 Decrease In TUMF reimbursements (2,222525,000) Decrease in bond Issuance Decrease in investment Income (148,000) Increase In salaries and benefits (155,600) Decrease in professional costs 553,500 Increase in program management costs (225,800) Decrease in engineering costs 791,900 Increase in construction costs (800,000) Increase in right of way acquisition costs (2,060,000) Increase in special studies (49,000) Increase in transit operating&capital distributions (22,692,800) Decrease in interest costs 1,822,000 Decrease in debt proceeds (2,000,000) FY 2011/12 Ending Fund Balance (per final budget 6/a/12) $ 366,876,700 RCTC 1 6/8/2011 !Beginning Fund Balance $530,978,300 !Total Estimated Sources 446,306,600 • Revenues $239,105,500 • Debt Proceeds $38,000,000 • Transfers In 169,201,100 !Total Estimated Uses 610,408, 200 • Expenditures $421,012,100 • Debt Service $20,195,000 • Transfers Out $169,201,100 !Uses over Sources (offset by beginning fund balance) •,,10 ,Soo !Ending Fund Balance FY 2011/12 $366,876,700 ea a Funding Sources RCTC FY 2011/12 Sources easure A Sales Tax LTF Sales Tax STA Sales Tax Federal reimbursements State reimbursements Local reimbursements TUMF Other revenues Investment income Debt proceeds Transfers in Total Sources $ 114,700,000 56,700,000 9,537,000 23,650,700 23,935,100 1,364,000 7,084,300 310,200 1,824,2.00 38,000,000 169.101,100 • $ 446,306,600 2 6/8/2011 $180,000,000 $160,000,000 $180,003,000 $120,000,003 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $60,000 oao $40,000,003 $20,030,000 $- i� Say 2 4 - �`�a<0 F�' o` ex.' �c e c� "fie �' � c ,gyp F�,dfi de F oe d e Total $446,306,600 Total Uses $ 610,408,200 Regional Programs $128,043,700 3 6/8/2011 Finance $5,672,500 66% Legislative Affairs& Communications 51,297,000 16% Total $ 125,043,700 Planning & Programming Services $7,012,300 Rail Maintenance & Operations $21,598,600 Public& Commuter Motorist Specialized Assistance Assistance Transit $87,042,800 $4,226,400 $5,163,600 6% 17% 70% 3% 4% 4 6/8/2011 Capital Program Uses $287,718,900 f R • Salaries and benefits 62,795,000 • Professional services 9,601,700 • Support costs 852,800 • Projects and operations 274,334,400 • Capital outlay 135,000 • Debt service • Transfers out 20,195,000 139,639,700 Capital Projects & perations Expenditures RCTC 411104)* 1 Arterials l 635,215,000) Local Streets end Bo•ds 533,1611,009 Projects & Operations 274,334,400 (Rian of d Lannad ) $85,952.000 aa�nIan S59,677,600 Design Build 519,438,000 1 5 6/8/2011 Capital Project Expenditure Highlights SR-91 HOV Lanes/Adams Street to 60/91/215 Interchange 74/215Interchange SR-91, 1-15 and 1-215 Corridor Improvements Mid County Parkway'- ,- Support x Projects& i Operations 55,436, $392,137,600 6 Measure A Management Services►RCTc N M Budget LL hossimi_ 0.0096 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 1. so% 3.00% u Salaries and Benefits -A Administrative Costs Adoption of budget on June 8, 2011 Review the final budget, close the public hearing, and adopt the final budget 6/8/2011 7 " AGENDA ITEM 8A " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2011/12 BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve Resolution No. 11-009, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Establishing the Commission's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2011/12". BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make documentation used to determine the appropriations limit available to the public 15 days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit. Staff has performed the calculations necessary to determine the limit. The resolution and documents supporting the calculation are attached. The Commission chose to use the percentage change in the California per capita personal income and the population change within Riverside County as the factors in determining the appropriations limit. As required, the adoption of the Commission's FY 2011/12 Appropriations Limit was posted in the local newspaper. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 1 1-009 2) California Per Capita Income and Population, Riverside County  California Department of Finance Agenda Item 8A 4 " " " RESOLUTION NO. 11-009 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ESTABLISHING THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 201 1 /12 WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California Constitution places an annual limitation upon appropriations from proceeds of taxes by each local government of the State of California; and WHEREAS, in 1988, pursuant to Article XIIIB, section 4 of the California Constitution, the Riverside County Transportation Commission established its appropriations limit at $75 million for Fiscal Year 1988/89 under ordinance No. 88-1; and WHEREAS, Section 7910 of the California Government Code implements Article XIIIB of the California Constitution by requiring each local jurisdiction to establish, by resolution, its appropriations limit for each fiscal year and to make the documentation used in determining the appropriations limit available to the public fifteen days prior to adoption of the resolution establishing the appropriations limit; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 1 approved by the voters of the State effective June 6, 1990, beginning with Fiscal Year 1990/91 and for each fiscal year thereafter, the Commission's Board of Commissioners is required to select either the percentage change in California per capita personal income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll due to the addition of local non- residential construction, and either the population change within the Commission or the population change within Riverside County, as the two factors to be applied in calculating the appropriations limit for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, this Board wishes to select, as factors in determining the Commission's appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 2011/12 the percentage change in California per capita personal income and also the population change within Riverside County; and WHEREAS, this Commission has documented its calculations of the Commission's appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 201 1 /12 and said calculations have been made available to the public at least fifteen days prior to the adoption of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Riverside County Transportation Commission as follows: 1. For Fiscal Year 201 1 /12, the factors selected for calculating the appropriations limit are (a) the percentage change in California per capita personal income, and (b) the population change within the County of Riverside. 2. The appropriations limit applicable to this Agency pursuant to Article XIIIB of the California Constitution for Fiscal Year 2011/12 are hereby established and determined to be $332,891,501. 3. A copy of the documentation used in the determination of the appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 201 1 /12 shall be affixed hereto and shall be available for public inspection. 4. Pursuant to Section 7910 of the California Government Code, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the establishment of the appropriations limit as set forth herein must be commenced within forty-five days of the adoption of this resolution. ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 2011. Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • • 6 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FY 2011/12 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FY 2010/11 Appropriations Limit .... $ 318,967,208 FY 2011/12 adjustment: Change in California per capita personal income = 2.51 % Change in Population, Riverside County = 1.81 % Per Capital Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 2.51 + 100 = 1.0251 100 Population converted to a ratio: 1.81 + 100 = 1.0181 100 Calculation of factor for FY 2011/12: 1.0251 x 1.0181 = 1.04365431 $ 318,967,208 X 1.04365431 = $ 332,891,501 FY 2011/12 Appropriations Limit .. $ 332,891,501 Source: California per capita income - California Department of Finance Population, Riverside County California Department of Finance ti May 2011 Enclosure I A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost -of -living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost -of -living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the 2011-2012 appropriation limit is: Per Capita Personal Income Fiscal Year (FY} 2011-2012 Percentage change over prior year 2.51 B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2011-2012 appropriation limit. 2011-2012: Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 2.51 percent Population Change = 0.77 percent Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: Population converted to a ratio: Calculation of factor for FY 2011-2012: 2.51 + 100 = 1.0251 100 0.77 + 100 = 1.0077 100 1.0251 x 1.0077 = 1.0330 Enclosure li Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2011 and Total Population, January 1, 2011 Total County Percent Change -- Population Minus Excluslona- Population City 2010.2011 1-1-10 1-1-11 1-1-2011 Riverside Banning 1.14 29,507 29.844 29,844 Beaumont 4.66 36,496 38,195 38,195 Biy(he 1.09 13,153 13,296 20,158 Calimes8 1.12 7,853 7,941 7,9,11 Canyon Lake 1.13 10,528 10.647 - 10,647 Cathedral City 1.12 50,984 51,556 51,603 Coachella 2.57 40,464. 41,502 41,502. Corona 1.18 151,854 153,649 - 153,649 Desert Hot Springs 5.92 25,852 27,383 27,383 Hemet 1.62 78,335 79,607 79,607 Indian Wells 1.40 4,941 5,010 5,010 Indio 2.72 75,122 77,165 77,165 Lake Elsinore 2.06 51,445 52,503 52,503 La Quinta 1.42. 37,307 37,836 37,836 Menifee 2.82 77,267 79.444 79.444 Moreno Valley 1.33 192,654 195,216 195,216 Murrieta 1.33 103,085 104,459 104,459 Norco 1.13 22,673 22,929 27,080 Palm Desert 2.03 48,132 49,111 49,111 Palm Springs 1.39 44,385 45,002 45,002 Perris 2.80 67,879 69,781 69.781 Rancho Mirage 1.72 17,168 17,463 17,463 Riverside 1.31 302,814 306,779 308,779 San Jacinto 1.26 44,043 44,597 44,597 Temecula 2.05 99,611 101,657 101,657 Wildomar 1.68 32,006 32,543 32,543 Unincorporated 1.92 501,859 511,518 511,623 County Total 1.81 2,167,417 2,206,633 2,217.778 (') Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents In state mental Institution, state and federal correctional inslsutions and veteran homes. Page 1 • • " " RESOLUTION NO. 11-007 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION REGARDING THE FUND BALANCE POLICY WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (the "Commission") currently retains the authority to add, delete or otherwise modify the Commission's policies and procedures; WHEREAS, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has issued its Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, with the intent of improving financial reporting by providing fund balance categories that will be more easily understood; NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. The Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby adopts the Fund Balance Policy, attached as Exhibit A. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8' day of June, 2011. Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board 11 FUND BALANCE POLICY 1. Introduction EXHIBIT A The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued its Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. The requirements of this statement are intended to improve financial reporting by providing fund balance categories and classifications that will be more easily understood by financial report users. The categories are more clearly defined to make the nature and extent of the constraints placed on a government's fund balance more transparent. Additionally, the reporting of restricted fund balance will enhance the consistency between information reported in the government -wide statements and information in the governmental fund financial statements. This Fund Balance Policy establishes the procedures for reporting unrestricted fund balances in the governmental fund financial statements. Certain commitments and assignments of fund balance will help ensure that there will be adequate financial resources to protect the Commission against unforeseen circumstances and events such as revenue shortfalls and unanticipated expenditures. The policy also authorizes and directs the Chief Financial Officer to prepare financial reports which accurately categorize fund balance as per GASB Statement No. 54. II. Scope Fund balance is essentially the difference between the assets and liabilities reported in a governmental fund. The Commission's governmental funds consist of the General fund, special revenue funds, capital projects funds, and a debt service fund. There are five separate components of fund balance, each of which identifies the extent to which the Commission is bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts can be spent. • Nonspendable — Fund balance includes amounts that are not in spendable form or are required to be maintained intact (e.g., loans receivable and endowments). These amounts are inherently nonspendable. • Restricted — Fund balance includes amounts that can be spent only for the specific purposes stipulated by external resource providers, constitutionally or 12 through enabling legislations. These amounts have externally enforceable limitations on use. • Committed — Fund balance includes amounts that can be used only for specific purposes determined by formal action of the government's highest level of decision -making authority. These amounts have self-imposed limitations on use. • Assigned — Fund balance comprises amounts intended to be used by the government for specific purposes. In governmental funds other than the general fund, assigned fund balance represents the amount that is not restricted or committed. These amounts have limitations resulting from intended use. • Unassigned — Fund balance is the residual classification for the general fund and includes all amounts not contained in the other classifications. Nonspendable and restricted fund balance are not addressed in this policy due to the nature of their restrictions. For the Commission, an example of nonspendable fund balance is prepaid amounts. Restricted fund balance amounts in the General fund, special revenue funds, capital projects funds, and debt service fund are related to the limitations imposed by Measure A, the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), the Transportation Development Act for Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and State Transit Assistance, federal and state grants and programs, and debt agreements. This policy is focused on financial reporting of unrestricted fund balance, or the last three components listed above. These three components are further discussed below. III. Procedures Committed Fund Balance The Board of Commissioners, as the Commission's highest level of decision -making authority, may commit fund balance for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal actions taken, such as an ordinance or resolution. These committed amounts cannot be used for any other purpose unless the Commission removes or changes the specified use through the same type of formal action taken to establish the commitment. Commission action to commit fund balance needs to occur within the fiscal reporting period; however, the amount can be determined subsequently. Assigned Fund Balance Amounts that are constrained by the Commission's intent to be used for specific purposes, but are neither restricted nor committed, should be reported as assigned fund balance. This policy hereby delegates the authority to assign amounts to be used for specific purposes to the Chief Financial Officer for the purpose of reporting these amounts in the annual financial statements. An example of assigned fund balance follows: Adopted June 8, 2011 • 13 " " " Genera/ Government Administration  Funds allocated by Measure A, TUMF, LTF and motorist assistance programs to the General fund for general government administration. Unassigned Fund Balance These are residual positive net resources of the General fund in excess of what can properly be classified in one of the other four categories. Fund Balance Classification The accounting policies of the Commission consider restricted fund balance to have been spent first when an expenditure is incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted fund balance is available. Similarly, when an expenditure is incurred for purposes for which amounts in any of the unrestricted classifications of fund balance could be used, the Commission considers committed amounts to be reduced first, followed by assigned amounts and then unassigned amounts. This policy is in place to provide a measure of protection for the Commission against unforeseen circumstances and to comply with GASB Statement No. 54. No other policy or procedure supersedes the authority and provisions of this policy. Adopted June 8, 2011 14 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Michele Cisneros, Accounting and Human Resources Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Statements BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the Quarterly Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2011; and 2) Approve a budget adjustment to decrease debt proceeds by $15 million, decrease debt service interest expenditures by $1 million, and increase debt service principal expenditures by $17,284,000 for a net increase in FY 2010/11 expenditures of $1,284,000. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: During the last nine months of the fiscal year, staff monitored the revenues and expenditures of the Commission. The attached financial statements present the revenues and expenditures for the first nine months of the fiscal year. Period closing accrual adjustments are not included for revenues earned but not billed and expenditures incurred for goods and services received but not yet invoiced, as such adjustments are normally made during the year-end closing activities. The operating statement shows the sales tax revenues for the third quarter at 59% of the budget. This is a result of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 33. GASB 33 requires sales tax revenue to be accrued for the period in which it is collected at the point of sale. The State Board of Equalization collects the Measure A funds and remits these funds to the Commission after the reporting period for the businesses. This creates a two -month lag in the receipt of revenues by the Commission. Accordingly, these financial statements reflect the revenues related to collections through January 2011. On a cash basis, the Measure A and Local Transportation Fund (LTF) sales tax revenues are 7.33% and 6.35% higher, respectively, than the same period last Agenda Item 8C 15 fiscal year. This continued increase is an encouraging sign that economic recovery in the region is broadening. Staff will continue to monitor the trends in the sales tax receipts and report to the Commission any necessary adjustments to the FY 2010/11 budget for sales tax revenues. Federal, state, and local revenues are on a reimbursement basis. The Commission will receive these revenues as eligible project costs are incurred and invoiced to the respective agencies. During the FY 2010/11 budget process, the Commission took a conservative approach in estimating the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $4.3 million passed through from the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) as a result of the housing crisis and the significant impact this has had on the Inland Empire's local economy. Of these TUMF revenues, 92% was earned through March 2011. The balance of $5 million relates to TUMF zone reimbursements from WRCOG, which had not been billed through March 2011. Other revenues exceeded the estimate by 157% as a result of unbudgeted property management revenues generated from properties acquired in connection with the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP). The Commission took a conservative approach in estimating interest income for FY 2010/11, due to flat interest yields on invested balances. Interest income is at 149% of the budget as a result of this conservative approach. Other than capital project expenditures that are discussed separately, the other expenditure categories are in line overall with the expectations of the budget with the following exceptions: • Professional services are under budget due to ongoing contract negotiations with Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway regarding the 4th Main track, downscaled toll feasibility work on the Interstate 15 Corridor Improvement Project (1-15 CIP) due to market conditions, and unused budget authority for level 2 and level 3 toll feasibility work on the SR-91 CIP. • Support costs are slightly under budget due to unused budget authority for station maintenance and repair and utilities. This category is expected to be in line with the overall budget in the fourth quarter. • Program operation expenditures are slightly under budget and reflect vendor invoices for Freeway Service Patrol towing and program management submitted through the period of February 2011. • Operating and capital disbursements made as claims are submitted to the Commission by the transit operators. • Special studies are under budget due to unused budget authority for Ca!trans project initiation documents (PID) related to planning, programming, and Agenda Item 8C • 16 " monitoring. Due to the state's budget uncertainty, additional funds were budgeted in FY 2010/11, should the Commission be required to reimburse Ca!trans for PIDs. " Local streets and roads expenditures are related to the timing of the Measure A sales tax revenues as previously explained. These financial statements reflect expenditures made to the local jurisdictions for collections through January 2011. " Regional arterial expenditures are administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). CVAG requests reimbursements from the Commission based on available funds and sufficient budget authority. " Capital outlay expenditures are under budget due to unexpended authority for financial software improvements. Staff expects these improvements to be completed by the fourth quarter of FY 2010/11. In September 2010, the Commission issued $20 million in commercial paper notes. In December 2010, the Commission issued $150 million in sales tax revenue bonds to provide funding for the 2009 Measure A projects and retire $103,284,000 of commercial paper notes. Sales tax revenue bonds debt service interest expenditures are made in December and June, while related principal payments are made in June. The debt service expenditures as of the third quarter include principal payments made to retire all of the outstanding commercial paper notes in December 2010, with the proceeds from the 2010 sales tax revenues bonds. A bond principal payment of $6.3 million is due on June 1, 2011, resulting in a projected over budget variance of $17,284,000 in debt service principal. expenditures. Debt service interest expenditures for FY 2010/11 are estimated at $1 1,405,000, resulting in an under budget variance of $1 million. Staff requests that the Commission approve an increase in debt service principal expenditures of $17,284,000 offset by a decrease in debt proceeds of $15 million and decrease in debt service interest expenditures of $1 million, for a net increase in expenditures of $1,284,000. The cost of issuance expenditures relate to the 2010 sales tax revenue bonds issued in December 2010. Staff will continue to monitor the revenues and expenditures and will notify the Commission of any unusual events. Listed below are the significant capital projects and the status. Capital project expenditures are generally affected by lags in invoices submitted by contractors and consultants, as well as issues encountered during certain phases of the projects. The capital projects budgets tend to be based on aggressive project schedules. Agenda Item 8C 17 Highway Engineering/Construction/Design-Build/Right of Way/Land SR-60/Valley Way Interchange Project - The county of Riverside (County) is the lead agency for this project. The construction contract started in March 2010 and is essentially complete with the contractor clearing punch list items. Remaining invoices of approximately $1 million are expected to be received from the County in the fourth quarter of FY 2010/11. 74/215 Interchange Project - Construction is progressing as planned; one right of way acquisition is currently in condemnation proceedings. SR-79 Realignment Project - The draft project report and environmental document is being reviewed by Caltrans to receive approval to release for public circulation. Due to the size and complexity of the project, this phase has taken longer than anticipated. SR-91 /Van Buren Boulevard Interchange Project - The city of Riverside is the lead agency for this project. Construction started in March 2010 and the project is progressing. Vendor invoices for the Measure A funded portion of construction for $5 million will be submitted in the fourth quarter of FY 2010/11 for $3 million and the remaining $2 million to be billed in the first quarter of FY 2011/12. SR-91 HOV Lanes Project - Caltrans is performing design and is on schedule. Expenditures remain within the budget authority, although billings from the state are lagging. Utility relocation contractors continue to perform relocation of utilities; however, no invoices for expenditures incurred to date have been submitted for payment. Staff is performing right of way acquisition, and negotiations continue to progress and are on schedule, while several acquisition payments are pending settlements. Construction managed by Caltrans is currently forecasted to start in the first quarter FY 201 1 /12; however, this may be delayed due to the lack of state bond sales. 71 /91 Interchange Project - The preliminary engineering and environmental phase is scheduled to be completed in late FY 2010/11. The availability of federal earmark funds allows the design phase of work to move forward. SR-91 CIP (design -build) - A third limited notice to proceed (NTP) was issued in the first quarter FY 2010/11. A letter of intent for a Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan was submitted in March 2011. The Commission anticipates an invitation to apply for the TIFIA loan in the first quarter FY 201 1 /12. Early right of way acquisition work was approved by Caltrans in April 2011. Following a public comment period scheduled for June 2011, the anticipated forecast date for early acquisition is scheduled for the first quarter FY 201 1 /12. Agenda item 8C • 18 1-15 CIP - Work on the environmental phase continues. The toll feasibility model was completed at the end of the second quarter FY 2010/11. Staff is currently analyzing the results of the toll feasibility model and developing a scoping and an implementation plan to present to an ad hoc committee in the first quarter FY 2011/12. 60/215 East Junction Interchange Project - Right of way certification was approved in the first quarter of FY 2010/11. The project was advertised for construction and the bids were opened in the third quarter FY 2010/11. Construction is currently forecasted to start in the first quarter FY 2011 /12. 1-21 5 Bi-County HOV Project - Environmental work has been completed; however, all costs incurred to date have not been invoiced. 1-215 Central Widening Project from Scott Road to Nuevo Road - A full NTP with final design was issued and the draft environmental document was approved in the second quarter FY 2010/11. Invoices have been submitted by the contractor starting in the third quarter of FY 2010/11 and the project is on schedule. 1-215 South Widening Project from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road - The required prerequisites for construction took longer than expected, moving the start date of construction to the fourth quarter FY 2010/11. Mid County Parkway Project - Right of way acquisitions have been curtailed as property development has subsided, and the critical need to acquire property for protection has been delayed due to the substantial rescoping of the project. Rail Engineering/Construction/Right of Way/Land Perris Valley Line Project - Advance preliminary engineering is approximately 90% complete and right of way acquisition has started. Environmental clearances are scheduled to be obtained in the first quarter of FY2011/12, which would release activity for final right of way procurement and start of the final design phase. Riverside Downtown Station Layover Facility Project - The consultant selection process was completed and contract award for engineering was approved by the Commission in September 2010, and a NTP was issued in the second quarter FY 2010/11. Delay in right of way access to perform geotechnical and environmental sampling caused preliminary engineering to start later than scheduled. Subsequently, the Commerce Street portion of the design and construction work has been suspended, as well as the construction of the northern facility due to funding issues. Agenda Item 8C 19 La Sierra Station Parking Expansion Project - Final design activities were in progress and completion was expected in the second quarter FY 2010/11, followed by submitting the plan check to the city of Riverside. However, the project has been placed on hold due to availability of funding. Attachment: Quarterly Financial Statements - March 2011 Agenda Item 8C • 20 Revenues Sales tax Federal reimbursements State reimbursements Local reimbursements Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Other revenues Interest Total revenues Expenditures Salaries and benefits Professional and support Professional services Support costs Total Professional and support costs Projects and operations Program operations - general Engineering Construction Design Build Right of way/land Operating and capital disbursements Special studies Local streets and roads Regional arterials Total projects and operations Debt service Principal Interest Cost of issuance Total debt service Capital outlay Total Expenditures Excess revenues over (under) expenditures Other financing sources/(uses) Operating transfer in Operating transfer out Debt proceeds Bond discount Total financing sources/(uses) Net change in fund balances Fund balance July 1, 2010 Fund balance March 31, 2011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANPORTATION COMMISSION QUARTERLY BUDGET VS ACTUAL 3RD QUARTER FOR NINE MONTHS ENDED 3/31/2011 FY 2010/11 3RD QUARTER BUDGET ACTUAL $ 190,054,519 $ 112,410,905 28,870,700 7,459,682 25,210,100 2,793,804 830,700 475,159 9,300,000 3,966,183 178,000 280,005 1,830,000 2,719,179 256,274,019 130,104,917 6,225,000 4,080,966 21,814,101 7,666,730 4,671,079 2,517,487 26,485,180 10,184,217 12,806,426 6,161,143 62,261,327 13, 640,165 51,326,122 10, 977,883 22, 991, 000 10, 839,692 149,577,800 37,307,136 111,510,440 56,572,582 1,514,700 358,527 33,668,400 20,164,590 15,195,000 5,716,971 460,851,215 161,738,689 92, 300,000 103,284, 000 12,405,000 4,381,053 1,520,000 1,440,958 106,225,000 109,106,011 330,424 120,406 600.116.819 285230,289 (343,842,800) (155,125,372) 251,478,721 142,090,909 (251,478,721) (142,090,909) 185,000,000 170,000,000 (967,467) 185, 000, 000 169, 032, 533 (158,842,800) 13,907,161 500,458,200 551,567,928 $ 341,615,400 $ 565,475,089 REMAINING BALANCE $ (77,643,614) (21,411,018) (22,416,296) (355,541) (5,333,817) 102,005 889,179 (126,169,102) 2,144,034 14,147,371 2,153, 592 16,300,963 6,645,283 48,621,162 40,348,239 12,151,308 112,270,664 54,937,858 1,156,173 13,503,810 9,478,029 299,112,526 (10,984,000) 8,023,947 79,042 (2,881,011) 210,018 314.886,530 363,586,734 (109,387,812) 109,387,812 (15.000,000) (967,467) 15,967,467 379,554,201 51,109,728 $ 430,663,929 PERCENT UTILIZATION 59% 26% 11% 57% 43% 157% 149% 51% 66% 35% 54% 38% 48% 22% 21% 47% 25% 51% 24% 60% 38% 35% 112% 35% 95% 103% 36% 48/0 45% 57% 57% 92% N/A 91% -9% 110% 166% 21 zz 890'SL4'S9S $ 6E1.'139L'CS $ -EEO BLZ 44 B19 L80 0£ $ b9Z 240'SL $ 49L 9L9'ZE $ Z4C 465'Y9 $ 908`589'S $ 955 $ 26en( 66-Z $ 969'419'9$ BSO'9LL bl $ 9Z6'199'LS9 1+8Z'9£L S4 - 8ZE'LLS'82 1.9Z'BL9'£9 L68'09 E£ 696'329'42 L69'6Z0'4 9Z68£ ZE9'1.4L'09Z LLS'629'9 BEti L92'£L 1.91'206'£l 549'614'L EE9'82Z44 694'92S (L66'OLS'8) (LZL'SC61 (2ZZ'l££'01) 60l'999'1 (99E'8£) (O4S'e0fi0Z) (9G9'69) OZ9'916 EES'ZEO'691. 9L9'S641-1 96Z'969'SP 9194Z990L GS9406P (400'009) (L90'L96) - (L94'2961 000'000'OLL - 000'000'0SL 000'000'02 - (606'060'Zbl) (8ZZ'929'1.) (9EZ'9EE'£Ol) (691.'699'90 - (400'049) 606'060'Zbl 406'£21'EL - 000048Z'EO1 298406'0 - (ZLE'SLl'SSU ((£8'SLO'$) (Z94'Ll4'() (LZE'960'90() (458'SL6'£l) BZZ'929'L - 11L5'6l4'1.J - Z17Z'Z69 M9'029'91) (009'906) 13ZZ'9L9'1 - BLO'LSZ'LL 009'906 Z4Z'Z69 (EZL'96) (LZ2'(MaO (6l('ZZ) (996'6E) (696'9ZS'61) (929'49) 9L£'6Z 69Z CV 39Z l Z6'6ZZ'4 9$6'040'1 Z9906l'L01. 699'4LC'LL OOL'EZZ 661. EL9E4 L80'ZE9'Sl Z961.15 SLZ 49692 999991.Z PEG Z9961 90b'0Z1 110'90L'60L 1206ZZ'4 996'060'l E90' 18E'4 1Z6'13ZZ'0 000'492'60L - 9S6'044'L ZEL'9£4'£OL 956'044 L ZEL'LS1 000'492'601 49Z.BL ZSL'Z4 L L02'LE yolelN enueleq puns OLOZ'L Alnp enueleq pund seoueleq pun) ul e6ue00 laN (sasn)/seomos Buloueuy lelol Lunooslp puoe spaaomd map ;no laysuml 8uocad0 ul 4441.2116u8e000 (sesn)/semnos Buloueuy Jeylp salnlpuedxe(.spun) laA0 senuenaL ssemG swnnpuedx3 (seal Aeuno leode0 aoWes 1g0919101 - - eouenssilo moo ;swam ledlouud a0wss lgap 699'96L'191 - l96'62L'E LZ940E'LL 40L'EZZ 661'£19'E4 164'1£9'91 L96'l lS Z49'892'02 994'196'L BZ9'Z6 L'9 suollweda pue spefud leloy l L6'91L'9 - - - - - LL8'91L'S - - - slepaye leuolBea 06S'49L'OZ - 998'69S'S ZS6'l LS Z42790'41 - spew pue slae4s leool LZS'BSE - - - - - E9L'10 - 49E'21.E salpnes !epode ZBS'ZLS'9S - - - OOL'£ZZ 881'628'£0 006'602'2 - 198'606*Z - 8ZS'61Z9'9 slueuns000 levdeo pue Bugelad0 9El'20£'2£ • - OZO'62Z'L 949'929'EL - - - L98'L46'n - 009'0L puelpfem to 1LI616 Z69'668'01. - - Z69'6E8'01 - - pone ufOsap E98'LL8601 - S92'92£4Z 6L0'60Z S4L'1.E9'L 469'092'9 1100omisuo0 S91'0490t - - ZLL'42 999'LEVC - LOIAll'OI. - 6uueeu0ud EOL'19L'9 - - 2106ZZl - 80001 9Z0'LES'E 394'L94'1. 9£0'9£0'1 leJeuaB- suogeJedo Lue0o.d suogeledo pue spefud LLZ'69l'OL 69L'SZ LLZ'9EZ - 1.10998'S LLV'Z49 6Z9'24'6 epos uoddns pue leumsselmd lelo 1 L84'0LS'Z - 9Z£ - - - - 99Z'8EZ l64'OZZ £L48S0'Z slsoO poddns OEL'999'L - - 692'SZ e1,6'2E2 - - - 9S6'2199 OZ6'1.26 91.1.'090'1. saolNes leuolssalmd poddns pue leuolsselmd 996'080'4 - 3994EL 966 - 906'099'1 ZLL'1.9 SZZ'9Z0Z slgau aq pue sepeles samllpuadx3 L16'401'0C1. 060'491 964'EZ 999'Z60'l 9lL'9£2'4 L96'LZL ZL6'1.49'£E 99E'01.9'91. 149'ZL4 ZSZ'SE8'919 Z92'00l'5 ZL 1'L06'EL senLISMAI ploy Bil 6t2'Z 060'4SL 964'EZ 9E5'260'1 ZES'ZLZ L86'121. 000'00Z ZZ1'LL - 6L8'6LL L49'6L LL9'le Lswalul S00'O9Z - - - - - - - 599'69 06 OSE'06L senuenai iap10 E9C996'£ - ES 995 E - - - aei uogeown miopun uogepoosue.0 69L'SL4 - - - Z4 L'SSZ 299'0L 9S1'64l sluaLuesmquiaa pool 409£6L'Z - - - 968'6E9 LZS'EZ6'l 6LZ'9£ sluaues.mgpial seals Z99'699'2 - - - - 496680'L 9£6'99 Z9Z09Z slueLues.nqulal lelapej S06'01401.1$ $ • S - $ - $ - $ ZL8'14£'E£ $ 96Z'ESS'SL9 4L9'2G4$ 40L'9611'64 $ - $ 696'92'6L$ xel same senuenea 1V101 03NI8W 00 301A83S 1830 (916n1) 33i ONnd A3lltlA SONOB 63dTd 3ONVISISSV A311VA A1N000 3dVB 0519 seasa saws 1V10B3WW00 NOI1tlOI11WW90jINn /ISM'S/31111S NOIIV13033A BOdSNtl91 V113Ii0V00 N331S3M IdSi 1V93N30 NOILV1NOdSNV91 1V301 OIVd XV/ S31VS V 3En SV3W LL02/LCIC 030N3 SHINOW 3NIN 90i 1331BVn0 OBC ONni AS Sl Vn10V SA 130Une na6i6V00 NOISSIWWOO NOIIV1NOdSNVS1 ALNOOO 301S93AI9 • • • " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Sales Tax Analysis BUDGET AND IMPLENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the sales tax analysis for Quarter 4 (Q4) 2010. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its December 2007 meeting, the Commission awarded an agreement to MuniServices, LLC (MuniServices) for quarterly sales tax reporting services plus additional fees contingent on additional sales tax revenue generated from the transactions and use tax (sales tax) audit services. The services performed under this agreement pertain to only the Measure A sales tax revenues. Since the commencement of these services, MuniServices submitted an audit update, which reported findings that have been generated and submitted to the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) for review and determination of errors in sales tax reporting related to 138 businesses. Through Q3 2010 for July through September 2010, the SBOE has approved corrections for 98 of these accounts for a total sales tax revenue recovery of $1,094,053. An update to the sales tax revenue recovery through Q4 2010 will be made subsequent to the Committee meeting and prior to the June Commission meeting. If the SBOE concurs with the error(s) for the remaining claims, the Commission would receive additional revenues; however, the magnitude of the value of the remaining findings was not available. It is important to note that while the recoveries of additional revenues will be tangible, it will not be sufficient to alter the overall trend of sales tax revenues. Additionally, MuniServices provided the Commission with the quarterly sales tax summary report for the fourth quarter of calendar 2010 for October through December 2010 (Q4 2010). Most of the Q4 2010 Measure A sales tax revenues was received by the Commission in the first quarter of calendar 2011, during January through March 2011, due to a lag in the sales tax calendar. The summary Agenda Item 8D 23 section of the Q4 2010 report is attached and includes an overview of California sales tax receipts, local results, historical cash collections analysis, summary of the top 25 sales tax contributors, historical sales tax amounts, sales tax by business category, economic trends for a significant business category, and results. The following observations were noted in the Q4 2010 report: • Sales tax receipts for Riverside County were 7.4% higher compared to the Q3 2009, and slightly higher than the state. This supports the previous quarterly reports' analyses that an economic recovery statewide and locally is underway. • Taxable transactions for the top 25 tax contributors in Riverside County, which generated 24% of the taxable sales for the year ended Q4 2010, increased 4.4% compared to the year ended Q4 2009. For the top 100 tax contributors, which generated 38% of the taxable sales, the growth was 6 7 %. • Over the last two-year period, the Q4 2010 sales tax levels were at the low points for three of the top ten economic segments; these three segments (food markets, building materials -retail, and light industry) were also the three low points in Q3 2010. Apparel store sales reached a new high point during Q4 2010. • Department stores, service stations, and restaurants continue to represent the three largest economic segments for Riverside County. ECONOMIC SEGMENTS ANALYSIS k` Largest Segment % of Total/% Change Department Stores 12.6/3.2 Restaurants 13.2/-1.4 Restaurants 13.6/-0.1 Department Stores 13.0/3.4 Department Stores 15.9/0.1 Restaurants 14.0/-1.0 Department Stores 12.0/-7.1 Department Stores 13.2/0.4 Restaurants 19.8/0.2 2nd Largest Segment %ofTotal /%Change Service Stations 11.6/17.4 Department Stores 11.4/0.0 Department Stores 10.3/1.4 Restaurants 10.8/-0.8 Service Stations 10.9/14.2 Department Stores 10.9/0.2 Service Stations 11.4/7.8 Services Stations 12.8/19.1 Misc. Retail 10.5/-5.2 3rd Largest Segment % of Total/ % Change Restaurants 10.7/-0.9 Service Stations 9.6/12.0 Service Stations 8.2/13.1 Service Stations 9.8/13.9 Restaurants 10.2/-2.9 Service Stations 9.6/11.5 Restaurants 10.8/-9.1 Restaurants 10.01-1.2 Department Stores 9.3/-0.5 • Similar to the Q3 comparisons in the prior quarter's report, the general retail and transportation economic categories were the only categories with increases in the Q4 2010 benchmark year comparison to Q4 2009. Construction and business to business, which comprised 25% of the Q4 2010 sales tax receipts, had smaller declines of 2.6% and 1.2%, respectively, compared with the prior Q3 2010 report declines of 8.8% and 7.3%, respectively. Of the two remaining categories, the food products decline was comparable to the prior quarter and miscellaneous (2.1 % of the total receipts) declined 1.9% compared to 1.1 % in the prior quarter. Agenda Item 8D 24 " General Retail %of Total 1% Change Food Products % of Total/ % Change Construction %of Total/%Change Transportation % of Total/% Change Business to Business %of Total/%Change Miscellaneous % of Total/% Change Total 30.9/3.5 17.0/44 10.5/-2.6 25.0/ 12.2 14.5/-1.2 2.1 /-1.9 100.0/3.1 30.7/-0.6 19.3/-1.9 8.6/-4.1 22.5/5.8 17.6/ 1.5 1.3J-7.6 100.0/0.5 ECONOMIC CATEGORY ANALYSIS 30.3/0.7 19.7/-1.0 8.2/-2.1 19.6/8.2 21.0/4.1 1.2/-7.4 100.0/2.1 30.8/ 1.4 17.5/0.3 10.3/-3.0 24.8/4.7 15.1 / 1.9 1.6/-4 3 100.0/1.5 33.5/0.6 17.4/-2.3 10.6/-4.6 23.9/ 7.7 13.5/3.3 1.2/-0.6 100.0/ 1.4 30.5/-1.0 19.8/-1.6 8.0/-3.6 22.8/5.2 17.6/0.6 1.2 /-6.7 100.0/0.2 29.2/-4.5 17.3/-8.3 9.9 /-11.8 25.7/2.2 15.9/-2.9 2.0/-12.3 100.0/41.3 30.6/0.4 19.4/0.1 12.2/-9.4 27.7/9.8 9.1/7.8 1.0/-60.9 100.0/0.5 33.4/-1.2 30.3/ 1.0 9.3/0.4 19.6/ 14.9 6.01-2.1 1.4/5.9 100.0/2.5 During the review of the Q4 2010 detailed report with MuniServices, information regarding sales tax comparisons by city and change by economic category from Q4 2009 to Q4 2010 was provided, and is attached. The city of Eastvale is not presented due to lack of data. Staff continues to monitor monthly sales tax receipts and other available economic data to determine the need for any additional adjustment to the revised revenue projections in FY 2010/11 as well as the revenue projections for FY 2011/12. Staff will utilize the forecast scenarios included with the complete report and recent trends in assessing such projections. Attachments: 1) Sales Tax Analysis for Q4 2010 2) Sales Tax Comparison by City for Q4 2010 to Q4 2009 Agenda Item 8D 25 Riverside County Transportation Commission Sales Tax Digest Summary Collections through March 2011 Sales through December 2010 (2010Q4) CALIFORNIA OVERVIEW California experienced overall sales tax growth for the fourth quarter in a row. Continuing the emerging trend of a 'broader' recovery, Department Stores, Apparel Stores, New Auto Sales and Service Stations sales led the gain. On a cash basis, statewide sales tax receipts during January -March 2011 grew by 6.5% from the same three months in 2010. Northern Califomia grew by 7.2% and Southern California grew by 6.0%. As for RCTC, its sales tax receipts changed by 7.4% from January -March 2010 to January -March 2011. CALIFORNIA'S FUTURE Expect General Retail to grow between 3.5% and 4.5% through FY 2015. While Service Station sales are driving current growth in local sales tax, the industry's ongoing volatility will continue to affect local sales tax fluctuations. Construction will continue its drop during FY 2011 by 5.0 to 100% before growing by 2.5% per year through FY 2013 and eventually rebounding through FY 2015. Food Products, which includes Restaurants and Supermarkets, should grow with core CPI of 2.4% per year with price pressures upward of 3.5% into FY 2014 and FY 2015. Auto sales will remain flat during the first half of FY 2011 until pent up demand causes buyers, who will be seeking lower -priced vehides, to increase purchases during FY 2012 and 2013 by 3.0% to 5.0%. County Pool receipts win follow the auto sales trends as third -party vehide sales resume along with overall car sales volume. In order to establish an economic rebound, California still needs job growth both locally and regionally to increase spending as well as business travel. Housing prices must stabilize and begin growing in order to restore some levels of equity and wealth effect, which should bolster consumer confidence and spending once again. LOCAL RESULTS Net Cash Receipts Analysis Local Collections Share of County Pool 0.0% Share of State Pool 0.0% SRE Net Collections Less: Amount Due County 0.0% Less: Cost of Administration Net 4Q2010 Receipts Net 4Q2009 Receipts Actual Percentage Change $32,542,268 0 0 32,542,268 .00 (347,300) 32,194,968 29,966,847 7.4% www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 Page 1 26 Riverside County Transportation Commission Business Activity Performance Analysis Local Collections Less: Payments for Prior Periods Preliminary 4Q2010 Collections Projected 4Q2010 Late Payments Projected 4Q2010 Final Results Actual 4Q2009 Results Projected Percentage Change HISTORICAL CASH COLLECTIONS ANALYSIS BY QUARTER $32,542,268 (1,717,664) 30,824,605 708,645 31,533,250 29,932,445 5.3% Y a z S 33,000 S32,000 S31,000 330.000 S29,000 520,000 S29.000 S26,000 S2S,000 S24,000 (in thoosands or S) 1 �_ �i_�_ IIIN 1 I I II a 3Q20084Q2000 1020119 2Q2009 31)2009 4Q2009 1Q2010 2Q2010 3Q2010 4Q2010 ��N et Receipts 900E Ada to Fees Doe 5450 S400 Ssso Ssoa S2S0 e S200 B` use SI00 S511 S0 TOP 25 SALES/USE TAX CONTRIBUTORS The following list identifies RCTCs Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors. The list is in alphabetical order and represents sales from January 2010 through December 2010. The Top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors generate 23.8%of RCTCs total sales and use tax revenue. ALBERTSON'S FOOD CENTERS BEST BUY STORES CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS CIRCLE K FOOD STORES COSTCO WHOLESALE DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLES HOME DEPOT C PENNEY COMPANY K MART STORES KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORE MOB& SERVICE STATIONS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY RITE AID DRUG STORES ROSS STORES SAM'S CLUB SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY SHELL SERVICE STATIONS STATER BROS MARKETS TARGET STORES VERIZON WIRELESS W.W.GRAINGER WAL MART STORES WALGREEN'S DRUG STORES www.MunrServicescom (800) 800-8181 Page 2 27 Riverside County Transportation Commission HISTORICAL SALES TAX AMOUNTS The following chart shows the sales tax level from sales through December 2010, the highs, and the lows for each segment over the last two years. - (in thousands of S) 1.14Q2010 *High ■ Law S 18,000 $16,000 S14,000 S12,000 S10,000 , $8,000 S6,000 $4,000 S2,000 SO GJ�°` GO< �.4 OenOt 1 II '�11.1 ' . . . . . il L�°v '�0` �` �~• �� a Ly 1,,�` ,e9 of % `�� ��c ` s pa' qws SOZ Pa° `See`�a 40 PQQ N.b4 . . . . °�� �.�� ter �A. • y y� 0c J"¢ *QaJ4 ►t O +. ,°t F°° o sr v�9e � I ANNUAL SALES TAR BY BUSINESS CATEGORY 4132010 3Q2010 2Q 2010 1132010 4132009 3Q 20119 2Q 2009 IQ 2009 413 2001 3Q 200i Qs 1h••sa•de at S) • 30 360,100 580,000 S100,000 3120,000 S140,000 S160,000 IIMG*stool Bet•11 MFasi p care is Oiieesy0ebtis•INC oesleaenee ®B•slsess Ta Boshtess lscell e 320,600 S40,000 www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 Page 3 28 Riverside County Transportation Commission FIVE-YEAR ECONOMIC TREND: General Retail (in tli.....a.ors) S14.eee slx,eoe sx o,oee =�.a,. :2"iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ,eee s.II1111111IIII1IIIIIII_I IMOOS 1 I l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1"I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 e o m e. e 0 e e e 0 o 0 0 0 0 e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N ry N N . N N p fV !� ,i N M p N N N c a v a o o 0 a n a a a.. 0 V ,c 0 a a e .. ea n s. .. .., n � .. e� n a .. w n e .v n v FINAL RESULTS: July -September 2010 Sales Local Net Cash Collections Less: Pool Amounts Less: Prior Quarter Payments Add: Late Payments $27,942,296 ($-347,300) ($1,522,913) $1,165,663 Local Net Economic Collections after Adjustments $27,932 346 Percent Change from July -September 2010 Sales UP BY 2.5% MUNISERVICES' ON -GOING AUDIT RESULTS This Quarter $101,927 Total to Date $1,094,053 www.MuniServices.com (800) 800-8181 Page 4 29 Southern California: Sales Tax Dec 2009 Sales to Oct- Jurisdicittsr, General Food Trans: - Retail Products ..rT.F..SI,i.°Si til..�%L- F Fl t �Ly^�"a v�"A �+�"w`ei >k..,:�.k. `� TRANSPORTATI,QN AUTHORITY Const, Business Misc. to Business *3.� �Jk^Rh``g� � .�a,�%,# � i-awe.._.��a:;-?6 . , Oct -Dec 2010 Total ; - Oct -Dec 2009 Total III+,' ' ,-, %Chg Largest Gain --- ---- ----- 2nd Largest Gain Largest Decline '' 2nd targest Oecline ptar r41.4,1(1 i ROTC 4.6%. 0.2% ; 15.4% 2:4% 31% ,, :9.5% 91,532,564 . 9 2,40 " .g% Auto Safes it3piU�;� .'5eidiee 5tatIA'Si `BR1g,Matlk Retail,,. »Lightlpdustry RIVERSIDE COUNTY Banning 2.0% 2.5% 5.6% -30.2% 1.7% -7.5% 376,156 369,432 1.8%Auto Sales - New Restaurants BIdg.Matls-Whsle Office Equipment Beaumont -1.3% -0.9% 60, 1% -10.7% 9.8% -11.2% 790,265 722,187 9.4% Service Stations Department Stores Miscellaneous Retail BIdg.Matls-Whsle Blythe -5.7% -9.7% -5.6% 8.1% -8.0% -51.2% 340,773 363,251 -6.2%Energy Sales Auto Parts/Repair Service Stations Restaurants Calimesa 15.3% 4.2% 9.3% -87.5% -85.4% -60.6% 131,582 163,259 -19.4% Service Stations Restaurants Light Industry Bldg. Matls-Retail Canyon Lake -5.3% -10.3% -40.6% 9.0% -38.5% -25.4% 23,645 27,787 -14.9% BIdg.Matls-Whsle electronic Equipment Misc. Vehicle Sales Light Industry Cathedral City -7.7% -0.9% 16.7% 37,0% .13.9% 25.1% 1,469,005 1,409,042 4.3°% Auto Sales - New Service Stations BIdg.Matls-Whsle Furniture/Appliance Coachella 3,4'% -2.0% 14, 9% 1.5% 12,8% -17,9% 669,739 628,747 6.5% Service Stations Food Processing Eqp Food Markets Miscellaneous Retail Corona 7.8% 2,6% 17.2% 15.3'% -5.4°% -29.4% 6,645,901 5,148,220 8.1%eldg.Matls-Whsle Service Stations Chemical Products Heavy Industry Desert Hot Springs 2.0% 1.9% 74.5% 17,0% 141'% 5.6% 264,223 215,992 22.3% Service Stations Auto Parts/Repair BIdg.Matls-Retail Miscellaneous Retail Hemet -3.3% -2.756 22.6% 4.4% -15.2% -16.8% 2,039,321 1,952,470 4.4% Auto Sales - New Service Stations Electronic Equipment Food Markets Indian Wells 5.1% 15,13k -38.1% -94.2% 71.3% -43.3°%, 202,024 179,234 12.7% Restaurants Light Industry Misc. Vehicle Sales BIdg.Mads-Whsle Indio 9,8% -5.1% 16.9% -3.5% 18.1% 12.6% 1,518,332 1,406,402 8.0%Auto Sales - New Department Stores Restaurants BIdg.Matls-Whsle La Quinta -2.7% 5.1% 301% -8.4°% 17.5% 46.2% 1,795,749 1,739,157 3.3%Auto Sales - New Light Industry Department Stores Furniture/Appliance Lake Elsinore 3.4% .3.1% 11.7% 0.2% 16.0% -3.2°% 1,586,156 1,515,403 4.7%Auto Sales - New Department Stores Food Markets Misc. Vehicle Sales Menifee 11.6% 10.1% 7.9% -5.6% -8.0% -50.5% 1,016,268 950,572 69%Furniture/Appliance Restaurants Energy Sales Bldg. Matls-Whsle Moreno Valley 7.6% 3.0% 1.23% 10.6% 1.1% 14.3% 2,909,732 2,707,057 7.5%Auto Sales - New Department stores Heavy Industry Auto Parts/Repair Murneta 3.5% -0,2% 0,2% -6.0% -12.3% 24.0% 2,408,799 2,420,326 -0.5% Department Stores Service Stations Leasing Auto Sales - New Norco 2.3% 1.0% 1.2.8% -8.5% 2,9°% -9.4% 909,129 860,211 5.7% Auto Parts/Repair Auto Sales - Used Light Industry Apparel Stores Palm Desert 9.2% 11% 11, 8% -10.0% -9.1% -20.0% 3,748,352 3,548,666 5.6% Department Stores Furniture/Appliance Bldg. Matls-Whsle Office Equipment Palm Springs 13.6% 2.8% 2.6% 1.5% 7,6% -27.0% 2,157,572 2,046,648 5.4%Furniture/Appliance Restaurants Bldg, Matls-Retail Health & Government Perris 1.1% 3.9% 30.9% 24.9% -10.0% -62, 8% 1,227,778 1,248,883 -1.7% Service Stations Bldg. Matls-Whsle Miscellaneous Other Heavy Industry Rancho Mirage -4.5'% 4.6'% 15.5% 4.5% -14, 2% -4.3% 967,342 944,257 2.4%Auto Sales - New Restaurants 'Oise . Vehicle Sales Miscellaneous Retail Riverside 5.1% 1.2% 12.4% 4.7% 11.3% 4.9% 9,834,298 9,150,865 7.5%Auto sales - New Electronic Equipment Leasing Heavy Industry Riverside County 5.9'% -0.4% 3.5% -5.5% 3.0% -71.4% 6,794,322 6,693,059 1.5% Apparel Stores Service Stations Bldg.Matls-Whsle Closed Acct-Adjustmt San Jacinto 2.5% 0.5% 14.4% -11.5% -16.2°% -20.2% 471,290 457,181 3.1% Service Stations Auto Parts/Repair Light Industry Bldg.Matls-Whsle Temecula 3.8% 5.13k 17.9% 0,0% 7.0% -8.5% 5,935,063 5,540,228 7.1% Auto Sales - New Service Stations Light Industry Heavy Industry Wildomar -23.9% 3.4% -3.6% -35.6% -19.8% 13.3% 251,285 262,962 4.4% Food Markets Food Processing Eqp Service Stations Furniture/Appliance MuniServices, LLC 30 " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: San Jacinto Branch Line Ad Hoc Committee Min Saysay, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Policy Recommendations for Utility and Private Use Commission Property Licenses on SAN JACINTO BRANCH LINE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the revisions to the RCTC Right of Way Policies and Procedures manual to include the policy recommendations for utility and private use licenses on Commission properties; 2) Authorize staff to move forward with negotiation of market value rates on utility and private use licenses; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute utility and private use licenses and agreements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL) was acquired in 1993 from the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, currently known as Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF). As a part of the SJBL acquisition, the Commission inherited over 600 licenses, leases, and easements covering private, government, and utility -owned facilities such as pipelines, wire lines, and cables. As part of the Commission's property management efforts, the following tasks were undertaken in the past five years: " Reviewed acquisition documents of the SJBL to determine property rights and obligations; " Inventoried, catalogued and scanned all contracts provided to the Commission by BNSF; and " Established the RCTC Global Application (RGA) database to include extensive information regarding the Commission real estate holdings (approximately 40 data fields captured for each contract). Agenda Item 8E 31 For the segment of the SJBL from Highgrove to the Interstate 215 crossing south of Perris, the following activities were performed: • Reviewed over 335 Commission property licenses, leases, and easements; • Performed field inspections on all reviewed contracts, including capturing global positioning system coordinates and taking pictures of each above ground facility; • Obtained and reviewed as -built plans and other mapping from major utility companies; • Met with major utility tenants to verify and reconcile existence of facilities; • Conducted potholing to positively locate underground facilities; • Created aerial photographs showing existing licensed areas and encroachment; • Surveyed right of way boundaries in key locations; • Provided utility information to the Perris Valley Line design team to assist in identifying project conflicts; • Conducted market surveys to determine fair market rent for the rail right of way; • Consolidated 19 billboards into one contract and increased annual revenues based on the appraised value; • Pursued and collected approximately $400,000 in unpaid lease revenue from BNSF; • Negotiated with a major water agency for use of the Commission property, which resulted in increasing the compensation from $171,000 to $1 .1 million; and • Terminated 31 contracts located along right of way that is no longer owned by the Commission. Resolutions recommended to be undertaken for all licenses include: • Bringing contract rents up to fair market value; • Upgrading licenses to be consistent with current Commission license terms; • Updating or terminating existing licenses with non -compliant uses; • Resolving unauthorized encroachments; and • Terminating licenses for abandoned facilities. All tenant agreements will be upgraded to reflect current Commission license terms. Existing licensees will not be required to pay the $6,000 deposit (authorized by existing policies), processing fees, or any one-time fees when upgrading their existing license to meet current Commission license terms. Agenda Item 8E 32 " All Licenses will contain termination clauses with a 30-day notice and insurance requirements, which will minimize the Commission's liability. Licenses will be revised to reflect any rental rate change or when there is a need for updated language. The contracts have been divided into two categories. The first category includes public, private, and member agency utilities. The second category is private use, which includes individuals, businesses, and non-profit organizations. Utilities Current Fair Market Value After extensive research, including discussions with other railroad agencies, specifically Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and BNSF, a fair market annual rate for utility crossings of $4 per linear foot for wire line license values and $5 per linear foot for pipeline license values was determined by staff to be fair market value. For longitudinal utility uses that generally run parallel with existing railroad tracks and occupy a specific area within the right of way, an across -the -fence methodology was utilized. Using various database programs to locate recent commercial/industrial sales, vacant land values are estimated at around $10 per square foot. The proposed rent for the railroad right of way was calculated at 10% of the land value based on discussions with appraisers that are familiar with this type of land valuation and comparison to other railroad agencies. The fair market value for longitudinal utility facilities was determined by staff to be $1 per square foot ($10 per square foot x 10%). Utility Policy Recommendations The utilities were grouped into three types  public utilities (governmental agencies), private utilities (shareholder owned), and member and other exempt agencies. The Commission's existing policies have a provision to ensure annual license rates are based on fair market value. It was recommended to incorporate the following utility policy recommendations: " Utility crossing annual rates will be calculated at fair market value per linear foot based on the actual length of the crossing and a standard width of 10 feet. " Longitudinal utility annual rates will be calculated at fair market value per square foot for industrial/commercial land. " Land values and rates will be reviewed at least every five years, and more frequently if appropriate. Agenda Item 8E 33 " A base fee of $200 per year for administrative costs will be charged for each license in addition to the calculated rent. " New utility appurtenances associated with new licenses, such as guy wires, anchors, and service drops, will be charged a one-time fee of $500 per facility. Existing appurtenances will not be charged. " The Commission member and exempt agencies will be charged a $1 annual rental fee, and will not be charged an annual administrative fee. These member agencies will be prohibited from subleasing without written approval from the Commission or for a profit. This recommendation acknowledges the member agency relationship with the Commission and has been past practice. " Charge fair market rent to private and public utilities for their use of Commission property. On April 11, 2011, utility policy recommendations for the Commission's property were presented to the San Jacinto Branch Line Ad Hoc Committee for consideration. Two items were raised by the Ad Hoc Committee for staff follow-up based on these utility policy recommendations: 1) Whether or not it is appropriate for public utilities to be charged the same rate as private utilities; and; 2) Whether or not Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) should be considered exempt from paying fair market value due to its relationship with the County, a member agency. Staff considered the Committee's comments and made the following recommendations: " Staff continues to support charging public utilities fair market rent. Paying fair market value for use of property is part of the public utility cost structure. There is no reciprocal agreement or relationship between the Commission and public utilities. Public utilities charge the Commission fees for Commission requests. " RCFCD's Board is comprised of the same individuals as the Riverside County Board of Supervisors; however, it is a separate entity from the county of Riverside. RCFCD was established in 1945 by an Act of the California Legislature as a regional drainage authority for Western Riverside County. RCFCD is a special district and receives funding from property taxes, developer fees, and cost sharing arrangements with other governmental entities. Currently RCFCD charges the Commission standard fees and processes the Commission's requests in the same manner as a private entity. Staff acknowledges the benefit of a relationship with RCFCD and recommends negotiating a mutually beneficial cooperative agreement with RCFCD, in which the Commission would waive fees charged to RCFCD for Agenda Item 8E 34 " use of Commission property if RCFCD would be willing to reciprocate the relationship. Current fair market rent for Commission property used by RCFCD is $76,333 per year. Private Uses Current private uses of Commission property include the following: " Backyard landscaping; " Sprinkler and irrigation systems; " Patios, garages, gazebos, and other permanent structures; " Parking and shade overhangs; " Billboards; " Access roads; " Commercial agricultural uses, including associated irrigation equipment; and " Industry spur tracks. Current Fair Market Value For private uses, an across -the -fence methodology was utilized. Using various database programs to locate recent vacant land sales, residential land values are estimated at about $8 per square foot, and industrial/commercial land values are estimated at about $10 per square foot. The proposed rent for the railroad right of way was calculated at 8% of the estimated land value based on discussions with appraisers that are familiar with this type of land valuation and comparison to other railroad agencies. Private use fair market value annual rates are recommended to be calculated based on prices per square foot as follows: " Residential Uses - $0.64 per square foot for residential land (8% of the estimated fair market value of $8 per square toot) " Industrial/Commercial Uses - $0.80 per square foot for industrial/commercial land (8% of the estimated fair market value of $10 per square foot) Private Use Recommendations As part of the review, it was determined that over 60% of the private uses do not have a current license or the license is not compatible with the current use of the property. In addition, the majority of the residential private users are not paying rent. Many of the encroachments and unauthorized uses were in place prior to the Commission's acquisition of the SJBL. Over time, the ownerships of the adjacent private properties have also changed and most owners are unaware of their unauthorized use of Commission property. Agenda Item 8E 35 As a public agency, the Commission has a responsibility to minimize liability and safety issues. Uses of Commission property without an agreement or owner liability insurance represent significant liability and safety risks. Also, if no rent is charged for a private use, it sets a negative precedent for others to use the Commission's property without authorization. The Commission has a fiscal and social responsibility to be good stewards of its property. Residential Permanent Structures - There are currently five residential permanent structures on Commission property including houses, carports, gazebos, and a paved driveway that are not authorized. One of these uses, the paved driveway, is in conflict with the future construction of the PVL. The other uses are not in conflict. Residential Temporary Structures - There are thirteen residential temporary structures on Commission property including sheds, storage boxes, awnings, and fencing. Four of these uses are in conflict with the future construction of the PVL. These are backyard extensions including fencing, sheds, storage, and a cacti patch with an additional area to load/unload building materials. For the uses of Commission property in conflict with the PVL, staff recommends delivering a trespass notice to the owner requiring removal from Commission property no later than 120 days from the date of the notice. These uses .of Commission property are unauthorized and illegal and the Commission does not have any obligation to compensate the owners for removal of their items on Commission property. However, to help avoid potential costly eviction litigation, staff recommends including an offer to pay a minimum of $100 and up to $500 (based on documentation of actual costs) for owners who remove their items from the Commission property by a specified date. For residential uses of Commission property that are not in conflict with the PVL, there is some benefit to the Commission as the Commission does not have to pay to maintain the land. Staff recommends proceeding with negotiating a license with owners at 25% of fair market rent, which would be $0.16 per square foot ($0.64 per square foot x 25%). Commercial Permanent Uses - There are two commercial permanent uses on Commission property. Both of these have buildings in the right of way. Neither of them are in conflict with the future PVL. Commercial Temporary Uses - There are eleven commercial temporary uses on Commission property including agricultural, parking, storage, spur tracks, and billboards. None of these are in conflict with the future PVL. Agenda Item 8E • 36 " Commercial users are operating on a for -profit basis. Therefore staff recommends proceeding with negotiating a license with commercial use owners at full fair market value rent of $0.80 per square foot. Some spur -track uses may be exempt from fair market rent due to the operation agreement with BNSF. An appraisal has been conducted for the billboard uses and negotiations with the billboard owners are currently underway. Non -Profit Organizations  There are two non-profit organizations currently utilizing the Commission's right of way. One is the Boy Scouts that have a recreation area on the right of way in Perris. The other non-profit organization is Orange Empire Rail Museum (GERM), which currently has two licenses. OERM's use of the property is unique and is being negotiated through a separate agreement that is outside the scope of this policy. Staff recommends assessing 25% of commercial fair market value for the Boy Scouts and future non-profit uses that would be $0.20 per square foot ($0.80 per square foot x 25%). Utility Service and Drainage  There are seven utility service and drainage uses including water, sewer, electric, gas, communication, and drainage lines for property owners adjacent to the right of way. These are privately owned service lines of which three benefit residential properties, two benefit commercial properties and two benefit non-profit organizations. There are no conflicts with future construction of the PVL. Although they are utility uses, they do not represent the same level of property impact or risk that a utility company's facilities do. Staff recommends proceeding with negotiating a license at 25% of the utility fair market rent, or $1.25 per linear foot ($5 per linear foot x 25%) for pipeline uses and $1 per linear foot ($4 per linear foot x 25%) for wire line uses. Residential Gates  There are five residential gates that provide illegal access to the right of way by vehicle or foot. Three of these gates, two pedestrian and one vehicular, are on private property but are likely to be blocked by the PVL sound wall. Staff recommends delivering a trespass notice to the owner instructing the owners to discontinue use of the gates due to safety issues, and informing them that future PVL improvements may block access to the gates. The remaining two gates, both pedestrian, are on Commission right of way as part of the backyard improvements. Staff recommends incorporating a provision in the license agreement that specifically prohibits gates and requiring removal of the gates as a condition of granting the license. For all existing uses, staff recommends a graduated rent schedule  one third of the rent in the first year, two thirds of the rent in the second year, and full rent for the third year and every year going forward. For new uses, the licensor would be charged full rent from the beginning in accordance with Commission policies. Agenda Item 8E 37 All tenant agreements will be upgraded to reflect current Commission license terms. Existing licensees will not be required to pay the $6,000 application fee (authorized by existing policies), processing fees, or any one-time fees when upgrading their existing license to meet current Commission license terms. An administrative base fee of $200 per license will be charged one time every five years in addition to the calculated rent for residential and non-profit users. An annual administrative base fee of $200 per year will be charged to commercial users. Land values and rates will be reviewed at least every five years, and more frequently if appropriate. Uses of Commission property that have significant liability or impact to the Commission's use of the property are outside the scope of this policy and will be negotiated through separate agreements. Next Steps The next steps for the contract review include: • Implement the policy recommendations and rental rates as described for utilities and private uses; • Continue the contract review on the San Jacinto Branch Line remainder and other Commission -owned properties; and • Update the RCTC Right of Way Policies and Procedures manual, Property Management chapter, once recommendations have been approved. Attachment: Addition to the Property Management Chapter of the RCTC Right of Way Policies and Procedures Manual Agenda Item 8E • 38 " CHAPTER VIII PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Section 8-8 Establishment of Rental Amounts 8-8.1 Rental Amounts a. Utilities Private Utilities (shareholder owned) and Public Utilities (governmental agencies) Utility crossing rental rates will be based on fair market land value per linear foot based on the actual length of the crossing and a standard width of ten (10) feet. " Longitudinal utility rental rates will be based on fair market value per square foot for vacant industrial/commercial land. " An annual administrative base fee of $200 will be charged for each license in addition to the calculated rent. " Utility appurtenances, such as guy wires, anchors and service drops, will be charged a one-time fee of $500 per facility. b. Member and Other Exempt Agencies " RCTC member and other exempt agencies will be charged a $1 annual rental fee, and will not be charged any administrative fee or application fee. " Agencies will be prohibited from subleasing without written approval from the RCTC or for a profit. c. Private Users (individuals, businesses and non-profit organizations) Residential Uses " Rental rates will be based on a minimum of 25% of fair market rent for vacant residential land. " An administrative base fee of $200 per license will be charged one time every five (5) years in addition to the calculated rent. Commercial Uses " Rental rates will be based on 100% of fair market rent for vacant industrial/commercial land. " An annual administrative base fee of $200 per license will be charged in addition to the calculated rent. Non -Profit Organizations " Rental rates will be based on 25% of fair market rent for vacant industrial/commercial land. 39 " An administrative base fee of $200 per license will be charged one time every five (5) years in addition to the calculated rent. Utility Service and Drainage " Rental rates will be based on 25% of the fair market value calculated for private and public utilities. " An administrative base fee of $200 per license will be charged one time every five (5) years to residential and non- profit users in addition to the calculated rent. " An annual administrative base fee of $200 per license will be charged to commercial users in addition to the calculated rent. Carry -Over Tenants and Owner -Occupants During Interim Period When a property is purchased for a project from a private owner, and the timing of the project is such that the previous tenant or owner can remain on the property for an interim period, the following policies will apply. " Carry -Over Tenants will be charged the same contract rent as was paid to the former owner. A comparison will be made between the contract rent and the FMV rent as contained in the approved appraisal to determine if the contract rent is reasonable. An upward adjustment will be made to the rental amount if the contract rent is below the current FMV rent for the property. " Carry -Over Owner -Occupants' initial rental amount will be the FMV rent contained in the appraisal upon which the value of the property was determined. This amount may be subject to adjustment due to month -to -month occupancy. e. Other Fees and Considerations " Existing licensees will not be required to pay the application fee of $6,000 for license applications, processing fees, or any one-time fees when renewing or making minor revisions to their existing licenses. " Licenses will be revised to reflect any rental rate change or when there is a need for updated language. " Land values and rates will be reviewed at least every five (5) years, and more frequently if appropriate. " Uses of RCTC property that have significant liability or impact to RCTC's use of the property, such as spur tracks and billboards, are outside of the scope of this policy and will be valued separately. " 40 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Greg Moore, Procurement and Assets Manager Eliza Echevarria, Community Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreements for On -Call Construction Coordination Public Outreach Services WESTERN RIVERS/DE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call construction support services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $445,000; a) Agreement No. 11-31-128-00 to Green Com, Inc; and b) Agreement No. 1 1-31-129-00 to Westbound Communications; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to execute task orders awarded to these consultants under the terms of the agreements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission is the lead agency on several construction -related projects in Riverside County. In some cases, the Commission is not the lead agency for construction, but instead partners with Caltrans or other entities in order to facilitate the timely completion of those projects. In the case of the State Route 60l1nterstate 215 East Junction interchange and the State Route 91 high occupancy vehicle lane projects, the Commission is partnering with Caltrans during the construction phase. Caltrans is the lead for construction and will use its in-house construction coordination and public outreach staff to handle the day to day communications with the public. These day to day tasks do not include components such as developing a public outreach plan, pre -construction outreach, updating local governments and community stakeholders on the project progress, development and maintenance of collateral materials, and social media. Agenda Item 8F 41 With the establishment of a separate on -call construction coordination services contract, the Commission will have the ability to fill in the public outreach needs for certain projects that are not able to provide a complete outreach program. This public outreach construction coordination services contract will make the communications plan whole and provide a comprehensive outreach to the surrounding communities and commuters who will be affected by the construction. Selection Process Commission staff was made aware of the Riverside County Transportation Department's intention to issue a solicitation for on -call construction coordination services and, because the Commission identified a similar requirement for these services, requested that the agencies conduct a joint procurement. A joint procurement creates economies of scale, reduces procurement lead times, and reduces administrative effort and expense. A request for proposals (RFP) for on -call construction coordination services was issued by Riverside County Transportation Department on September 16, 2010. Four firms - Westbound Communications, VRPA Technologies, Inc., Green Com, Inc., and TMG Communications, Inc. - submitted a proposal in response to the RFP prior to the October 7, 2010, deadline date. Three of the four firms were deemed to have submitted a responsive and responsible proposal. One firm was eliminated from further consideration because its bid was deemed non -responsive, based upon the requirements set forth in the. RFP. The remaining proposals were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of both RCTD and Commission staff. Scoring was based entirely upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. Based on the evaluation committee's assessment of written proposals, and pursuant to the terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee shortlisted and invited each of the three firms to the interview phase of the evaluation and selection process. The short listed firms included: • Green Com, Inc. • VRPA Technologies, Inc. • Westbound Communications Interviews with the above referenced firms were conducted on November 1, 2010, and, after final scoring by the evaluation committee, Green Com, Inc. and Westbound Communications earned the highest total evaluation scores. Due to the broad scope and undetermined level of effort associated with on -call services contracts of this type, a schedule or definitive cost proposal was not requested of the firms. However, Commission staff requested that those firms submit a rate proposal, inclusive of fixed labor rates for anticipated labor classifications required Agenda Item 8F • 42 " " under the terms of the statement of work. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement, in substantially the form attached hereto, will be entered into with the consultants subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal counsel review. Based on the foregoing procurement process, staff recommends an award of Agreement No. 11-31-128-00 to Green Com, Inc., and Agreement No. 1 1-31-129-00 to Westbound Communications for the provision of on -call construction support services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $445,000. The recommended awardees' labor rates were considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition under the above referenced procurement process, and staff evaluation of historical costs paid by the Commission for the same or similar services. The recommended awardees offered the most advantageous combination of pricing, experience, and relevant qualifications. It will be the responsibility of staff to select the proper contractor for individual task orders awarded under the agreements, and monitor the selected contractor's work to ensure services are completed in a professional and cost-effective manner. Adequate management and cost control will be a priority in ensuring the overall value of all the contracts will be kept under the stated not to exceed amount. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2010/201 1 FY 2011/12+ Amount: $25,000 $420,000 Source of Funds: Measure A Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 003005 65520 222 31 65520 003017 65520 222 31 65520 Fiscal Procedures Approved: a44,14.40, Date: 05/15/1 1 Attachment: Standard Form Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 8F 43 " [Draft ] Agreement No. 11-31-xxx-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR ON -CALL CONSTRUCTION COORDINATION SERVICES WITH CONSULTANT 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this " day of -','�� .x:, , 201L, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and [NAIIAEf 9F; FI6,FUI] ("Consultant'), a [LEGAL-aTATUS*`01 `1 2. RECITALS. LT 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the task order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement and executed by the Commission and Consultant ("Task Order"). Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing on -call [INS6RT1,-- 10~ S t��V1d:ft services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render[*EY OF SERVIO ] services, on an on -call basis. Services shall be ordered by Task Order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement for future projects as set forth herein (each such project shall be designated a "Project' under this Agreement). 2.3 A source of funding for payment for professional services provided under this Agreement may include federal funds from the United States Department of Transportation. This Agreement shall not be deemed to be approved by the Commission until the certifications shown in Exhibits "D" and "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are executed and incorporated in this Agreement. 42. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work, on an on -call basis, as necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The types of Services to be provided are generally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by RCTC Agreement No. Page 1 44 reference. The Services shall be more particularly described in the individual Task Order issued by the Commission's Executive Director or designee. No Services shall be performed unless authorized by a fully executed Task Order in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C". All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with this Agreement, the relevant Task Order, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from '° to , unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines set forth in the Task Order. 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the specific schedule that shall be set forth in the Task Order ("Schedule of Services"). Consultant will be required to commence work within five days of receiving a fully executed Task Order. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with each Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon the Commission's request, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the relevant Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement RCTC Agreement No. Page 2 45 " for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: [INSERT-NAOMI 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates the [INS 1tT NAME OR 'TITLE], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designatesrtSiS��RT NAME], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement and as described in the relevant Task Order. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs RCTC Agreement No. Page 3 46 arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. OWL', s I X .IF APPLIGAB,Lt ` pE F: H,ERWISFI Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub - consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 [1-t .. � v Ci HEi WISB MY A5 IS°ItN EJHM-NOT ] per claim. RCTC Agreement No. Page 4 • 47 " 3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and, (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents. 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant RCTC Agreement No. Page 5 48 shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3 14.1 Compensation. IF TI4Ei�IMtINIIJM4MP;ENE1TlCiN AMC) i 7© BE PROVib ittI itHB AGREEMENT, INCLUflIN Al X TA 1,ORDERS IN R FL1LLOWANGAANGUAGE: Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. The maximum compensation for Services to be provided pursuant to each Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order. The total compensation to be provided under this Agreement, in the aggregate, shall not exceed [INSERT. ORITTEN tILLLAR .AMOUNT]AINSERT5 NUM>ER�GAL. DOLLPiR AMOUNT] ("Total Compensation") without written approval of the Commission's Executive Director. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. RCTC Agreement No. Page 6 • 49 " E'I$ N( T A MAXIMUM COMPENSATION AAif iUNT TO $E PROVIDED TN YHE' 1k R-EE'NIENT; Tkk>*Ti fNSERT THE 'f1C��IG; t.ANGUAGt: Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. The total compensation per Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order, and shall not exceed said amount without written approval of the Commission's Executive Director. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. N,OTE:aUS RE/ APRLICA L VISION ANt kOTHER. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the RCTC Agreement No. Page 7 50 effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. RCTC Agreement No. Page 8 • 51 " " Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property') prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. RCTC Agreement No. Page 9 52 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. The indemnification language above shall apply except as to design professional services, as defined in Civil Code section 2782.8, including any architect, RCTC Agreement No. Page 10 • • • 53 " " landscape architect, engineer or land surveyor services, provided pursuant to this Agreement. As to such Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that RCTC Agreement No. Page 11 54 it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws'), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, RCTC Agreement No. Page 12 • 55 " creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub - consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. [Signatures on following page] RCTC Agreement No. Page 13 56 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT FOR ON -CALL [DESCRIPTION ,ES] SERVICES WITH [INSERT CONSULTANT] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Gregory S. Pettis, Chair APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel [INSERT ONS Signature Name Title RCTC Agreement No. Page 14 • 57 " EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES On -Call and As -Needed [INSERT DESCRIPTION O'F.SEVt] Services Such UNW:kT31$$OtPTlOht OF SERVIG S_] services may include, but are not limited to, the following work activities: ORANGE1HKENNY137133.1 [INSERT SERVICES] A-1 58 ORANGEIHXENNY137133.1 EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION [INSERT] B-1 • 59 " EXHIBIT "C" Sample Task Order Form RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TASK ORDER Task Order No. Contract: [INSERT NAME OF CONTRACT] Consultant: [INSERT NAME OF CONSULTANT] The Consultant is hereby authorized to perform the following work subject to the provisions of the Contract identified above: List any attachments: (Please provide if any.) Dollar Amount of Task Order: Not to exceed $ .00 Completion Date: 200 The undersigned consultant hereby agrees that it will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may be otherwise noted above, and perform all services for the work above specified in accordance with the Contract identified above and will accept as full payment therefore the amount shown above. Riverside County Transportation Commission Consultant Dated: Dated: By: By. Anne Mayer, Executive Director ORANGEIXKENNY137133.1 C-1 60 EXHIBIT "D" CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTANT I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the and duly authorized representative of the firm of whose address is , and that, except as hereby expressly stated, neither I nor the above firm that I represent have: (a) employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) to solicit or secure this agreement; nor (b) agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out the agreement; nor (c) paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with, procuring or carrying out this agreement. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this agreement involving participation of Federal -aid Highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil By: Signature Name Title Date ORANGE\HKENNY137133.1 D-1 • 61 " EXHIBIT "E" CERTIFICATE OF COMMISSION I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the of the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, and that the consulting firm of or its representative has not been required (except as herein expressly stated), directly or indirectly, as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this Agreement to: (a) employ, retain, agree to employ or retain, any firm or person; or (b) pay or agree to pay, to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this Agreement involving participation of federal -aid Highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. By: Signature Name Title Date E-1 62 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Auto Center Drive Grade Separation Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $16 million in federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds to the city of Corona (Corona) in support of the Auto Center Drive grade separation project to front Proposition 1 B Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) funds; 2) Approve Agreement No. 1 1-67-131-00 with Corona for reimbursement of TCIF/CMAQ funds; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2008, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) allocated $16 million in Proposition 1 B TCIF funds to the Auto Center Drive grade separation project. The Auto Center Drive project will construct a grade separation over Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway at an estimated cost of $32 million. The right of way phase started in November 2009 and depending on available funding, construction is scheduled to begin in Fall 201 1 : Agenda Item 8G 63 Unfortunately, the California Treasurer announced the Proposition 1 B bond sale will not commence this spring as planned due to the state budget situation. TCIF funding availability is dependent on such bond sales, and as a result, Corona is unable to proceed with the construction phase of the project unless alternative funding is available. Pursuant to AB 672, effective January 1, 2010, and the CTC Proposition 1 B letter of no prejudice (LONP) guidelines, Corona can request CTC authorization to proceed with the project by using local and federal funds in place of the TCIF funding. At this time, Corona does not have any local funding available and has requested Commission assistance in fronting the TCIF funding. In April 2007, the Commission approved an off the top allocation of 25% of CMAQ and Surface Transportation Program federal funds for Alameda Corridor East grade separation projects, contingent upon a use it or lose it provision. As shown on the following table, staff projects that approximately $43.4 million in CMAQ funding is available for grade separation projects and is requesting approval to allocate $16 million to Corona for the Auto Center Drive project: CMAQ ESTIMATED BEGINNING BALANCE: $43,393 793 Grade SeParation+Goods Movement Project Magnolia Clay Iowa °Auto Center Drive Avenue 66 Date Approved by Amount Allocated Commission Action 15,000,000 7.500.000 3,550,000 16,000,000' 350.000 12/2007 6/2011 (Pending) 6/2011 (Pending) 612011 (Pending) 11l2011 (Pending) Estimated Balance; $ 28,393,793 20,893.793 17,343.793 1.343.793 993.793 It should be noted that there is no guarantee that the $16 million will be reimbursed; however, CTC has indicated that all LONP requests to date have been approved and payments are being made, and there is a high likelihood that LONP repayments will continue to be made. The CTC recommends that local agencies request an allocation when their project is ready to begin construction as that reinforces the need for a bond sale. The next bond sale is scheduled for fall 2011. The LONP guidelines allow for the conversion of LONP's once bonds are sold. For example, if bonds are sold in fall 2011, CTC can allocate approved LONP's thereby replacing the LONP funds with the allocated TCIF funds. This would result in the LONP funds (CMAQ) reverting back to the local agency (RCTC). If approved to advance the $16 million in CMAQ funding, staff will assist Corona in deobligating the CMAQ funds through Ca!trans Local Assistance. Once federal Agenda Item 8G • 64 " " " funds are deobligated by Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration, the funds automatically revert back to the County in which they originated. However, in the event TCIF bond funds are not available to convert and CMAQ funds are not deobligated, staff is seeking approval to enter into Agreement No. 11-67-131-00 with Corona for reimbursement of the funding. There is no financial impact to the Commission, as the CMAQ funds do not flow directly through the Commission. Corona will be the direct recipient of such funds. Agenda Item 8G 65 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager Greg Moore, Procurement and Assets Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Graphic Design and Communication Services BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 11-15-067-00 to Geographics for the provision of graphic design and communications services on an as -needed, time and expense basis, pursuant to its proposed fixed unit rates, for a two-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed $2 million; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission provides information to the public through various channels including public meetings, development of resource materials and fact sheets, the annual report, the Commission's website, the monthly newsletter, as well as the annual budget and financial report. The need for proactive public communication and outreach remains an important priority as the Commission continues to move forward with the delivery of the 2009 Measure A program. Outreach will continue to include a proactive effort to work closely with various media formats such as print, radio, internet, and television to increase the understanding and interest in transportation issues, as well as to generate a higher level of media coverage. To assist the Commission with the various graphic design and communication needs, a request for proposal (RFP) was developed and released to over 100 firms located throughout the region, advertised in a local newspaper of general circulation, and posted on the Commission's website. The work identified in the RFP was for the provision of services to support graphic design and communication services for various departments including communications, finance, goods movement, and legislation. Assistance is also needed for various capital projects, Agenda Item 8H 66 including the Perris Valley Line and the Mid County Parkway. Lastly, consultant assistance is required for community outreach services. Staff sought a competitive solution to meet this requirement. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposals with price and technical factors considered. Non -price, technical factors include elements such as experience, qualifications, personnel, a proposer's ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of the RFP No. 11-15-067-00, and innovative and/or cost effective approaches to the required services that were not identified in the RFP. RFP No. 11-15-067-00 was released by staff and advertised on March 17. A pre -proposal conference was conducted on March 24, and staff responded to all requests for clarifications submitted by potential proposers. Nine firms submitted a proposal prior to the stated deadline date. • RW Creative Group • Simon Wong Engineering • Michele Raus • Seibert Perkins Design • Cook+Schmid • Consensus, Inc. • Geographics • MBI Media • Westbound Communications Each of the nine firms submitted a responsive and responsible proposal. The firm's proposals were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff and a representative from the Western Riverside Council of Governments. Scoring was based entirely upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. The evaluation committee scored each firm in order to establish a short list of the firms earning the highest total evaluation scores. The evaluation committee conducted interviews with four short listed firms and a subsequent scoring evaluation of each of those firms, based on both the written and interview components presented to the evaluation committee by each proposer, resulted in a final evaluation score for each firm. The firms, in descending order, ranked as follows: Agenda Item 8H 67 " 1) Geographics 2) Westbound Communications 3) Consensus, Inc. 4) Simon Wong Engineering Geographics earned the highest total evaluation score. Therefore, the evaluation committee recommends an award of Agreement No. 11-15-067-00 to Geographics for a two-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, for communications and graphic design services on an as -needed, time and expense basis, pursuant to its proposed fixed unit rates. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement, in substantially the form attached hereto, will be entered into with the consultant subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal counsel review. Geographics' labor rates were considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition under the procurement process, and staff evaluation of historical costs paid by the Commission for the same or similar services. Geographics offered the most advantageous combination of pricing, experience, and relevant qualifications. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A N/A Year: FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 + Amount: $ 500,000 $1, 500,000 Source of Funds: Measure A, LTF, TUMF Budget Adjustment: N/A N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: Various Funds and Departments, as needed 101 1 X 65520 (General fund departments) 106 67 65520 (Regional issues) 210 7X 65520 (TUMF) 221 33 65520 (1989 Measure A rail) 222 31 65520 (1989 Measure A highway) 262 31 65520 (2009 Measure A highway) Fiscal Procedures Approved: ` 4,140,,u Date: 05/16/11 Attachment: Standard Form Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 8H 68 [Draft ] Agreement No. 11-15-067-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR GRAPHIC DESIGN AND COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES WITH GEOGRAPHICS 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of 201 m, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and [NADAS Off' FIRM] ("Consultant'), a [LEGAL- STATUS ia � .4 OORPoRial } 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the task order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement and executed by the Commission and Consultant ("Task Order"). Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing on -call [IINSERtVOL Q,: SERVICES] services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render [INSERT T? OP SERVIC*S1 services, on an on -call basis. Services shall be ordered by Task Order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement for future projects as set forth herein (each such project shall be designated a "Project" under this Agreement). 2.3 A source of funding for payment for professional services provided under this Agreement may include federal funds from the United States Department of Transportation. This Agreement shall not be deemed to be approved by the Commission until the certifications shown in Exhibits "D" and "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are executed and incorporated in this Agreement. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work, on an on -call basis, as necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The types of Services to be provided are generally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by RCTC Agreement No. Page 1 69 reference. The Services shall be more particularly described in the individual Task Order issued by the Commission's Executive Director or designee. No Services shall be performed unless authorized by a fully executed Task Order in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C". All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with this Agreement, the relevant Task Order, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from 'n - to , unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines set forth in the Task Order. 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the specific schedule that shall be set forth in the Task Order ("Schedule of Services"). Consultant will be required to commence work within five days of receiving a fully executed Task Order. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with each Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon the Commission's request, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the relevant Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor. Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement RCTC Agreement No. Page 2 • • • 70 " for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: [INSERTNAME]. 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates the [INSERT; NAME t3R T1T11, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates MOAT NAME], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement and as described in the relevant Task Order. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs RCTC Agreement No. Page 3 71 arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum. Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. [IIVCLI)QE O,N! Y IF= AAPPLIGABLE DE T _t Tl ERVViSEj Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub - consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 [lirICREASEilf NE+01= ' 61,00 WISE LEAN€ AS IS A.' VELETE TH3SNOTEj per claim. RCTC Agreement No. Page 4 • 72 " " " 3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and, (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents. 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant RCTC Agreement No. Page S 73 shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3.14.1 Compensation. IF TFIft�tP►UTA�S1Ml1M pi'1lltakil $TP°TCI BI= I RQVID ,WTHE:AGREEMENT, iNCLLIDINGA itSE T) THE F #:LOWt(iPtWANGUAGE?: Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. The maximum compensation for Services to be provided pursuant to each Task Order shall beset forth in the relevant Task Order. The total compensation to be provided under this Agreement, in the aggregate, shall not exceed [iNsgft'F=WRLTTEisv Cif tAR--1,,Ampi ptti °j1NsERT: NI itg*grk # AWONTI ("Total Compensation") without written approval of the Commission's Executive Director. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. RCTC Agreement No. Page 6 • • 74 " IF -THERE -IS NOT A MAMMUM COMPENSATION;AMOUNTTGBE PRO)/IDE�1N T E"AGREEMENT, THEN -INSERT THE,FOLLOWING " LANGUAGE: Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. The total compensation per Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order, and shall not exceed said amount without written approval of the Commission's Executive Director. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. NOTE: USE'ON' THE APPLICABLE PROVISION AN DELETETmibni A. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the RCTC Agreement No. Page 7 75 effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:. CONSULTANT: COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. RCTC Agreement No. Page 8 76 " Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whetheror not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. RCTC Agreement No. Page 9 77 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. The indemnification language above shall apply except as to design professional services, as defined in Civil Code section 2782.8, including any architect, RCTC Agreement No. Page 10 • • 78 " " landscape architect, engineer or land surveyor services, provided pursuant to this Agreement. As to such Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 State of California. 3.24 of this Agreement. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Venue shall be in Riverside County. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that RCTC Agreement No. Page 11 79 it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant .shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, RCTC Agreement No. Page 12 80 " creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub - consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. [Signatures on following page] RCTC Agreement No. Page 13 81 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT FOR ON -CALL [DESCRIP ig. K.OFlStR=YIDS; [INSERT CONSULTANT] A SERVICES WITH IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Signature APPROVED AS TO FORM: Bv: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Name Title RCTC Agreement No. Page 14 • 82 " " On -Call and As -Needed [1 Such [CW$EF��T t{SRtt'Tt the following work activities: ORANGE\HXENNY137133.1 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES }ESCRIF'TIONOF SERVICES] Services 7,ERVIES] services may include, but are not limited to, [INSERT SERVICES] A-1 83 ORANGE\HKENNY137133.1 - EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION [INSERT] B-1 • • 84 " EXHIBIT "C" Sample Task Order Form RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TASK ORDER Task Order No. Contract: [INSERT NAME OF CONTRACT] Consultant: [INSERT NAME OF CONSULTANT] The Consultant is hereby authorized to perform the following work subject to the provisions of the Contract identified above: List any attachments: (Please provide if any.) Dollar Amount of Task Order: Not to exceed $ .00 Completion Date: , 200 The undersigned consultant hereby agrees that it will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may be otherwise noted above, and perform all services for the work above specified in accordance with the Contract identified above and will accept as full payment therefore the amount shown above. Riverside County Transportation Commission Consultant Dated: Dated: By: By. Anne Mayer, Executive Director ORANGE I11KENNY\77133.1 C-1 85 EXHIBIT "D" CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTANT I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the and duly authorized representative of the firm of whose address is , and that, except as hereby expressly stated, neither I nor the above firm that I represent have: (a) employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) to solicit or secure this agreement; nor (b) agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out the agreement; nor (c) paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with, procuring or carrying out this agreement. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this agreement involving participation of Federal -aid Highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. By: Signature Name Title Date ORANGE1HXENNY137133.1 D-1 • 86 " " EXHIBIT "E" CERTIFICATE OF COMMISSION I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the of the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, and that the consulting firm of or its representative has not been required (except as herein expressly stated), directly or indirectly, as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this Agreement to: (a) employ, retain, agree to employ or retain, any firm or person; or (b) pay or agree to pay, to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this Agreement involving participation of federal -aid Highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. By: Signature Name Title Date E-1 87 " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Greg Moore, Procurement and Assets Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreements with C.T. Georgiou Painting Co., Brock Service California, and U.S. National Corporation to Provide On -Call Painting Services for Commission -Owned Commuter Rail Stations WESTERN RIVERS/DE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call painting services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreements, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $750,000; a) Agreement No. 1 1-24-056-00 with C.T. Georgiou Painting Co.; b) Agreement No. 11-24-112-00 with Brock Service California; and c) Agreement No. 11-24-113-00 with U.S. National Corporation; 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 31 Authorize the Executive Director to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission owns and operates five Metrolink commuter rail stations in Riverside County (Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, North Main Corona, Pedley, and West Corona) with plans to add up to four additional stations with the completion of the Perris Valley Line extension project. Station maintenance services are essential to provide clean, safe, and well -maintained facilities for the benefit of station patrons, as well as preserving the property investments of the Commission. The Commission requires the services of up to three qualified painting contractors to provide on -call painting services for Commission -owned stations, properties, fixtures, and appurtenances, including station canopies, light standards, bollards fencing, platforms, and signage. The on -call painting services would be utilized on Agenda Item 81 88 an as -needed basis, and priced based upon fixed labor rates and materials markup proposed by the successful proposers. Staff sought a competitive solution to satisfy its requirements. Procurement Process Staff determined the weighted factor method of source selection to be the most appropriate for this procurement, as it allows the Commission to identify the most advantageous proposals with price and technical factors considered. Non -price, technical factors include elements such as experience, qualifications, personnel, and a proposer's ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 11-24-056-00. RFP No. 11-24-056-00 was released by staff and advertised on February 17. A pre -proposal conference was conducted on March 2, and staff responded to all requests for clarifications submitted by potential proposers. Six firms: • U.S. National Corp. • A.J. Fistes Corporation • B/C Star Painting Co. • Brock Service California, Inc. • C.T. Georgiou Painting Co. • Vizion's West, Inc. submitted a responsive proposal prior to the stated deadline date. One of these firms was eliminated from further consideration because its proposal was deemed non -responsive based on the minimum requirements set forth in the RFP. Additionally, one firm was omitted from the competitive process entirely for submitting a late proposal. The remaining firms' proposals were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission staff. Scoring was based entirely upon the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP. The firms, in descending order, ranked as follows: 1) C.T. Georgiou Painting Co. 2) Brock Service California, Inc. 3) U.S. National Corp. 4) Vizion's West, Inc. 5) B/C Star Painting Co. Agenda Item 81 • 89 " " Since the Commission reserved the right to award a contract to up to three firms under the terms of the RFP, the evaluation committee recommends a contract award to the three firms earning the highest total evaluation scores: C.T. Georgiou Painting Co.; Brock Service California, Inc.; and U.S. National Corp. The recommended firms' labor rates were considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition under the above referenced procurement process, and staff evaluation of historical costs paid by the Commission for the same or similar services. The recommended awardees offered the most advantageous combination of pricing, experience, and relevant qualifications. It will be the responsibility of staff to select the proper contractor for individual task orders awarded under the agreements, and monitor the selected contractor's work to ensure services are completed in a professional and cost-effective manner. Adequate management and cost control will be a priority in ensuring the overall value of all the contracts will be kept under the stated not to exceed amount. Funding In the FY 201 1 /12 budget to be approved in June 2011, $150,000 in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds is budgeted for on -call painting services, and a similar budget amount is anticipated for each of the subsequent years included in the period of performance. The multiple award, on -call, task order type contracts do not guarantee work to any of the awardees; therefore, no funds are guaranteed to any consultant. Services will be provided through the Commission's issuance of contract task orders to the contractors on an as -needed basis. The successful contractors will be selected for specific tasks based on their respective workload, price, availability, and expertise. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement, in substantially the form attached hereto, will be entered into with the contractors subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal counsel review. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $150,000 N/A FY 2012/13+ $600,000 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: N/A N/A 244001 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244002 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 GL/Project Accounting No.: 244003 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244004 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 244006 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \14/4,. i,44.12/2 Date: 05/15/11 Attachment: Standard Form Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 81 90 " [Draft ] Agreement No. 11-24-XXX-00 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR ON -CALL PAINTING SERVICES WITH CONTRACTOR 1. PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this �'_ _ day of � !, 201 by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and f(VAOF FIRM] ('Consultant"), a [LEG ��41s T 1 US _OF` C��?��1'��af} TAC Ct7RP01?A A NI: 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional consulting services required by Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the task order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement and executed by the Commission and Consultant ("Task Order"). Consultant represents that it is a professional consultant, experienced in providing on -call DISI$ERT TYPEI HER S] services to public clients, is licensed in the State of Califomia, and is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.2 Commission desires to engage Consultant to render [INSE TYPE OF SERVICES] services, on an on -call basis. Services shall be ordered by Task Order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement for future projects as set forth herein (each such project shall be designated a "Project" under this Agreement). 2.3 A source of funding for payment for professional services provided under this Agreement may include federal funds from the United States Department of Transportation. This Agreement shall not be deemed to be approved by the Commission until the certifications shown in Exhibits "D" and "E" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are executed and incorporated in this Agreement. 3. TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to Commission all labor materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work, on an on -call basis, as necessary to fully and adequately provide professional consulting services and advice on various issues affecting the decisions of Commission regarding the Project and on other programs and matters affecting Commission, hereinafter referred to as "Services". The types of Services to be provided are generally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by RCTC Agreement No. Page 1 91 reference. The Services shall be more particularly described in the individual Task Order issued by the Commission's Executive Director or designee. No Services shall be performed unless authorized by a fully executed Task Order in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C". All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with this Agreement, the relevant Task Order, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from to , unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines set forth in the Task Order. 3.3 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with the specific schedule that shall be set forth in the Task Order ("Schedule of Services"). Consultant will be required to commence work within five days of receiving a fully executed Task Order. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with each Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon the Commission's request, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the relevant Schedule of Services. 3.4 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, method and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an employee of Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of Commission and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.5 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of Commission. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel Consultant has represented to Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence and experience upon written approval of Commission. In the event that Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of key personnel, Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement RCTC Agreement No. Page 2 • 92 " for cause, pursuant to provisions of Section 3.16 of this Agreement. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are as follows: [INSERTNAME]. 3.7 Commission's Representative. Commission hereby designates the [INSERT NAME OR tTLE,], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's representative shall have the power to act on behalf of Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction from any person other than Commission's Representative or his or her designee. 3.8 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates [fVSER NAME], or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his or her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement and as described in the relevant Task Order. 3.9 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with Commission staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to Commission's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times. 3.10 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant shall perform the Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standard generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Finally, Consultant represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from Commission, any Services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant's errors and omissions. 3.11 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs RCTC Agreement No. Page 3 93 arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.12 Insurance. 3.12.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.12.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors: Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: (A) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. (B) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) if Consultant has an employees, Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Practices Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 3.12.3 Professional Liability. [INCLUDE?NLE IF,ARR A DEL €TE` O7HEF wise] Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub - consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $1,000,000 [1NCFIEASE454 E SSA OTHERli ISE,LE A1/E A5` 1S AND. ©I LETS TlitS OT'E] per claim. LIC BLEB RCTC Agreement No. Page 4 • 94 " 3.12.4 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: (A) General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (B) Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. (C) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. (D) All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and, (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents. 3.12.5 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self -insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or, (2) the Consultant RCTC Agreement No. Page 5 95 shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.12.6Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.12.7 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.13 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and life saving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.14 Fees and Payment. 3 14.1 Compensation. IF IISREISAMAXIMU1titCC3IUIPEN Af ON AMOUNT tTt E t?R6WDED i THERGREOV)ENTONCLU011, AIJii TA i 0 I S FLt_C�1 ING - ANGUAGE:: Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto. The maximum compensation for Services to be provided pursuant to each Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order. The total compensation to be provided under this Agreement, in the aggregate,, shall not exceed [1N5.0RT: UIIR,ITTEN DOLL-AOUlsK `DSSERT PtUMERPWD-P AR AMOUNT] ("Total Compensation") without written approval of the Commission's Executive Director. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. RCTC Agreement No. Page 6 96 " " IF THERE IS NOT NMAXIMUPA COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO BE PROV,IDEDiN THE AGREENIENT; ,THEN iNSERT THE 'FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "B� attached hereto. The total compensation per Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order, and shall not exceed said amount without written approval of the Commission's Executive Director. Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement. NOT 'Hl APPLIckt�- PROVISION pink? DELETE THE_OTFiEFt. 3.14.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to Commission a monthly statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date; or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the statement. Commission shall, within 45 days of receiving such statement, review the statement and pay all approved charges thereon. 3.14.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by Commission. 3.14.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, Commission may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by Commission to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from Commission's Executive Director. 3.15 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of Commission during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement. 3.16 Termination of Agreement. 3.16.1 Grounds for Termination. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those services which have been fully and adequately rendered to Commission through the RCTC Agreement No. Page 7 97 effective date of the termination, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.16.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, Commission may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data, as defined below, and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request. 3.16.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.17 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: COMMISSION: Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3`d Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub -license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. RCTC Agreement No. Page 8 98 " " " Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission's sole risk. 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media ("Intellectual Property") prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above -referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub -license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. RCTC Agreement No. Page 9 99 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.19 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement. 3.20 Attorney's Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs of such actions. 3.21 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligent acts, omissions or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. The indemnification language above shall apply except as to design professional services, as defined in Civil Code section 2782.8, including any architect, RCTC Agreement No. Page 10 • 100 " landscape architect, engineer or land surveyor services, provided pursuant to this Agreement. As to such Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any alleged negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse the Commission and its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnity shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by the Commission or its directors, officials, officers, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers. 3.22 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Agreement may only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. 3.23 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.24 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.25 Commission's Right to Employ Other Consultants. The Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project. 3.26 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties, and shall not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.27 Prohibited Interests. 3.27.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that RCTC Agreement No. Page 11 101 it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.27.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 3.28 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of Commission's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related Commission programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted. 3.29 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.30 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certified that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq. as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The Commission shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rate of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.31 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, RCTC Agreement No. Page 12 • 102 " " " creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunderwho employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub -consultant for the employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub -consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant. 3.32 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.33 Eight -Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day ("Eight -Hour Law"), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub - consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight -Hour Law. [Signatures on following page] RCTC Agreement No. Page 13 103 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT FOR ON -CALL [DESCRIPTION`` OF-SERViaS] SERVICES WITH [INSERT. CONSULTANT] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: [I.N Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Signature APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel Name Title RCTC Agreement No. Page 14 • • 104 " EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES On -Call and As -Needed [INSERT DESCR`WTION`i Such [IPtEFFrT DE CFIPT1# the following work activities: ORANGEIHKENNY\37133.1 Services OPSERVICES] services may include, but are not limited to, [fNSERT SERVICES] A-1 105 EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION [INSERT] ORANGE1HRENNY \ 37133.1 B-1 • • 106 " " " EXHIBIT "C" Sample Task Order Form RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TASK ORDER Task Order No. Contract: [INSERT NAME OF CONTRACT] Consultant: [INSERT NAME OF CONSULTANT] The Consultant is hereby authorized to perform the following work subject to the provisions of the Contract identified above: List any attachments: (Please provide if any.) Dollar Amount of Task Order: Not to exceed $ .00 Completion Date: , 200 The undersigned consultant hereby agrees that it will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may be otherwise noted above, and perform all services for the work above specified in accordance with the Contract identified above and will accept as full payment therefore the amount shown above. Riverside County Transportation Commission Consultant Dated: Dated: By: By. Anne Mayer, Executive Director ORANGE\HXENNY\37133.1 C-1 107 EXHIBIT "D" CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTANT I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the and duly authorized representative of the firm of whose address is , and that, except as hereby expressly stated, neither I nor the above firm that I represent have: (a) employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other consideration, any firm or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) to solicit or secure this agreement; nor (b) agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any firm or person in connection with carrying out the agreement; nor (c) paid, or agreed to pay, to any firm, organization or person (other than a bona fide employee working solely for me or the above consultant) any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind for, or in connection with, procuring or carrying out this agreement. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this agreement involving participation of Federal -aid Highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. By: Signature Name Title Date ORANGEIHSENNY137I33.7 D-] • • • 108 " EXHIBIT "E" CERTIFICATE OF COMMISSION I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the of the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, and that the consulting firm of or its representative has not been required (except as herein expressly stated), directly or indirectly, as an express or implied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this Agreement to: (a) employ, retain, agree to employ or retain, any firm or person; or (b) pay or agree to pay, to any firm, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Ca!trans) in connection with this Agreement involving participation of federal -aid Highway funds, and is subject to applicable State and Federal laws, both criminal and civil. By: Signature Name Title Date E-1 109 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Greg Moore, Procurement and Assets Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with A.J. Fistes Corporation to Provide Services Associated with the Refurbishment of Station Platform Tactile Warning Surfaces at the Riverside Downtown, La Sierra, and West Corona Commuter Rail Stations WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award Agreement No. 1 1-24-064-00 to A.J. Fistes Corporation for services associated with the refurbishment of station platform tactile warning surfaces at three Commission -owned commuter rail stations in the amount of $143,685, plus a contingency amount of $14,369, for a total amount not to exceed $158,054; and 2) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Commission owns and operates five Metrolink commuter rail stations in Riverside County (Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, North Main Corona, Pedley, and West Corona), and it is the Commission's responsibility to maintain the appearance and safety of the various stations. The Commission retains a number of specialty contractors to provide regular station maintenance (e.g., landscaping, electrical repair, and lot sweeping). Occasionally, the Commission requires some specialized service that must be retained under a separate competitive procurement process. To that end, the Commission requires the services of a qualified contractor to provide services associated with the refurbishment of the platform tactile warning surfaces located at the Downtown Riverside, La Sierra, and West Corona commuter rail stations. The tactile warning surfaces located at the edge of the station platforms are intended to provide a safety barrier for all rail station commuters during train Agenda Item 8J 110 station stops and to assist blind or visually impaired commuters with train boardings. Over the years, the warning surfaces have been faded and degraded by weather and regular power washing of the station platforms. The refurbishment of the station platform tactile warning surfaces is intended to increase passenger safety by making the tactile warning surfaces more prominent and returning the surfaces to acceptable tolerances, in terms of color and surface materials, mandated under applicable ADA requirements. Staff sought a competitive solution to meet the foregoing requirement. Procurement Process The low bid methodology was deemed to be the most appropriate for this procurement, since the Commission had a complete technical specification. The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed lump sum contract, and the selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. Accordingly, staff released and advertised Invitation for Bids (IFB) No. 10-24-064-00 on March 3. A pre -bid meeting and job walk was held on March 15 at the Downtown Riverside station. Station drawings were made available to all potential bidders. Commission staff responded to all questions submitted by potential bidders prior to the March 21 request for information deadline. Three firms — Empire Waterproofing, Inc.; U.S. National Corporation; and A.J. Fistes Corporation — submitted a bid prior to the March 31 bid deadline date. Under the terms of the IFB, the Commission reserved the right to split the various projects between one or more bidders. After reviewing the bids, however, staff determined that it is in the best interest of the Commission to award an agreement to a single responsive and responsible firm. The bid summary in Table 1 sets forth the bid amounts received by the Commission. In order to be considered responsive, each bidder was required to conform to all material terms of the IFB, including the provision of a work plan, pricing information, and references. After a careful evaluation of the bids, staff determined that A.J. Fistes Corporation was the responsive and responsible firm offering the lowest price. Though Empire Waterproofing offered a lower price than A.J. Fistes Corporation, Empire Waterproofing was deemed non -responsive due to its failure to provide a complete bid submittal. Further, its pricing deviated substantially from the Commission's independent cost estimate. Agenda Item 8J • 111 " " " TABLE 1 Firm Bid Amount (by Station) Total Responsive Downtown Riverside La Sierra West Corona A.J. Fistes Corp.* $63,240 $39,618 $40,827 $143,685 Yes Empire Waterproofing $34,720 $ 23,650 $20,650 $79,020 No U.S. National Corp. $105,300 $ 56,000 67,200 $228,500 Yes 'Lowest responsive, responsible bidder. The pricing offered by A.J. Fistes Corporation is considered fair and reasonable based upon adequate price competition. Based on the foregoing bid process, staff recommends the award of Agreement No. 1 1-24-064-00 to A.J. Fistes Corporation for services associated with the refurbishment of station platform tactile warning surfaces at three Commission -owned commuter rail stations for the amount of $143,685, plus a contingency amount of $14,369, for a total amount not to exceed $158,054. The Commission's standard form professional services agreement, in substantially the form attached hereto, will be entered into with the contractor subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal counsel review. A.J. Fistes Corporation has provided comparable services for many public agencies including the Riverside Unified School District, Temecula Unified School District, and the city of Santa Fe Springs. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 201 1 /12 Amount: $158,054 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 244001 244003 244004 73304 73304 73304 00000 0000 103 24 73301 00000 0000 103 24 73301 00000 0000 103 24 73301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \141.4,4, 4,344. Date`. 05/15/11 Attachment: Standard Form Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 8J 112 " [***MODEL - REMOVE THIS TITLE WHEN USED***] Riverside County Transportation Commission Short -Form Construction Contract Station Platform Tactile Warning Strip Refurbishment Project I. PARTIES AND DATE. This Contract is made and entered into this [***INSERT DAY***] day of [***INSERT MONTH***], [***INSERT YEAR***] by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission, a municipal organization organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, California 92502-2208 ("Commission") and A.J. Fistes Corporation, a [***INSERT TYPE OF ENTITY - CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY***1 with its principal place of business at [***INSERT ADDRESS***1 ("Contractor"). Commission and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as "Party" and collectively as 'Parties" in this Contract. 2. RECITALS. 2.1 Commission. Commission is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with power to contract for services necessary to achieve its purpose. 2.2 Contractor. Contractor desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain construction services required by the Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Contract. Contractor represents that it is experienced in providing [***INSERT TYPE OF SERVICES***1 services to public clients, that it and its employees or subcontractors have all necessary licenses and permits to perform the Services in the State of California, and that it is familiar with the plans of Commission. 2.3 Proiect. Commission desires to engage Contractor to render such services for the [***INSERT NAME OF PROJECT***1 Project ('Project") as set forth in this Contract. 2.4 Project Documents & Certifications. Contractor has obtained, and delivers concurrently herewith, [***INSERT APPLICABLE PERFORMANCE BOND, PAYMENT BOND, INSURANCE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER CERTIFICATIONS***] as required by the Contract. 1 113 3. TERMS • 3.1 Incorporation of Documents. This Contract includes and hereby incorporates in full by reference the following documents, including all exhibits, drawings, specifications and documents therein, and attachments and addenda thereto: [***INSERT APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS***] 3.2 Contractor's Basic Obligation- Scope of Work. Contractor promises and agrees, at its own cost and expense, to furnish to Commission all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately complete the Project, including all structures and facilities necessary for the Project or described in the Contract (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Work"), for a Total Contract Price as specified pursuant to this Contract. All Work shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with the above referenced documents, as well as the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The plans and specifications for the Work are further described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Special conditions, if any, relating to the Work are described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3.3 Change in Scope of Work. Any change in the scope of the Work, method of performance, nature of materials or price thereof, or any other matter materially affecting the performance or nature of the Work shall not be paid for or accepted unless such change, addition or deletion is approved in advance and in writing by a valid change order executed by the Commission. 3.4 Period of Performance and Liquidated Damages. Contractor shall perform and complete all Work under this Contract within [***INSERT NUMBER OF CALENDAR OR WORKING DAYS***] days, beginning the effective date of the Notice to Proceed ("Contract Time"). Contractor shall perform its Work in strict accordance with any completion schedule, construction schedule or project milestones developed by the Commission. Such schedules or milestones may be included as part of Exhibits "A" or 'B" attached hereto, or may be provided separately in writing to the Contractor. Contractor agrees that if such Work is not completed within the aforementioned Contract Time and/or pursuant to any such completion schedule, construction schedule or project milestones developed pursuant to provisions of the Contract, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the Commission will suffer damage. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53069.85, Contractor shall pay to the Commission as fixed and liquidated damages the sum of [***INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT***] Dollars ($[***INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT***]) per day for each and every calendar day of delay beyond the Contract Time or beyond any completion schedule, construction schedule or Project milestones established pursuant to the Contract. 3.5 Standard of Performance; Performance of Employees. Contractor shall perform all Work under this Contract in a skillful and workmanlike manner, and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in 114 " " " the same discipline in the State of California. Contractor represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Work. Contractor warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Work assigned to them. Finally, Contractor represents that it, its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Work and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Contract. As provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Contract, Contractor shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the Commission, any work necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Contractor's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any employee who is determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the safety of persons or the Work, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Work in a manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Contractor and shall not be re-employed on the Work. 3.6 Control and Payment of Subordinates; Contractual Relationship. Commission retains Contractor on an independent contractor basis and Contractor is not an employee of Commission. Any additional personnel performing the work governed by this Contract on behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Contractor shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance under this Contract and as required by law. Contractor shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.7 Commission's Basic Obligation. Commission agrees to engage and does hereby engage Contractor as an independent contractor to furnish all materials and to perform all Work according to the terms and conditions herein contained for the sum set forth above. Except as otherwise provided in the Contract, the Commission shall pay to Contractor, as full consideration for the satisfactory performance by the Contractor of the services and obligations required by this Contract, the above referenced compensation in accordance with compensation provisions set forth in the Contract. 3.8 Compensation and Payment. 3.8.1 Amount of Compensation. As consideration for performance of the Work required herein, Commission agrees to pay Contractor the Total Contract Price of [***INSERT WRITTEN DOLLAR AMOUNT***] Dollars ($[***INSERT NUMERICAL DOLLAR AMOUNT***]) ("Total Contract Price") provided that such amount shall be subject to adjustment pursuant to the applicable terms of this Contract or written change orders approved and signed in advance by the Commission. 3.8.2 Payment of Compensation. If the Work is scheduled for completion in thirty (30) or less calendar days, Commission will arrange for payment of the Total Contract Price upon completion and approval by Commission of the Work. If 3 115 the Work is scheduled for completion in more than thirty (30) calendar days, Commission will pay Contractor on a monthly basis as provided for herein. On or before the fifth (5th) day of each month, Contractor shall submit to the Commission an itemized application for payment in the format supplied by the Commission indicating the amount of Work completed since commencement of the Work or since the last progress payment. These applications shall be supported by evidence which is required by this Contract and such other documentation as the Commission may require. The Contractor shall certify that the Work for which payment is requested has been done and that the materials listed are stored where indicated. Contractor may be required to furnish a detailed schedule of values upon request of the Commission and in such detail and form as the Commission shall request, showing the quantities, unit prices, overhead, profit, and all other expenses involved in order to provide a basis for determining the amount of progress payments. Commission shall review and pay all progress payment requests in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 20104.50 of the California Public Contract Code. No progress payments will be made for Work not completed in accordance with this Contract. 3.8.3 Contract Retentions. From each approved progress estimate, ten percent (10%) will be deducted and retained by the Commission, and the remainder will be paid to Contractor. All Contract retainage shall be released and paid to the Contractor and subcontractors pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 7107. 3.8.4 Other Retentions. In addition to Contract retentions, the Commission may deduct from each progress payment an amount necessary to protect Commission from loss because of: (1) liquidated damages which have accrued as of the date of the application for payment; (2) any sums expended by the Commission in performing any of Contractor's obligations under the Contract which Contractor has failed to perform or has performed inadequately; (3) defective Work not remedied; (4) stop notices as allowed by state law; (5) reasonable doubt that the Work can be completed for the unpaid balance of the Total Contract Price or within the scheduled completion date; (6) unsatisfactory prosecution of the Work by Contractor; (7) unauthorized deviations from the Contract; (8) failure of the Contractor to maintain or submit on a timely basis proper and sufficient documentation as required by the Contract or by Commission during the prosecution of the Work; (9) erroneous or false estimates by the Contractor of the value of the Work performed; (10) any sums representing expenses, losses, or damages as determined by the Commission, incurred by the Commission for which Contractor is liable under the Contract; and (II) any other sums which the Commission is entitled to recover from Contractor under the terms of the Contract or pursuant to state law, including Section 1727 of the California Labor Code. The failure by the Commission to deduct any of these sums from a progress payment shall not constitute a waiver of the Commission's right to such sums. 3.8.5 Substitutions for Contract Retentions. In accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 22300, the Commission will permit the 4 • • 116 " substitution of securities for any monies withheld by the Commission to ensure performance under the Contract. At the request and expense of the Contractor, securities equivalent to the amount withheld shall be deposited with the Commission, or with a state or federally chartered bank in California as the escrow agent, and thereafter the Commission shall then pay such monies to the Contractor as they come due. Upon satisfactory completion of the Contract, the securities shall be returned to the Contractor. For purposes of this Section and Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code, the term "satisfactory completion of the contract" shall mean the time the Commission has issued written final acceptance of the Work and filed a Notice of Completion as required by law and provisions of this Contract. The Contractor shall be the beneficial owner of any securities substituted for monies withheld and shall receive any interest thereon. The escrow agreement used for the purposes of this Section shall be in the form provided by the Commission. 3.8.6 Payment to Subcontractors. Contractor shall pay all subcontractors for and on account of work performed by such subcontractors in accordance with the terms of their respective subcontracts and as provided for in Section 10262 of the California Public Contract Code. Such payments to subcontractors shall be based on the measurements and estimates made and progress payments provided to Contractor pursuant to this Contract. 3.8.7 Title to Work. As security for partial, progress, or other payments, title to Work for which such payments are made shall pass to the Commission at the time of payment. To the extent that title has not previously been vested in the Commission by reason of payments, full title shall pass to the Commission at delivery of the Work at the destination and time specified in this Contract. Such transferred title shall in each case be good, free and clear from any and all security interests, liens, or other encumbrances. Contractor promises and agrees that it will not pledge, hypothecate, or otherwise encumber the items in any manner that would result in any lien, security interest, charge, or claim upon or against said items. Such transfer of title shall not imply acceptance by the Commission, nor relieve Contractor from the responsibility to strictly comply with the Contract, and shall not relieve Contractor of responsibility for any loss of or damage to items. 3.9 Termination. This Contract may be terminated by Commission at any time by giving Contractor three (3) days advance written notice. In the event of termination by Commission for any reason other than the fault of Contractor, Commission shall pay Contractor for all Work performed up to that time as provided herein. In the event of breach of the Contract by Contractor, Commission may terminate the Contract immediately without notice, may reduce payment to the Contractor in the amount necessary to offset Commission's resulting damages, and may pursue any other available recourse against Contractor. Contractor may not terminate this Contract except for cause. In the event this Contract is terminated in whole or in part as provided, Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine 5 117 appropriate, services similar to those terminated. Further, if this Contract is terminated as provided, Commission may require Contractor to provide all finished or unfinished documents, data, diagrams, drawings, materials or other matter prepared or built by Contractor in connection with its performance of this Contract. 3.10 Completion of Work. When the Contractor determines that it has completed the Work required herein, Contractor shall so notify Commission in writing and shall furnish all labor and material releases required by this Contract. Commission shall thereupon inspect the Work. If the Work is not acceptable to the Commission, the Commission shall indicate to Contractor in writing the specific portions or items of Work which are unsatisfactory or incomplete. Once Contractor determines that it has completed the incomplete or unsatisfactory Work, Contractor may request a reinspection by the Commission. Once the Work is acceptable to Commission, Commission shall pay to Contractor the Total Contract Price remaining to be paid, less any amount which Commission may be authorized or directed by law to retain. Payment of retention proceeds due to Contractor shall be made in accordance with Section 7107 of the California Public Contract Code. 3.11 Commission's Representative. The Commission hereby designates [***INSERT NAME OR TITLE"1, or his or her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Contract ("Commission's Representative"). Commission's Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the Commission for all purposes under this Contract. Contractor shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Commission's Representative or his or here designee. 3.12 Contractor's Representative. Before starting the Work, Contractor shall submit in writing the name, qualifications and experience of its proposed representative who shall be subject to the review and approval of the Commission ("Contractor's Representative"). Following approval by the Commission, the Contractor's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Contractor for all purposes under this Contract. The Contractor's Representative shall supervise and direct the Work, using his best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Work under this Contract. Contractor's Representative shall devote full time to the Project and either he or his designee, who shall be acceptable to the Commission, shall be present at the Work site at all times that any Work is in progress and at any time that any employee or subcontractor of Contractor is present at the Work site. Arrangements for responsible supervision, acceptable to the Commission, shall be made for emergency Work which may be required. Should Contractor desire to change its Contractor's Representative, Contractor shall provide the information specified above and obtain the Commission's written approval. 3.13 Contract Interpretation. Should any question arise regarding the meaning or import of any of the provisions of this Contract or written or oral instructions from Commission, the matter shall be referred to Commission's Representative, whose decision shall be binding upon Contractor. 6 • 118 " " 3.14 Loss and Damage. Contractor shall be responsible for all loss and damage which may arise out of the nature of the Work agreed to herein, or from the action of the elements, or from any unforeseen difficulties which may arise or be encountered in the prosecution of the Work until the same is fully completed and accepted by Commission. However, Contractor shall be responsible for damage proximately caused by Acts of God, within the meaning of Section 4150 of the California Government Code, only to the extent of five percent (5%) of the Total Contract Price as specified herein. In the event of damage proximately caused by "Acts of God," the Commission may terminate this Contract upon three (3) days advanced written notice. 3.15 Indemnification. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any acts, omissions or willful misconduct of Contractor, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Work or this Contract, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages and attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. Contractor shall defend, at Contractor's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission, its directors, officials officers, employees, agents or volunteers. Contractor shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Contractor shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. 3.16 Insurance. 3.16.1 Time for Compliance. Contractor shall not commence Work under this Contract until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Contractor shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that the subcontractor has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.16.2 Minimum Requirements. Contractor shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Contractor shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Contract. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: 7 119 3.16.2.1 Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance; and (4) Builders'/All Risk: Builders'/All Risk insurance covering for all risks of loss, including explosion, collapse, underground excavation and removal of lateral support (and including earthquakes and floods if requested by the Commission). 3.16.2.2 Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: [***INSERT AMOUNT - TYPICALLY, $1,000,000; HOWEVER, AMOUNT OF INSURANCE REQUIRED DEPENDS UPON NATURE OF CONTRACT AND RISK TO COMMISSION. PLEASE CONTACT RISK MANAGEMENT TO CONFIRM AMOUNT***] per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used including, but not limited to, form CG 2503, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Contract/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: [***INSERT AMOUNT - TYPICALLY, $1,000,000; HOWEVER, AMOUNT OF INSURANCE REQUIRED DEPENDS UPON NATURE OF CONTRACT AND RISK TO COMMISSION. PLEASE CONTACT RISK MANAGEMENT TO CONFIRM AMOUNT***] per accident for bodily injury and property damage; (3) Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Workers' compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer's Liability limits of [***INSERT AMOUNT - TYPICALLY, $1,000,000; HOWEVER, AMOUNT OF INSURANCE REQUIRED DEPENDS UPON NATURE OF CONTRACT AND RISK TO COMMISSION. PLEASE CONTACT RISK MANAGEMENT TO CONFIRM AMOUNT***] per accident for bodily injury or disease; and (4) Builders'/All Risk: Completed value of the project. 3.16.3 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Contractor shall provide endorsements on forms supplied or approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: 3.16.3.1 General Liability. (I) The Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Contractor's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its 8 120 " " " directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it. 3.16.3.2 Automobile Liability. (1) The Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor or for which the Contractor is responsible; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Contractor's scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. 3.16.3.3 Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers for losses paid under the terns of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Contractor. 3.16.3.4 All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Contract shall be endorsed to state that: (1) coverage shall not be suspended, voided, reduced or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and (2) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers. 3.16.4 Builders'/All Risk Policy Requirements. The builders'/all risk insurance shall provide that the Commission be named as loss payee. In addition, the insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission. 3.16.5 Separation of Insureds; No Special Limitations. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions. In addition, such insurance shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers. 3.16.6 Professional Liability Insurance. All architects, engineers, consultants or design professionals retained by Contractor shall also procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Contract, errors and omissions liability insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 [***CONTACT RISK MANAGEMENT TO CONFIRM REQUIREMENTS; OTHERWISE LEAVE AS IS AND DELETE THIS NOTE***) per occurrence. This insurance shall name the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers 9 121 as additional and insureds with respect to Work performed, and shall otherwise comply with all requirements of this Section. 3.16.7 Deductibles and Self -Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. Contractor shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers; or (2) the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.16.8 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:V111, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.16.9 Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Contract on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf, and shall be on forms supplied or approved by the Commission. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 3.16.10 Subcontractors. All subcontractors shall meet the requirements of this Section before commencing Work. In addition, Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 3.16.11 Reporting of Claims. Contractor shall report to the Commission, in addition to Contractors insurer, any and all insurance claims submitted by Contractor in connection with the Work under this Contract. 3.17 Bond Requirements. 3.17.1 Payment Bond. If required by law or otherwise specifically requested by Commission in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Contractor shall execute and provide to Commission concurrently with this Contract a Payment Bond in an amount required by the Commission and in a form provided or approved by the Commission. If such bond is required, no payment will be made to Contractor until the bond has been received and approved by the Commission. 3.17.2 Performance Bond. If specifically requested by Commission in Exhibit 'B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Contractor shall execute and provide to Commission concurrently with this Contract a. Performance Bond 10 • 122 " in an amount required by the Commission and in a form provided or approved by the Commission. If such bond is required, no payment will be made to Contractor until the bond has been received and approved by the Commission. 3.17.3 Bond Provisions. Should, in Commission's sole opinion, any bond become insufficient or any surety be found to be unsatisfactory, Contractor shall renew or replace the effected bond within (ten) 10 days of receiving notice from Commission. In the event the surety or Contractor intends to reduce or cancel any required bond, at least thirty (30) days prior written notice shall be given to the Commission, and Contractor shall post acceptable replacement bonds at least ten (10) days prior to expiration of the original bonds. No further payments shall be deemed due or will be made under this Contract until any replacement bonds required by this Section are accepted by the Commission. To the extent, if any, that the Total Contract Price is increased in accordance with the Contract, the Contractor shall, upon request of the Commission, cause the amount of the bond to be increased accordingly and shall promptly deliver satisfactory evidence of such increase to the Commission. To the extent available, the bonds shall further provide that no change or alteration of the Contract (including, without limitation, an increase in the Total Contract Price, as referred to above), extensions of time, or modifications of the time, terms, or conditions of payment to the Contractor, will release the surety. If the Contractor fails to furnish any required bond, the Commission may terminate the Contract for cause. 3.17.4 Surety Qualifications. Only bonds executed by an admitted surety insurer, as defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 995.120, shall be accepted. The surety must be a California -admitted surety with a current A.M. Best's rating no less than A:VIII and satisfactory to the Commission. If a California -admitted surety insurer issuing bonds does not meet these requirements, the insurer will be considered qualified if it is in conformance with Section 995.660 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and proof of such is provided to the Commission. 3.18 Safety. Contractor shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. Contractor shall comply with the requirements of the specifications relating to safety measures applicable in particular operations or kinds of work. In carrying out its Work, the Contractor shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the Work and the conditions under which the Work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to, adequate life protection and life saving equipment; adequate illumination for underground and night operations; instructions in accident prevention for all employees, such as machinery guards, safe walkways, scaffolds, ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, fall protection and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. Furthermore, Contractor shall prominently display the names and telephone numbers of at least two medical doctors practicing in the vicinity of the Project, as well as the 11 123 telephone number of the local ambulance service, adjacent to all telephones at the Project site. 3.19 Warranty. Contractor warrants all Work under the Contract (which for purposes of this Section shall be deemed to include unauthorized work which has not been removed and any non -conforming materials incorporated into the Work) to be of good quality and free from any defective or faulty material and workmanship. Contractor agrees that for a period of one year (or the period of time specified elsewhere in the Contract or in any guarantee or warranty provided by any manufacturer or supplier of equipment or materials incorporated into the Work, whichever is later) after the date of final acceptance, Contractor shall within ten (10) days after being notified in writing by the Commission of any defect in the Work or non-conformance of the Work to the Contract, commence and prosecute with due diligence all Work necessary to fulfill the terms of the warranty at its sole cost and expense. Contractor shall act sooner as requested by the Commission in response to an emergency. In addition, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, repair and replace any portions of the Work (or work of other contractors) damaged by its defective Work or which becomes damaged in the course of repairing or replacing defective Work. For any Work so corrected, Contractor's obligation hereunder to correct defective Work shall be reinstated for an additional one year period, commencing with the date of acceptance of such corrected Work. Contractor shall perform such tests as the Commission may require to verify that any corrective actions, including, without limitation, redesign, repairs, and replacements comply with the requirements of the Contract. All costs associated with such corrective actions and testing, including the removal, replacement, and reinstitution of equipment and materials necessary to gain access, shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. All warranties and guarantees of subcontractors, suppliers and manufacturers with respect to any portion of the Work, whether express or implied, are deemed to be obtained by Contractor for the benefit of the Commission, regardless of whether or not such warranties and guarantees have been transferred or assigned to the Commission by separate agreement and Contractor agrees to enforce such warranties and guarantees, if necessary, on behalf of the Commission. In the event that Contractor fails to perform its obligations under this Section, or under any other warranty or guaranty under this Contract, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission, the Commission shall have the right to correct and replace any defective or non -conforming Work and any work damaged by such work or the replacement or correction thereof at Contractor's sole expense. Contractor shall be obligated to fully reimburse the Commission for any expenses incurred hereunder upon demand. 3.20 Laws and Regulations . Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Contract or the Work, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Contractor shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Work. If the Contractor observes that the drawings or specifications are at variance with any law, rule or regulation, it shall promptly notify the Commission in writing. Any necessary changes shall be made by written change order. if the Contractor performs any work knowing it 12 124 " to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Commission, the Contractor shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Contract, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.21 Permits and Licenses. Contractor shall be responsible for securing Commission permits and licenses necessary to perform the Work described herein, including, but not limited to, a Commission Business License. While Contractor will not be charged a fee for any Commission permits, Contractor shall pay the Commission's applicable business license fee. 3.22 Trenching Work. If the Total Contract Price exceeds $25,000 and if the Work governed by this Contract entails excavation of any trench or trenches five (5) feet or more in depth, Contractor shall comply with all applicable provisions of the California Labor Code, including Section 6705. To this end, Contractor shall submit for Commission's review and approval a detailed plan showing the design of shoring, bracing, sloping, or other provisions to be made for worker protection from the hazard of caving ground during the excavation of such trench or trenches. If such plan varies from the shoring system standards, the plan shall be prepared by a registered civil or structural engineer. 3.23 Hazardous Materials and Differing Conditions. As required by Califomia Public Contract Code Section 7104, if this Contract involves digging trenches or other excavations that extend deeper than four (4) feet below the surface, Contractor shall promptly, and prior to disturbance of any conditions, notify Commission of: (1) any material discovered in excavation that Contractor believes to be a hazardous waste that is required to be removed to a Class I, Class II or Class III disposal site; (2) subsurface or latent physical conditions at the site differing from those indicated by Commission; and (3) unknown physical conditions of an unusual nature at the site, significantly different from those ordinarily encountered in such contract work. Upon notification, Commission shall promptly investigate the conditions to determine whether a change order is appropriate. In the event of a dispute, Contractor shall not be excused from any scheduled completion date and shall proceed with all Work to be performed under the Contract, but shall retain all rights provided by the Contract or by law for making protests and resolving the dispute. 3.24 Underground Utility Facilities. To the extent required by Section 4215 of the California Government Code, Commission shall compensate Contractor for the costs of: (1) locating and repairing damage to underground utility facilities not caused by the failure of Contractor to exercise reasonable care; (2) removing or relocating underground utility facilities not indicated in the construction drawings; and (3) equipment necessarily idled during such work. Contractor shall not be assessed liquidated damages for delay caused by failure of Commission to provide for removal or relocation of such utility facilities. 13 125 3.25 Prevailing Wages. Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1600, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on "public works" and "maintenance" projects. Since the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and [***INSERT "SINCE" OR "IF" AS APPROPRIATE***J the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Commission shall provide Contractor with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Contractor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Contractor's principal place of business and at the project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.26 Apprenticeable Crafts . When Contractor employs workmen in an apprenticeable craft or trade, Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Section 1777.5 of the California Labor Code with respect to the employment of properly registered apprentices upon public works. The primary responsibility for compliance with said section for all apprenticeable occupations shall be with Contractor. 3.27 Hours of Work. Contractor is advised that eight (8) hours labor constitutes a legal day's work. Pursuant to Section 1813 of the California Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit a penalty of $25.00 per worker for each day that each worker is permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one calendar day and forty (40) hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half (1-1/2) times the basic rate for that worker. 3.28 Payroll Records. In accordance with the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1776, Contractor shall keep accurate payroll records which are either on forms provided by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or which contain the same information required by such forms. Responsibility for compliance with California Labor Code Section 1776 shall rest solely with Contractor, and Contractor shall make all such records available for inspection at all reasonable hours. 3.29 Contractor's Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Contractor certifies that he is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work. A certification form for this purpose, which is attached to this Contract as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference, shall be executed simultaneously with this Contract. 14 • 126 " " " 3.30 Labor and Material Releases. Contractor shall furnish Commission with labor and material releases from all subcontractors performing work on, or furnishing materials for, the work governed by this Contract prior to final payment by Commission. 3.31 Equal Opportunity Employment. Contractor represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.32 Anti -Trust Claims. This provision shall be operative if this Contract is applicable to California Public Contract Code Section 7103.5. In entering into this Contract to supply goods, services or materials, the Contractor hereby offers and agrees to assign to the Commission all rights, title, and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Section 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2, commencing with Section 16700, of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code) arising from purchases of goods, services, or materials pursuant to the Contract. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time the Commission tender final payment to the Contractor, without further acknowledgment by the Parties. 3.33 Notices. All notices hereunder and communications regarding inter-pretation of the terms of the Contract or changes thereto shall be provided by the mailing thereof by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Commission Contractor Riverside County Transportation Commission [***INSERT NAME***] Riverside County Regional Complex [***INSERT ADDRESS***] 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor [***INSERT ADDRESS***] Attn: [***INSERT NAME***] Attn: [***INSERT NAME***] Any notice so given shall be considered received by the other Party three (3) days after deposit in the U.S. Mail as stated above and addressed to the Party at the above address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.34 Entire Contract; Modification. This Contract contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements. This Contract may only be modified by a writing signed by both Parties. 15 127 3.35 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Contract. 3.36 Assignment Forbidden. Contractor shall not, either voluntarily or by action of law, assign or transfer this Contract or any obligation, right, title or interest assumed by Contractor herein without the prior written consent of Commission. If Contractor attempts an assignment or transfer of this Contract or any obligation, right, title or interest herein, Commission may, at its option, terminate and revoke the Contract and shall thereupon be relieved from any and all obligations to Contractor or its assignee or transferee. 3.37 Governing Law. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.38 Counterparts. This Contract may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.39 Successors. The Parties do for themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns agree to the full performance of all of the provisions contained in this Contract. 3.40 Attorneys' Fees. if either Party commences an action against the other Party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Contract, the prevailing Party in such action shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing Party reasonable attorneys' fees and all other costs of such action. 3.41 Claims of $375,000 or Less. Notwithstanding any other provision herein, claims of $375,000 or less shall be resolved pursuant to the alternative dispute resolution procedures set forth in California Public Contract Code §§ 20104, et seq. 3.42 Prohibited Interests. 3.42.1 Solicitation. Contractor maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, to solicit or secure this Contract. Further, Contractor warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Contractor, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, Commission shall have the right to terminate this Contract without liability. 3.42.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Contract, no member, officer or employee of Commission, during the term of his or her service with Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Contract, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. In addition, Contractor agrees to file, or to 16 • 128 " cause its employees or subcontractors to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the Commission's Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the Work. 3.43 Certification of License. Contractor certifies that as of the date of execution of this Contract, Contractor has a current contractor's license of the classification indicated below under Contractor's signature. 3.44 Authority to Enter Agreement. Contractor has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver and perform the Contract. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Contract have the legal power, right and authority to make this Contract and bind each respective Party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has caused this Contract to be executed on the day and year first above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY [***INSERT CONTRACTOR'S TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION NAME***] By: By. [***INSERT NAME***] [***INSERT NAME***] [***INSERT TITLE***] [***INSERT TITLE***] Classification of Contractor's License 17 129 " EXHIBIT "A" PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS The following plans and specifications are incorporated into this Contract herein by this reference: i***INSERT GENERAL CONDITIONS/SPECIFICATIONS - INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE ANY NEEDED PLANS OR DRAWINGS**1 R VPUBIHSHANE1733258.1 Exhibit A 130 EXHIBIT "B" SPECIAL CONDITIONS [***INSERT SPECIAL CONDITIONS IF NECESSARY - OTHERWISE JUST INSERT "NOT APPLICABLE"**1 R V PUBIHSHANEV 33258.1 Exhibit B • 131 " EXHIBIT "C" CERTIFICATION LABOR CODE - SECTION 1861 I, the undersigned Contractor, am aware of the provisions of Section 3700, et seq., of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Code, and I, the undersigned Contractor, agree to and will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract. R V PUBIHSHANE1733258.1 [***INSERT CONTRACTOR'S NAME***J By: [***INSERT NAME***J [***INSERT TITLE***J Exhibit C 132 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 201 1 /12 Minimum Fare Revenue Ratio for Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required fare box recovery ratio; and 2) Approve the FY 201 1 /12 minimum fare revenue to operating cost ratio of 17.04% for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA�% and 17.80% for the SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: RTA and SunLine serve both urbanized and non -urbanized areas of Riverside County. As required by state law, these agencies' minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio would fall between the 10% requirement for non -urbanized area services and 20% requirement for urbanized area services. The Commission developed a methodology to calculate the required minimum ratio and it was subsequently approved by the state. Per the Transportation Development Act, Section 99270.1, Caltrans must review and approve the methodology on an annual basis. Caltrans staff concurred in writing that the methodology developed by the Commission is still applicable. The formula used is as follows: R=.1 Cn+.2Cu Cn + Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Costs of Services in Non -Urbanized Areas Cu = Costs of Services in Urbanized Areas Agenda Item 8K 133 The costs for new or expanded services are exempted from the calculation for the year of implementation plus two fiscal years of operation. For FY 201 1 /12, RTA has six routes and SunLine has two routes that are exempt from the farebox recovery calculation. Using the above formula and the Short Range Transit Plans, the FY 201 1 /12 minimum required ratio for RTA is 17.04% and SunLine is 17.80%. This means that passenger fares for RTA and SunLine should cover at least 17.04% and 17.80%, respectively, of the actual cost to operate services. The balance of the operating cost is covered by federal, state, and local funding. The farebox recovery ratios for FY 2011/12 have been reviewed and approved by RTA and SunLine staff. The ratios are then fixed for the fiscal year upon adoption of the required ratio by the Commission and cannot be changed, even though actual revenues and expenses may differ from the Short Range Transit Plan estimates. Attachment: Rules and Regulations for Determining Required Fare Revenue Agenda Item 8K • 134 " RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DETERMINING REQUIRED FARE REVENUE TO OPERATING COST RATIOS FOR TRANSIT OPERATORS SERVING BOTH URBANIZED AND NON -URBANIZED AREAS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY I. Based on the latest annually adopted Short Range Transit Plans for Riverside County, the Riverside County Transportation Commission with the cooperation of the transit operator will determine separately the operating cost of those transit services provided in non -urbanized areas and the operating cost of those services in urbanized areas. " For the purpose of this calculation, the operating cost in the urbanized areas shall include the cost of fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within an urbanized area. The operating cost in the non -urbanized area shall include the cost of all fixed route lines, groups of fixed route lines, and demand responsive service operating entirely within a non -urbanized area. " For fixed route lines operating partly within an urbanized area and partly within a non -urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to the urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the route miles in the non -urbanized area and the route miles in the urbanized area. " For demand response systems serving both an urbanized area and a non - urbanized area, the cost shall be apportioned to urbanized area costs and non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the population of the urbanized area served and the population of the non -urbanized area served. " The costs of extension of public transit service pursuant to Section 99268.8 of the Public Utilities Code (PUC) shall not be included in any of these calculations. II. The required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost in compliance with PUC Sections 99268.3 and 99268.4 shall be calculated as follows: R = .1 Cn + .2 Cu Cn + Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Operating Cost in Non -Urbanized Areas Cu = Operating Cost in Urbanized Areas III. Annually, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall calculate the required revenue to operating cost ratio for each transit operator serving both urbanized and non -urbanized 135 areas and submit this calculation to Caltrans. Caltrans shall approve the methodology used to calculate the blended fare box ratio prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Once approved, the ratio is not subject to change. • 136 " " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Martha Durbin, Staff Analyst Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Measure A Specialized Transit Funds as Capital Match for the Federal Fiscal Year 2008/09 Section 5310 Programs WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate Measure A Specialized Transit funds of $80,835 to provide the required capital match for the FFY 2008/09 Section 5310 program as follows: a) $1 1,470 to Care -A -Van Transit Systems, Inc. (Care -A -Van); and b) $15,943 to Care Connexxus, Inc. (CCI); c) $6,767 to Peppermint Ridge; d) $46,655 to Valley Resource Center for the Retarded, Inc. (VRCR); 2) Approve agreements with the following FFY 2008/09 Section 5310 grant recipients for Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County as follows: a) Agreement No. 1 1-26-1 14-00 with Care -A -Van for $11,470; b) Agreement No. 11-26-115-00 with CCI for $15,943; c) Agreement No. 11-26-116-00 with Peppermint Ridge for $6,767; and d) Agreement No. 11-26-117-00 with VRCR for $46,655; and 3) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Care -A -Van, CCI, Peppermint Ridge, and VRCR were recently notified by Ca!trans that these agencies were approved to receive funding under the Federal Transit Administration's FFY 2008/09 Section 5310 grant program. The Section 5310 program provides funding for 88.53% of the cost of capital projects. It is Commission policy to set aside, on an annual basis, Measure A funds Agenda Item 8L 137 to provide the local match to operators located in Western Riverside County that are successful in obtaining federal funds through the Section 5310 program. Care -A -Van, CCI, Peppermint Ridge, and VRCR are requesting that the required 11.47% match be funded from Measure A Specialized Transit funds available in Western Riverside County. FFY 2009 Section 5310 Grant Award and Match Requirement Agency Capitalltem(s) Total Project Cost FFY 2008/09 federal Award Required Match (Measure A) Care -A -Van San Jacinto, CA One Minivan One Small Bus $100,000 $88,530 $11,470 CCI Riverside, CA One Small Bus One Large Bus 139,000 123,057 15,943 Peppermint Ridge Corona, CA One Small Bus Mobile Radio 59,000 52,233 6,767 VRCR Hemet, CA Two Minivans Two Small Buses Two Medium Buses One Large Bus Two Computer Monitors and Printers 406,760 360,105 46,655 TOTAL $704,760 $623,925 $80,835 Care -A -Van provides accessibility to community resources for seniors, disabled, and the truly needy. Clients are given the opportunity for safe transportation to medical appointments, social service agencies, education and literacy classes, job training, employment, and specialized services, including a shopping assistance program for seniors and the disabled. CCI specializes in the care of frail elderly persons with Alzheimer's disease and also serves a large population of persons over the age of 18 with disabling conditions. CCI provides adult day health care and day program services for older adults that cannot care for their own needs. Clients that are not able to utilize public transportation systems due to safety concerns are transported from their homes to the CCI center in the city of Riverside. Peppermint Ridge provides specialized transportation services and programs to people with developmental disabilities, transporting clients to day programs, medical appointments, and social activities. The agency also offers training and guidance on essential living skills, including using public transit to help participants obtain the greatest possible degree of independence. The agency has been serving the disabled community in the city of Corona for 52 years. Agenda Item 8L 138 " VRCR provides transportation services in Western Riverside County to developmentally disabled adults. Its mission is to provide services and advocacy for adults with disabilities to reach their maximum potential. VRCR also provides informal transportation services to its supported employment clients in the Western Riverside County, the Coachella Valley, and Morongo Valley by picking clients up and dropping them off at the work sites. The total requested amount for local match in Measure A funding for the four agencies is $80,835. If the requests for funding are approved, the local match will be placed on deposit directly with Caltrans. A budget adjustment for the allocation of Measure A funding is not required as adequate funds are included in the FY 2010/11 Specialized Transit budget. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2010/11 Amount: $ 80,835 Source of Funds: Measure A Specialized Transit Funding: Western Riverside Budget Ad ustment: No GLA No.: 225 26 86102 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 05/1 1 /1 1 Agenda Item 8L 139 " " " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Federal Fiscal Years 2009/10 - 2010/11 Federal Administration's Section 5310 Capital Grant Applications Transit BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt the FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11 Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) Section 5310 Riverside County project rankings as recommended by the local review committee (LRC); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 1 1-008, 'Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Project Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan", certifying that the projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan; and 3) Include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In January 2011, Caltrans issued a call for projects to social service and public agencies for the FTA Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled Specialized Transit program covering two years of funding for FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11. This capital - only program dedicated to specialized transit (serving elderly and persons with disabilities, where public transit is otherwise unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate) is used mostly for accessible vans and buses, computer hardware and software, and communication equipment. Caltrans is the lead agency on this statewide discretionary program. The Commission's role is to perform an advisory review of projects within the region, submit a regional priority list to Caltrans, and amend funded projects in the RTIP when approved. Program funds are apportioned among the states by a formula that is based on the number of elderly and persons with disabilities in each state according to the latest available U.S. census data. Projects funded by the Section 5310 program require coordination with other federally -assisted programs in order to make the most efficient use of federal resources. Program funds may be used to Agenda Item 8M 140 provide up to 88.53% federal share of the capital cost and requires at least 11.47% in local match. For this funding cycle only, agencies will receive up to 100% in federal funds with the usage of toll credits. Approximately $25 million in federal funds is available for programming for the FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11 grant cycle, twice as much as the amount of $12.6 million made available during the last funding cycle in 2009. During the FFYs 2007/08 - 2008/09 grant cycle, Riverside County requested approximately $1.1 million of Section 5310 funds. All project proposals submitted by the eight agencies were funded. The LRCs in each county quantitatively evaluate all applications submitted for that area, rank them using state -mandated criteria, and submit a regional priority list to Caltrans. The Commission's evaluation committee for this year, after putting out a public request for volunteers, was comprised of one member of the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC), one non-public agency representative, one AMMA consultant staff, and one Commission staff. The scoring criteria used to evaluate Section 5310 project proposals is as follows: CALTRANS' EVALUATION CRITERIA Points Ability of the Applicant 32 Coordination Planning (12 pts.) and Coordinated Use of Vehicles (6 pts.) 18 Transportation Service (Replacement, Expansion or Other Equipment) 20 Service Effectiveness 30 Total Points Available to Evaluate FTA Sec 5310 Project Applications 100 A total of five agencies located in Riverside County submitted grant applications requesting $1,144,350 in total cost for 20 projects that include nine replacement vehicles, nine expansion vehicles, and two requests for computer equipment. Following a preliminary scoring earlier this year, staff worked with each applicant agency to improve its scores for the statewide competitive process. The attachment summarizes the LRC's proposed regional priority list for FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11 showing the regional scores, which was forwarded to Caltrans prior to the May 6, 2011, project submission deadline. This list will become final pending Commission approval of the staff recommendation along with the Commission's Resolution No. 11-008. All applicants have been notified of the LRC project scores and were given the opportunity to appeal. No appeals have been received. Caltrans is due to release the statewide results in July 2011 and it is anticipated that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) will adopt the final list of funded projects in August 2011. Upon final grant awards by the CTC, the Agenda Item 8M • 141 " Commission will include the FTA funded projects in the FY 2011/12 RTIP. The Commission is also required to certify by resolution that the projects are derived from the locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan. The Commission published its coordinated plan in April 2008 for use as a resource for Section 5310, Section 5316 (Job Access Reverse Commute) and Section 5317 (New Freedom) program applicants. There is no impact to the Commission budget as Caltrans disburses the Section 5310 funds directly to the recipients. Attachments: 1) Resolution No. 1 1-008 2) Proposed Regional Priority List Agenda Item 8M 142 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 11-008 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Local Review Committee of Riverside County ("Committee") is charged with reviewing applications for Federal Transit Administration's Section 5310 funding for transportation services to meet the needs of seniors and persons with disabilities for whom public transportation services are otherwise unavailable, insufficient or inappropriate; and WHEREAS, the Committee has received requests for 20 projects from five agencies in Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Committee has scored and ranked each such request; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("Commission"), as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency ("RTPA"), adopted the scores and ranking of the applications as determined by the Committee; and WHEREAS, the Section 5310 process, as interpreted in Federal Transit Administration Circular 9070.1 F, Section 4, requires the RTPA to include in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program each request awarded Section 5310 funding by Caltrans and to certify by resolution that the evaluated projects are derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit -human services transportation plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission does hereby certify and resolve as follows: Section 1. The Commission has determined that the locally evaluated projects approved by the Committee for Section 5310 funding are derived from the Riverside County Public Transit - Human Services Transportation Coordinated Plan (adopted by the Commission on April 9, 2008). 143 Section 2. Each of the projects awarded Section 5310 funding by Ca!trans will be included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program adopted for Riverside County. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8' day of June, 2011. Gregory S. Pettis, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission • 144 " " SECTION 5310 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL PRIORITY LIST FFYs 2009/10 - 2010/11 ATTIRENT 2 Project N0. Agency Equipment' Type Section 1 (Max 32 pte) Section 2 (Max 19 pis) Section 3 (Max 20 pis) Section 4 (Max 30 pts) TOTAL (Max 100 pts) Federal Local Project Total 1 Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation, Inc. OE Computer Hardware 32 18 6 20 76 51,040 6135 $1,175 2 Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation, Inc. OE Computer Hardware 32 18 6 20 76 1,040 135 1,175 3 Care -A -Van Transit System Inc. SE Minivan 32 18 6 15 71 38,953 5,047 44,000 4 Care -A -Van Transit System Inc. SE Small Bus 32 18 6 15 71 57,545 7,456 65,000 5 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 20 73 66,398 8,603 75,000 6 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 20 73 66,398 8,603 75,000 7 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 20 73 66,398 8,603 75,000 8 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 20 73 66,398 8,603 75,000 9 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 20 73 66,398 8,603 75,000 SO Wildomar Senior Partners RE Large Bus Type III 32 18 6 20 76 66,398 8,603 75,000 11 Riverside - San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. SE Minivan 32 15 3 16 66 38,953 5,047 44,000 12 Riverside -San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. SE Minivan 32 15 3 16 66 38,953 5,047 44,000 13 Riverside - San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. SE Minivan 32 15 3 16 66 38,953 5,047 44,000 14 Riverside " San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. SE Minivan 32 15 3 16 66 38,953 5,047 44,000 15 Riverside - San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. SE Minivan 32 15 3 16 66 38,953 5,047 44,000 16 Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation, Inc. SE Medium Bus Type II 32 18 6 8 64 61,086 7,914 69,000 17 Angel View Crippled Children's Foundation, Inc. SE Medium Bus Type II 32 18 6 8 64 61,086 7,914 69,000 18 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 10 63 66,398 8,603 75,000 19 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 10 63 66,398 8,603 75,000 20 Desert Arc RE Large Bus Type III 31 17 5 5 58 66,398 8,603 75,000 'SE - Service Expansion; RE = Replacement Vehicle; OE = Other Equipment 5/11/11 Totals $1,013,093 $131,257 $1,144,350 145 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 201 1 /12 SB 821 Bicycle and Program Funding Recommendations Pedestrian Facilities BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve the FY 201 1 /12 SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program recommended funding of $1,094,143; and 2) Authorize staff to fund unfunded projects in rank order through the 70'h percentile using project savings and returned allocations. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In March 2011, staff notified the cities and the county that an estimated $1,077,235 would be available for programming in FY 201 1 /12 through the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program, which is included in the FY 201 1 /12 Commission budget. The SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities program is funded by an allocation of 2% of the total Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportioned to Riverside County by the state. DISCUSSION: The SB 821 proposals were due on April 21. The Commission received 30 project proposals, totaling $3,061,982 in SB 821 funding requests as attached. A diverse evaluation committee comprised of three members from the Commission's Citizens Advisory Committee, two members from the Technical Advisory Committee, and one staff member from San Bernardino Associated Governments reviewed the proposals on May 10. All of the applicants were invited to give a presentation on the proposals and to answer questions from the Agenda Item 8N 146 committee members. Based upon the Commission's adopted scoring criteria, which is attached, the proposals were evaluated and ranked by members of the evaluation committee. Eight projects totaling $1,094,143 are recommended for funding as indicated in the attachment. The difference between the new funding available and the amount recommended for funding this year exists for two reasons: 1) It is undesirable to partially fund projects due to the burden it places on the receiving agency; and 2) Using cost savings from claims that have been received in the past three months, the Commission is able to fully fund the eighth project on the list. Moving forward, additional project cost savings and returned allocations will be used to fund projects on the attached FY 201 1 /12 recommended funding list in order from highest ranking through the 70`h percentile of projects. Staff concurs with the evaluation committee's recommendation. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: $1,094,143 Source of Funds: LTF Budget Adjustment: No GL/Project Accounting No.: 601 62 86106 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \lite4,,,,Adaikur Date: 05/1 1 /1 1 Attachments: 1) SB 821 FY 201 1 /12 Recommended Funding 2) SB 821 Evaluation Criteria Agenda Item 8N • 147 " " " Rank ARencv 1 Moreno Valley 2 Hemet 3 Indio 4 Riverside 5 Riverside County 6 Riverside County 7 Wildomar 8 Riverside County RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FY 2011/12 RECOMMENDED FUNDING Proiect Description Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements Sidewalk and ADA Ramp Walkway 5ungold Street Sidewalk to School Project Wheelchair Ramp Construction Whittier Avenue Paseo Grande Bike/Ped Sidewalk Safety Improvement Project 66th Avenue ATTACHMENT 1 Total SB 821 Funds Recommended Cummulative Average Costs Requested Allocation Funds Allocated Score $150,000 80,625 189,600 400,000 325,000 146,000 382,900 361,000 $75,000 40,313 94,800 200,000 162,500 73,000 268,030 180,500 $75,000 40,313 94,800 200,000 162,500 73,000 268,030 180,500 $75,000 115,313 210,113 410,113 572,613 645,613 913,643 1,094,143 89.5 86.8 86.0 84.9 81.3 80.3 79.5 77.7 9 Banning 10 Riverside 11 Coachella 12 Desert Hot Springs 13 Riverside 14 Lake Elsinore 15 Lake Elsinore 16 Lake Elsinore 17 Lake Elsinore 18 Lake Elsinore 19 Riverside 20 Rancho Mirage 21 Cathedral City 22 Murrieta 23 Murrieta 24 Murrieta 25 Rancho Mirage 26 Beaumont 27 Palm Springs Roberge Avenue Sidewalk Project Rutland Ave. Sidewalk Construction Citywide Sidewalks Project Cactus Drive Sidewalk Project Garfield, Stotts, McKenzie St. Sidewalk Contt. Heald Avenue Sidewalk Project Lowell Street Sidewalk Project Sumner Avenue Sidewalk Project Matich Street/Sumner Avenue Sidewalk Project Campus Way Sidewalk Project Nebraska, Easy, Sunnyslope Ave. Sidewalk Class II Bike Lane and Striping on 4 Arterials Dream Homes Neighborhood Sidewalk Infill Nutmeg Street Sidewalk California Oaks Road Bike and Ped Pathway Citywide Bicycle Loop Installations Highway 111 Sidewalk Construction Project Noble Creek Class I Path and Ped Bridge Missing Link Sidewalks in Palm Springs 97,000 214,000 145,723 1,012,000 240,000 43,760 43,760 45,870 36,928 60,704 200,000 30,707 66,050 128,000 158,000 122,500 116,734 617,286 162,000 48,500 107,000 72,861 111,320 120,000 21,880 21,880 22,890 18,464 30,352 100,000 26,101 49,538 96,000 118,500 98,000 99,224 217,286 97,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77.4 77.2 77.0 76.1 73.9 73.6 73.3 73.0 73.0 73.0 72.6 70.8 69.4 69.4 67.8 65.7 64.7 63.5 62.6 148 Rank Agency 28 Beaumont 29 Palm Desert 30 Palm Desert Totals 1LE: 5/10/2011 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM FY 2011/12 RECOMMENDED FUNDING Proiect Description Cherry Avenue Sidewalk and Ped Bridge Gerald Ford Bike Lane Project Palm Valley Bike and Ped Path Improvements Total SB 821 Funds Costs Requested 301,685 150,843 206,250 165,000 218,750 175,000 Recommended Allocation 0 0 0 56,302,832 53,061,98Z 51,094,143 ATTACHMENT 1 Cummulative Funds Allocated 0 0 0 Average Score 53.8 51.1 29.8 • •n • " " ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTOR 1. USE The extent of potential use of a bicycle or pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project. 2. SAFETY Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems. 3. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile. 4. MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY Points are awarded to projects that link, are extensions of, or potentially connect to existing facilities. 5. MATCHING FUNDS This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding participation in the project - not just an application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. 6. POPULATION EQUITY The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit". (Calculated by RCTC) 7. PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT The purpose of this factor is to enhance the physical accessibility of existing pedestrian projects. Applicant agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for their project proposals which improve the physical access to existing facilities. RCTC: 04/12/1995 MAXIMUM POINTS 25 20 20 15 10 10 10 BONUS 150 " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive an update on state and federal legislation; 2) Adopt the following bill positions: a) AB 1229 (Feuer) - Support; b) SB 545 (Anderson) - Monitor; c) SB 862 (Lowenthal) - Monitor; d) SB 867 (Padilla) - Monitor; e) S. 826 (Feinstein) - Support; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director to modify or communicate changes, as necessary, on bill position on pending legislation that are consistent with the Commission's approved legislative platform. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State Update AB 1229 (Feuer) - Federal Highway Grant Anticipation Notes Recommended Position: Support AB 1229 would allow regional transportation agencies such as the Commission to utilize Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds to accelerate federal formula funds that are authorized by Congress. GARVEE is a borrowing mechanism that exists in state law today for projects that have achieved environmental clearance and design. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) can approve GARVEE financing to state -funded projects so these projects can be accelerated, in anticipation of federal funds due to the state in future years. This bill would expand the availability of GARVEE for up to 50% of federal funds under two formula programs that are due to regional transportation Agenda Item 80 151 agencies. Under the provisions of this bill, the Commission could request GARVEE bonds from the CTC for half of its anticipated funding from the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) programs — both of which are determined by a formula based on a variety of factors such as population, road miles, and air quality attainment. This would provide additional flexibility to the Commission to advance projects, but also maximize funding streams to deliver the Commission's ambitious program in a time of tight revenues. The bill would also increase the amount of GARVEE bonds that could be issued by the State Treasurer from 15% of total federal funds received by the state, up to 25%. SB 545 (Anderson) — Transportation Recommended Position: Monitor At the time of this report, SB 545 bill by a member of the Riverside County delegation stated the intent of the Legislature to, "enact legislation enabling the state to examine efficiency in administering solutions to California's transportation needs." Given the Commission's adopted platform, which expresses interest in increasing efficiencies to the process of delivering transportation projects, the ultimate disposition of this bill may be of interest to the Commission. A press conference held earlier in the year by Senator Joel Anderson indicated his interest in reforming Ca!trans. SB 862 (Lowenthal): Southern California Goods Movement Authority Recommended Position: Monitor SB 862 establishes a multi -county governing board for goods movement projects in the Southern California region. Borrowing language from Senator Alan Lowenthal's previous legislation to levy container fees at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, this bill provides the Commission and Mayor of Riverside with one appointee each to this authority. The Mayors of Anaheim, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino would also have appointees, as well as Orange County Transportation Authority, San Bernardino Associated Governments, Metro, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority. No funding is provided to the authority by this bill, nor is the specter of a container fee mentioned. However, the establishment of this body may become the precursor to future legislation to provide funding to goods movement projects. The Commission's primary concern with this bill is ensuring appropriate representation of Riverside County on any decision -making body for transportation funding, particularly goods movement, which has a dramatic impact on congestion and air quality in the Inland region. Agenda Item 80 • 152 " " The Commission supported in concept Senator Lowenthal's last goods movement bill, SB 974, which was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governing structure proposed in SB 974 is identical to that proposed in SB 862. In SB 974, a container fee was levied for specific projects, including high -priority grade separations in Riverside County in the Commission's Grade Separation Funding Strategy. The governing board was to allocate the container fee revenues to the specific projects listed in the bill. However, SB 862 simply stops at defining the representatives on the board without going into any further detail. Senator Lowenthal has indicated that SB 862 will become a two-year bill, which means that the bill will be put on hold until 2012 while outreach is conducted by Senator Lowenthal's office. The Commission will make every effort to be a stakeholder involved in the discussions surrounding SB 862 and Senator Lowenthal's efforts to address the goods movement challenges of Southern California. Due to the Commission's previous engagement with SB 974 and the Commission's legislative platform, which highlights goods movement as an economic priority and the need for adequate representation of Riverside County, staff encourages a monitor position on SB 862 while Senator Lowenthal conducts his outreach efforts prior to moving the bill forward next year. SB 867 (Padilla): Build California Bonds Recommended Position: Monitor SB 867 would emulate the Build America Bonds (BABs) program that was created and has since expired in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Build California Bonds (BCBs) wou�%d be a new lower cost financing mechanism for transportation agencies such as the Commission that have revenue streams (e.g. Measure A funds) to borrow against. The interest on the bonds would be reduced or eliminated by a subsidy from the state, just as the federal government did with BABs. The Commission took advantage of the BABs program, securing $1 12.37 million in BABs in last year's bond sale. This bill is sponsored by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The bill is a state policy component of Metro's much -publicized "30/10" initiative to accelerate its Measure R sales tax projects into the first 10 years. The Commission's Western Riverside County Highway 10-Year Delivery Plan originally adopted in 2006 is similar in concept. The idea of leveraging local self-help sales tax funds is endorsed by the Commission's adopted legislative platform. This bill would reduce the Commission's borrowing costs and provide another tool to accelerate projects in Riverside County. Agenda Item 80 153 However, the concern with this proposal from its first hearing at the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee was the approximately $250 million impact on the State's General Fund, which already faces a $25 billion deficit. In the face of major cuts to other areas of the state budget, Legislators are concerned with any proposal that further draws down the General Fund. Nonetheless, Metro points out the significant opportunities for revenue generation by way of increased employment created by transportation projects, which could potentially offset General Fund impacts. An additional concern is the state's current inability to sell Proposition 1 B bonds, which were approved by California voters in 2006. Creating additional bonding authority on top of an already -struggling bond program may create additional pressures and complications. The Senate Transportation and Housing Committee has pledged to hold a hearing in Los Angeles on the idea of BCBs. Staff recommends an interim position of monitor on this bill as the Legislature and the transportation industry studies this policy idea. Federal Update S. 826 (Feinstein) — The Infrastructure Facilitation and Habitat Conservation Act of 2011 Recommended Position: Support S. 826 would create a federal loan and loan guarantee program for public agencies to purchase real property for habitat conservation plans, such as. Western Riverside County's Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The proposed program would operate in the United States Treasury, with input from the U.S. Departments of Interior and Commerce. The Secretary of the Treasury is tasked with soliciting loan applications for habitat plans once every calendar year. The Interior Secretary then evaluates the loan applications based on: 1) Each habitat's plans eligibility status under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act; 2) The likelihood that the plan's habitat acquisition program will be completed; and 3) Whether the plan contemplates the mitigation of infrastructure projects. The Treasury Secretary then evaluates: 1) Financial soundness and sustainability of the habitat plan; 2) Ability to be repaid by the public entity requesting the loan; 3) Any other factor deemed appropriate by the Treasury Secretary; and 4) Recommendations from the Interior Secretary. Agenda Item 80 154 i S. 826 prescribes 120-day limit for review of an application, within which an approval or disapproval must be rendered by the Treasury Secretary. Senator Dianne Feinstein's legislation suits Riverside County well. The bill is tailored to habitat conservation plans that have a "complimentary plan for sustainable infrastructure development that provides mitigation of environmental impacts." This is true of the MSHCP. Preference for loans and loan guarantees is also given to, "biologically rich regions in which rapid growth and development threaten successful implementation of approved habitat conservation plans." Recent Census data shows that Riverside County grew 42% in the last decade; the MSHCP and the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) were devised in the early part of the last decade to anticipate this type of growth. Thus, S. 826 creates a financing tool that favors regions such as Riverside County. A dollar amount to be appropriated for this loan program is not specified in the bill; the program has a 10-year sunset clause. As this bill rewards and incentivizes proactive planning and habitat conservation as Riverside County began nearly a decade ago, staff recommends adopting a support position on Senator Feinstein's S. 826. Flexibility Needed During Frantic Sessions and Impending Deadlines During the Commission's Budget and Implementation Committee meeting, staff brought up the need to have a modicum of flexibility in modifying or communicating the agency's status on pending legislation during the end of a session. During the last few weeks of the legislative calendar or in proximity to other legislative deadlines, bill language can be gutted and amended or major changes can be made to legislation so quickly that it is impossible for staff to seek a formal Commission vote on a specific bill. In its approval of this item, the Budget and Implementation Committee recognized this concern and agreed that the Executive Director should have the latitude to communicate changes in position on specific legislation under these circumstances as long as the position would be consistent with the Commission's approved legislative platform. Staff would still seek input and guidance from the Chair and Commission officers and would inform the Commission of any such actions. Attachment: Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 80 155 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION  UPDATED Mav 10 Itlo u , ..��i o 0Ra��r(x�� 's. AB 105 Clarifies and re-establishes Gas Tax Swap provisions of 2010 and Mar. 24 Staff (Committee on provides a frameword for predictable tax revenue for the STIP and Chaptered by recommended Budget) State Transit Assistance. Secretary of State - position Chapter 6, Statutes of 2011. "Support" AB 296 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the May 3 Staff (Skinner) State Air Resources Board to adopt regulations to address global From committee: Do recommended warming caused by the emission of greenhouse gases by reducing the pass and re -refer to position emission of those gases to certain specified levels. Com. on APPR. "Oppose" (Ayes 6. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation Noes 3.) (May 2). that would regulate the reflectivity (albedo) of pavement to reduce the urban heat island effect. Re -referred to Com. on APPR. AB 427 Existing law, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, May 9 Staff (Perez) and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, authorizes the issuance of Read second time. recommended $19.925 billion of general obligation bonds for specified purposes. Ordered to third position Existing law requires the deposit of $1 billion of the bond proceeds in the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response reading. "Monitor" Account to be used, upon appropriation, for capital projects that provide increased protection against a security and safety threat, and for capital expenditures to increase the capacity of transit operators to develop disaster response transportation systems that can move people, goods, and emergency personnel and equipment in the aftermath of a disaster impairing that movement. Existing law requires the allocation of 25% of these funds for capital expenditures to regional public waterborne transit agencies authorized to operate a regional public water transit system, as specified, and requires the California Emergency Management Agency to administer a grant application and award program. AB 1134 Existing law, implementing the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, May 4 Staff (Bonilla) Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, requires specified In committee: Set, recommended entities receiving an allocation of the proceeds of bonds issued first hearing. position under the act to expend those funds within 3 fiscal years of the fiscal year in which the funds were allocated. Referred to APPR. Suspense file. "Support" This bill would specify that for an allocation of the funds made prior to June 30, 2011, the entity receiving the allocation would be required to expend them within 4 fiscal years of the fiscal year in which the funds were allocated. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. 156 °v 1 i ,11 a p4,�1 b t�LA '�i" AB 1308 (Miller) This bill, in any year in which the Budget Act has not been enacted by July 1, would provide that all moneys in the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax Fund, except as specified, are continuously appropriated and may be encumbered for certain purposes until the Budget Act is enacted. The bill would thereby make an appropriation. The bill would authorize the Controller to make estimates in order to implement these provisions. May 4 In committee: Set, first hearing, Referred to APPR. Suspense file. Staff recommended position "Support" AJR 4 (Miller) This measure would memorialize the President of the United States and the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation to award a federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan guarantee to enable the timely construction of the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project in the interest of economic competitiveness of California and the United States. Apr. 25 In Senate. To Com. on RLS. Staff recommended position "Support" SB 468 (Kehoe) Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full possession and control of the state highway system. Existing law imposes various requirements for the development and Implementation of transportation projects. This bill would impose additional requirements on the department with respect to proposed capacity -increasing state highway projects in the coastal zone. The bill would also make legislative findings and declarations. May 9 Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Staff recommended Position "Oppose" SB 693 (Dutton) Existing law sets forth requirements for the solicitation and evaluation of bids and the awarding of contracts by public entities for the erection, construction, alteration, repair, or improvement of any public structure, building, road, or other public improvement, Existing law also authorizes specified state agencies, cities, and counties to implement alternative procedures for the awarding of contracts on a design -build basis. Existing law authorizes the Department of Transportation and regional transportation agencies to enter into public -private partnerships for transportation projects under certain conditions. Existing law authorizes the department to delegate to any city or county any part of its powers and jurisdiction, except the power of approval, with respect to any portion of any state highway within the city or county, and to withdraw the delegation. This bill would specify that the delegation authority includes the authority to utilize private -public partnership agreements for transportation projects. The bill would also make findings and declarations related to local agency contracting. May 2 Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. Staff recommended position "Support in Concept" • 110fl�� ry. .���'" its: `i `wi R,lQ d, t1i1la l!{�r ',� �5""' t I. :: -. �}», " r, :.p w :i; yifrr t`pt (� �.t P„ GYbifn4�' : i ,' j ii fti.. 11 _ �1 ��l.i : ( :N »--,+- :�i. : 1. .-,u F ,':i I . I' � {,?,hie-"3' F' ='r."ri MITI 'i �:i- �T r a r:. �.:'.�L'".: ,: _ ,.� , ti ,�.�IJi�6 ti .., :: �IY�T'" :, ioiiVi'iM�,l-�`-aa'uah� ._,.._< ,i fit- VI :rr,p _ LIB ,9 �.r .i� D���?^ +, ���, ,•� jiv-t-.� NF'u `^, I au.'.`= � .�����r�,l� ,r'a ri:: { - :...:;-w:y,,C,, &!. -±"'' r�. (q 3..., jr�.�1' r raa,... �° �:.,.".w,tJl iT�' ,;e,� �� 6 :#;� F I1 .."a`r}�., 4%R. 1,0�1-�. H.R. 304 (Gallegly) To amend the limitation on liability for certain passenger rail accidents or incidents under section 28103 of title 49, United States Code, and for other purposes. Feb. 28 Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Staff recommended position "Oppose and Work with Author" H.R. 526 (Calvert) To direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish and collect a fee based on the fair market value of articles imported into the United States and articles exported from the United States in commerce and to use amounts collected from the fee to make grants to carry out certain transportation projects in the transportation trade corridors for which the fee is collected, and for other purposes. Mar. 1 Referred to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. Staff recommended position "Support" 158 " RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Federal Authorization Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Breaking Down Barriers Initiative FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATIVE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Enthusiastically endorse Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA's) Breaking Down Barriers report; 2) Direct staff to actively engage in advocacy efforts to legislate the recommendations from the report; and 3) Adopt a support position on any legislative proposal that implements the recommendations from the report. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The mantra of the next transportation authorization bill is likely to be "Doing more with less." If the Commission will not be seeing more money for transportation, the next most logical step is to help existing money go farther. Thus, reform of the bureaucratic process for approval of transportation projects is likely to be a main focus of the bill. The Commission has consistently voiced its desire to see project delivery become more efficient by reducing redundant processes and reviews, and increasing the speed of getting projects under construction. OCTA commissioned an extensive policy study that identifies specific, actionable recommendations to improve project delivery without sacrificing the integrity of environmental protections. This report has been dubbed, Breaking Down Barriers. Commission staff believes Breaking Down Barriers is by far the most comprehensive, detailed, intellectually honest, and realistic proposal to emerge on this topic. The report presents an opportunity for Southern California to rally around specific policy ideas that could be incorporated into the next authorization bill and would save months, if not years, and millions of dollars on critical transportation projects. Agenda Item 8P 159 Examples of meaningful reforms recommended by Breaking Down Barriers include: • Expand pre -award authority for grant recipients to take action on projects at -risk before all federal approvals are received; • Increase the flexibility of metropolitan transportation organizations (MPO's, e.g., Southern California Association of Governments) to amend the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as needed; • Make permanent the National Environmental Policy Act delegation pilot program; • Remove one step in the sequential approval process for an environmental impact statement; • Utilize technology and coordination between reviewing agencies to minimize the duplication of reporting that contains the same information; • If two-thirds of a project's funding comes from non-federal sources, recipients should be allowed to self -certify that these projects will comply with all federal requirements and proceed without further approvals from federal agencies; • Require federal agencies to set expectations upfront with project sponsors that establish rules of the road for review processes, establish procedures for elevating decision making to higher authorities when issues cannot be resolved in a timely manner, set deadlines, and establish a culture of partnership between federal agencies and grant recipients; • Expand ability of local and state agencies to supplement federal staff to expedite project delivery and increase collaboration; • Invest in information systems that allow local, state, and federal officials, and the public, to see the same real-time project information all in one place — to minimize separate reporting and inaccurate, outdated information; • Expand authority and internal federal recognition of non-traditional project delivery methods such as design -build (e.g., do not treat all projects like design -bid -build projects, allow for federal agencies to treat innovative projects differently); and • Impose budget penalties on federal agencies that do not keep projects on - time and on -budget. While these recommendations are aimed at procedural changes to the operation of the federal government to be more flexible and responsive to the needs of agencies such as the Commission, these reforms also serve as a culture shift for the federal bureaucracy. The report mentions several times that timeliness and cost -efficiency is not built into the federal modus operandi. Instead, risk aversion is rewarded, which leads to slow sequential processes that do not necessarily add value to projects. Breaking Down Barriers intends to remove these no -value processes and orient federal staff's objectives to be more in -line with the Agenda Item 8P • • 160 " objectives of states and local project sponsors: to deliver projects on -time and on -budget that provide mobility solutions to the traveling public while minimizing impacts to the environment. Thus far, no legislative proposals in Congress take the leap forward contained in Breaking Down Barriers. However, it is likely that some Members of Congress may consider drafting legislation to implement parts, or all, of the report. Staff recommends that the Commission direct staff to provide support to any bill that legislates the ideas contained in Breaking Down Barriers. Attachment: Breaking Down Barriers Report Agenda Item 8P 161 " CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery final prepared for Orange County Transportation Authority prepared Mj Cambridge Systematics, Inc. March 28, 2011 www.camsys.com 162 " 163 " final report Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery prepared for Orange County Transportation Authority prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 4800 Hampden Lane, Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20814 date March 28, 2011 164 " 165 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery Table of Contents Executive Summary ES-1 1.0 Introduction and Overview 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Scope and Methodology 1-1 1.3 Actions Options Overview 1-2 2.0 Findings and High -Potential Actions 2-1 2.1 Approach 1- Federal Focus on Outcomes 2-1 2.2 Approach 2 - Teaming Partners for Performance 2-10 2.3 Approach 3 - Internal Recipient Focus for Efficiency 2-18 A. Interviews for OCTA Federal Process Improvement Initiative A-1 B. Case Studies B-1 C. Employment Effects C-1 C.1 Objective C-1 C.2 Evaluation Framework C-1 C.3 Short -Term Impacts C-2 C.4 Long -Term Impacts C-4 C.5 Operational Impacts C-7 D. Synopsis of Key Options Requiring Federal Action D-1 Cambndge Systematics, Inc. 8404-004 166 " 167 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Dolmen.' List of Tables Table C.1 Construction Impact of a $300 Million Highway Project Construction Period - 2011-2013 C-3 Table C.2 Construction Impact of a $300 Million Highway Project Construction Period - 2020-2022 C-3 Table C.3 Economic Impact Arising from Efficiency Gains 2014-2016 C-6 Table C,4 Economic Impact Arising from Efficiency Gains 2023-2025 C-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ill 168 " " 169 " " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery List of Figures Figure C.1 Analytical Framework for Employment Impacts C_2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 170 " 171 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj Executive Summary High unemployment in these difficult economic times brings into sharp focus the potential benefits of improving the efficiency of accessing and using Federal highway and transit funding to accelerate the creation of jobs. Expediting the delivery of programs and projects that use Federal transportation funds can secure the goals of these investments sooner, including the direct employment benefits, and at lower cost to the public. This study presents a comprehensive list of legislative, regulatory, and policy options that could be undertaken to expedite Federal projects. These options are based on the understanding of current barriers to timely delivery as perceived by direct grantees and other grant recipients who use the funds. The study team conducted interviews of public officials at all levels, practitioners within and outside implementing agencies, and industry leaders who have extensive experience in both the public and private sectors. We discussed the full range of challenges that are routinely faced in providing transportation infrastructure and in operating well -performing transportation systems. These discussions took a critical look at the existing processes in order to identify sources of delay and solutions to the problems presented within the Federal system. These frank interviews were an opportunity to develop insights into the dynamics in play between grantors and grantees. They provided a constructive basis to develop options to improve the processes. Throughout this study, there is a recognition that many of the features of Federal programs that lengthen Federal project delivery time were, and continue to be, well-intentioned; that they were originally put in place and further evolved to provide assurances that public funds are well -spent. However, there is a strong consensus that the Federal government can modernize its approach to program and project delivery. Further, there is a strong consensus that there is a high price to be paid by the public due to delay implicit in many of these processes, and that this delay can be explicitly addressed without undermining the meritorious intent of the requirements. Participants in the study universally understood that the vast majority of the individuals who manage Federal grant programs carry out their responsibilities, as demanded by agency policy and law, in a highly professional manner. As a result, some of the findings may be difficult for these Federal officials to hear without being defensive. However, hearing these messages is an important first step to understanding the implications of the current systems. The options were developed in the spirit of integrating the ability to deliver cost-effective programs as a legitimate policy outcome into the programs' explicit functional policy goals. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-1 172 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery • Over the years since these Federal programs were first designed, the transportation industry has changed and many would say has matured both technically and from a public administration point of view. Going as far back as the 1950's, governance of Federal programs evolved to help a fledgling public works sector put into place an extensive set of high -quality transportation assets. Some of those governance assumptions and practices need to be reviewed in light of changes in both the public and private sectors. For example: • The capabilities of major recipients have grown and become more sophisticated - Although there is variation among State DOTs and other agencies, many have strong technical staff and resources. Those capacities might even be considered to rival the Federal agencies themselves. One of the roles of the Federal programs has been to advance public works competence, particularly in the design and execution of major civil works projects, and this can be seen as a success. The close scrutiny of routine actions by agencies could be considered to be no longer justified for the full range of grantees and might be streamlined by adjusting oversight processes to focus on - accountability and good project control rather than micromanagement. • A greater sensitivity to impacts of transportation decisions on communities has been instilled in local and State decision -making The laws and policies that have been put in place at Federal, State, and local levels have been extremely effective in focusing the attention of transportation officials and professionals. In particular, an ethic of integrity and environmental awareness has strengthened and developed since the earliest days of public works construction. There is still significant variation among grantees in these areas, but it can be argued that many grantees have internalized these values. Therefore, based on grantees and approaches with proven track records, prescriptive and time-consuming processes may be able to give way to new and more efficient processes and still assure that such values are integrated in program delivery. • Modern business practices recognize the value of time - The contribution of transportation to a healthy economy has encouraged the public sector to be particularly sensitive to the costs imposed by delay. Competitive pressures, internationally and domestically, have prompted adoption of cost-cutting and value-added practices unheard of only decades before and the time span for adoption is accelerating along with other features of modem life. • Modern construction practices are spreading into public works - Even among public works infrastructure, barriers to new technologies, new contracting relationships, and new funding partnerships are falling. Systems that are sequential in nature (traditional design, bid, build) are giving way to other models that still maintain fairness and transparency in public dealings. These changes are not undertaken "on faith" but with risks identified and protections built into new processes. ES-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 173 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery Changes to the Federal program that could speed up the implementation of projects have been debated over several Federal reauthorization cycles. This effort takes a somewhat different approach as it does not dissect the stages in program delivery to determine blame for delay that could be avoided if different laws or policies were in place. Past debates have often focused almost exclusively on the environmental permitting phases. This study goes beyond to consider all phases of transportation program delivery. No single finding or option presents a "silver bullet' to address unnecessary delay. However, in identifying options that could accelerate program and project delivery, the approach was to think creatively as to how the following program features could be retained and enhanced while improving program efficiency: • Oversight and accountability would not be undermined; • Costs of delay and relative risk would be brought into consideration; • Credibility of planning activities would be increased along with the quality of information for good decision -making; • Public participation would not be reduced; • Environmental and other analyses would not be substantively compromised. The report presents findings and options organized around three major themes. Approach 1: Federal focus on outcomes. • Concentrating Federal engagement in a manner that amounts to micromanaging projects, instead of fostering good program management by grantees, will misplace resources and be counterproductive overall. Redundancies in required processes could be eliminated in favor of outcome - based protections. Due diligence on the part of oversight agencies does not equate to protracted processes or lengthy documentation. Recognizing that many owners/operators of transportation systems contribute well -beyond the majority of system resources is an important first step in identifying new roles that could result in refocusing and leveraging the Federal contribution. • Twelve high potential actions are identified which could "modernize cumbersome processes to shift Federal actions toward improving transportation systems faster." Approach 2: Teaming partners for performance. • Federal oversight can be improved if it embraces effective partnership efforts to replace the highly risk -averse attitudes that often prevail. If a partnership relationship more akin to a "customer service" attitude were instilled, mutual benefits could be achieved from both a national and the local perspective. • A second set of 12 high -potential actions are identified which could result in "improvements to grant programs [which] will clarify the respective roles of Cambridge Systematics, Inc. ES-3 174 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj Federal, state, and local agencies for accountability and efficiency in achieving jointly developed milestones." Approach 3: Internal recipient focus for efficiency. • A valuable Federal role could be to coach and facilitate grantee progress by bringing "lessons learned" to peer exchanges, rather than issuing mandates. This may not require explicit statutory direction and instead might be accomplished through administrative or policy changes alone. Institutional changes and business practices may be as much of a "new frontier" as the technology challenges upon which public works programs have historically focused. Rewarding and spreading innovations that bring new efficiencies to industry practice would be well -received. • A final set of eight high -potential actions are identified that would support "grant recipient -based strategies [that] can reap program -wide time and cost savings on both routine and major projects and ultimately change industry practices." ES-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 175 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery 1.0 Introduction and Overview 1.1 BACKGROUND This study was undertaken for the Orange County Transportation Authority which is seeking to shorten the time it takes to apply Federal transportation funds to its priority projects in order to accelerate the economic and productivity benefits of those investments. This "Breaking Down Barriers Initiative" is in large part motivated to serve economic recovery in the form of jobs. The Authority sees the potential of partnering with like-minded agencies and the Federal government itself to tackle the job of addressing unnecessary project delivery delays. It has joined the chorus of grantees who want to squeeze out inefficiency from regulatory processes that systematically add time and drain resources through duplication and waste but in no way does it call for a reduction in accountability or environmental responsibility. This initiative seeks to understand sources of delay in surface transportation program delivery, identify approaches to combat that delay, and identify specific program features that if adopted would encourage expedited use of the Federal funding available. 1.2 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY Delays can occur at any stage of the transportation funding relationship with the Federal government. This delay pervades processes for program planning,. programming, project development and environmental review, project design and contracting, and project implementation. Therefore, this work has employed a comprehensive perspective: across surface transportation modes and across the full extent of program and project phases. In this effort, we have analyzed both transit and highway systems from an owner and user perspective and have looked at the entire range of activities from planning through operations. The findings are in large part based on a series of over 40 confidential interviews with industry leaders, including practitioners, state and local officials, former Federal officials, industry associations, and other interested parties. Our questions probed their experiences, both positive and negative, in securing approvals to use, and implement projects with, Federal funds. We sought to understand techniques that have been used to accelerate delivery and the broader lessons learned. The intent was not to catalogue or quantify delays but to gather the insights and perceptions that often drive industry and government practice and as such, are the expectations and reality that decision -makers face. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1-1 176 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenl • 1.3 ACTIONS OPTIONS OVERVIEW Our findings are grouped under three approaches that relate to what we have determined are the underlying sources of unnecessary delay. In the paper that follows, we discuss each approach and offer a series of high -potential actions that could address these barriers to expedited delivery. An immediate observation is that the most significant barriers are a function of institutions and adopted roles rather than law or policy, as exhibited by the acceleration that comes with emergency conditions. In this overview, we briefly provide those actions which are discussed in more depth in the following pages. Several items are identified as "best practice." In this paper, that phrase is used to identify a strategy that practitioners have adopted with some success to address the shortcomings under current law, regulation, or policies that contribute to delay. Such best practices are not universal but elements may have been integrated into Federal processes by some recipients. They are particularly instructive since the strategies that recipients have initiated could provide the experience to justify incorporation into improved Federal processes. Approach 1 - Federal Focus on Outcomes Modernize cumbersome processes to shift Federal actions toward improving transportation systems faster. 1. Extend pre -award spending authority in Title 49 to the Federal -aid Highway Program that exists under other modes. 2. Administratively clarify that Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Amendments can and should be expedited by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). 3. Extend through statute the pilot Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Section 6005 that delegates authority to conduct the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on behalf of the Federal government to any state who can demonstrate the capacity to do so. 4. Remove redundant steps in the current system of processing Environmental Impact Statements (EIS): Draft EIS, Final EIS, and then a Record of Decision (ROD) in sequence. Modernize communication techniques required for circulation. 5. Conduct research to determine whether a modular or scenario approach to conformity is feasible. 6. Expand the availability and use of programmatic agreements for additional categorical exclusions (CEs). 7. Streamline and coordinate reporting requirements to reduce redundant reporting to multiple entities. 1-2 Cambridge Systematics, inc. 177 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven] 8. Simplify Federal approval processes when Federal formula grants are one- third or less of project costs. 9. Require in statute that United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) initiate an effort to develop consistent expectations for environmental permitting and procurement requirements across all of the modes' formula grant programs. 10. Advance as full partners the teaming practices and "work-arounds" that have been opportunistically used by sponsors and agencies to make Federal processes work. (Best Practice) 11. Establish Administratively clear, up -front criteria for Federal eligibility and project approval to build an understanding of what information is necessary to advance a successful project. (Best Practice) 12. Develop multiagency stewardship agreements to set ground rules and manage expectations as individual projects move through the approval pipeline. (Best Practice) Approach 2 - Teaming Partners for Performance Improvements to Grant Programs will clarify the respective roles of Federal, state, and local agencies for accountability and efficiency in achieving jointly developed milestones. 1. Establish in Federal law a "Program Delivery Partnering Plan" option for Federal grant recipients and agencies. 2. Establish in Federal law a comparable optional "Project Delivery Partnering Plan" for Federal grant recipients and agencies. 3. Establish in Federal law or regulations a "prompt action" provision for Federal agencies. 4. Establish in law a partnering recognition and award program. 5. Utilize the new Executive Order 13563 to review rules to remove those that "stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive" 6. Establish in law and provide dedicated funding for a "Transportation Delivery Academy" and certification program. 7. Take fuller advantage of provisions which permit recipients to supplement staff at Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Division offices and/or Resource Agency field offices, to expedite high -priority projects for environmental reviews (Best Practice); extend that statutory authority to other reviews. 8. Expand the use of integrated analysis and permit approvals such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act Section 404 procedures. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 1_3 178 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery 9. Initiate early and ongoing teaming between Federal transportation agencies, Resource Agencies, and grant recipients/program sponsors to create high- performance teams with shared goals and outcome expectations on major projects. (Best Practice) 10. Require relevant Federal agencies to participate with recipients as standard protocol in establishing and managing to a time line as a serious component of their oversight and stewardship responsibilities across the board. (Best Practice) 11. Ensure that interagency working groups have understandings in place as to "elevation" to higher authorities to break impasses. (Best Practice) 12. Apply "practical design" philosophies, along with context -sensitive solutions - style techniques that bring the public to the table earlier. (Best Practice) Approach 3 - Internal Recipient Focus for Efficiency Grant recipient -based strategies can reap program -wide time and cost savings on both routine and major projects and ultimately change industry practices. 1_ Incorporate into Federal partnership agreements explicit commitments that will help projects remain on schedule and on budget. Back up those com- mitments with allocation of U.S. DOT'S research agenda and budget to deploy appropriate tools and techniques. 2. Seek a Federal research budget line -item that would sponsor a peer review and/or develop a model Statewide Transportation Improvement Program database that could serve to increase transparency and access to project information while minimizing special purpose reporting. 3. Establish a partnering grant initiative between Federal Agencies and grant recipients to help transportation agencies apply quality innovative contract management principles. 4. Foster investments by public agencies to support their internal operations such as information systems at program and/or system levels that speed decisions in the long run. 5. Invest in the internal capabilities to effectively use innovative contracting mechanisms such as Design/Build and construction management innovations that foster acceptance in the local industry. (Best Practice) 6. Revise current Federal guidance and regulation to encourage quality partner- ships between utilities and DOTS by making it feasible for DOTs to develop this business line and allowing DOTS to maintain control over project schedules. (Best Practice) 7. Employ integrated project -based teams, including participating agencies and local governments. (Best Practice) 8. Improve internal processes to leverage greater trust with external partners. (Best Practice) 1-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. • • 179 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven,/ 2.0 Findings and High -Potential Actions 2.1 APPROACH 1 - FEDERAL FOCUS ON OUTCOMES Modernize cumbersome processes to shift Federal actions toward improving transportation systems faster. Findings • To some degree, regardless of the funding source, officials and professionals tolerate and expect delays in putting transportation investments in place. As an industry, public works construction suffers from a culture where delays are considered an acceptable tradeoff for the size, complexity, cost, and life span of the products. Unnecessary delays during preconstruction and con- struction phases are further reinforced by Federal practices where time is tolerated as a cost of obtaining Federal funding. Comparable private con- struction enterprises and recent changes in Federal project management philosophy reflect recognition of the true cost of delay and place value on successful efforts to eliminate unnecessary time spent. • Grant recipients who incorporate strategies to minimize the sequential approaches that are vulnerable to delays that themselves can reverberate through projects often meet resistance - their efforts may not present them- selves as "clean" or "straightforward" in terms of the work load for Federal review. However, grant recipients that manage at the program level can take advantage of the opportunity to work a series of projects in parallel and are better prepared for contingencies. Experienced Federal managers are tolerant of such complexity and can be supportive of the "juggling act' that is neces- sary for such sizeable enterprises. • So-called "fiscal constraint" requirements can unnecessarily complicate pro- gram management. Well-intentioned Federal criteria were originally incor- porated in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (IS EA) to assure discipline and transparency in program development by requiring a demonstration that capital plans are consistent with the level of revenues available including funding needed to operate and maintain the system. Some flexibility has been provided in applying this test during times of Federal funding uncertainty. A strict interpretation that addresses non -Federal reve- nues in essence removes the "ease" in budgeting necessary to deal with eco- nomic forces. Full disclosure of a reasonable "margin of error" might be Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-1 180 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery • sufficient to meet the spirit of the law without undermining the credibility of the basic test. • As conducted in many regions, TIP approval and TIP amendment approval processes are inconsistent with dynamic program management. The cumbersome change process undermines transparency as it assumes that all issues relating to funding and scope are settled in advance. It appears that stream- lining the amendment process is more a relic of the operating pro- cedures of individual MPO Boards than standard Federal require- ments. Unfortunately, this is an area where there is variation in inter- pretation across the country that could benefit from clarification in the direction of permissive simplified procedures. (See Case Study in North Central Texas COG at right.) An "honest" TIP could essentially be considered "unstable," which itself can lead to further delays resulting from processing documents rather than advancing the program. The North Central Texas COG, the MPO for Dales:;; Texas has drafted specific guidance, ie cencurrenee with their DOT and policy .Board; ro'define and set. thresholds for amendments and modifications When a change oceura, the-IMPO can decide internally whether a change is an amendment or a modification. By not having to seek approval from DOT or their respective Policy Boards on every decision, the process moves faster. Planners may be motivated to "low -ball" total project costs in TIP estimates to avoid sticker shock on the part of legislature/funding agencies/public. (See Case Study in Maryland at right.) In Maryland, the Slate Highway AdministratiOp (SHA) and the MPOs coordinate and complete (when possible) the planning and NEPA phases before obtaining funds so that cost estimates and schedules are more accurate. • Unfortunately, a quality Federal environmental review is too often equated to a lengthy one. - Federal environmental reviews are generally superimposed upon state environmental review processes. Depending upon the rigor of the state statutes and processes, this redundancy can mean time-consuming dupli- cation. Combined Federal/state review process are particularly cumber- some in metropolitan areas. The number of entities who must be engaged in the approval process multiply. Too often, grant recipients must resort to managing NEPA documents rather than managing for outcomes. Grant recipients frequently com- plain that Federal agencies are looking for "bullet-proof" documents to minimize risk of lawsuits. In many cases, they are suspicious that assuming a defensive legal posture is meant to protect the Federal gov- ernment from risk or to stop projects altogether. Grant recipients often argue that they are willing to accept some legal risk in order to accom- plish transportation goals. 2-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 181 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven., - Sequential preparation and circulation of voluminous documents for comment can misapply resources and add time without adding true value to the decision -making process. - Some have argued that DEIS are slow to process due to Quality Control issues. Since the authors, sponsors, and reviewers believe that there are subsequent opportunities to revise and improve the documents, they do not place high value on getting it right the first time. - The length of the Federal review cycles are commonly attributed to lack of Federal staff, other Federal resources, or lack of motivation (e.g., for non -transportation agencies, such reviews are not their main mission) at the Federal level to process reviews quickly. The result is an inability for DOTs to manage the environmental and related review schedule. Regulatory determinations can lack credibility because project sponsors are aware of the lack of consistency in interpretation of NEPA regulations across regions of the country or between states. Regional Federal offices vary in how they interpret regulations, and Federal transportation agen- cies (FHWA, FTA, and FRA) do not have consistent processes; this becomes particularly visible and is an impediment for jointly funded projects Unfortunately, "good" cost control is too often equated with Federal staff micromanaging construction contracts when grant recipients are capable of overseeing these activities. � Federal staff are often more comfortable with the traditional Design/ Bid/Build contracting process because each sequential step can be easier in the short run to review and control. Unfortunately, with such an approach, there is great potential to misdirect attention and resources to change orders, particularly in the hand-off between design and construction, in an attempt to control costs. Design -Build and its variations instead focus on managing in terms of outcomes established by the facility owner. Incentives that explicitly deal with cost and schedules may appear to have more risk since there are ranges of acceptable price based on meeting criteria such as delivery time, but in the long run are more effective for the owner. High -Potential Actions 1. Extend pre -award spending authority in Title 49 to the Federal -aid Highway Program that exists under other modes. Eligible costs can be reimbursed once/should an approval take place. This would be conditional and on the clear articulation of the risk borne by grant recipients and disclosure of potential bias. a. This approach has a long history with transit projects. A Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) was a document issued by the FTA that allowed a � Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-3 182 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliveni • grantee to be reimbursed (with Federal funds) for activities that occurred prior to being awarded a grant. As this has become common practice, an individual letter is no longer required. b. Such pre -award spending would be much more direct and faster than the approach provided in Federal highway law, known as "advance con- struction" (AC). Under AC, all of the Federal approvals must already be in place as if the project was to use Federal funds. c. Section 115 of Title 23, Advance Construction, could be amended to allow recipients to avoid losing eligibility should they choose to take actions in advance of receipt of Federal funds. It would clarify that the recipient would assume any risks associated with actions prior to Federal approval. d. The comparable provision 49 USC 5307(g) and 5309(i) have been inter- preted to allow approval for formula funds at the program level based on an overall program of projects and eligibility understandings. 2. Administratively clarify that TIP Amendments can and should be expedited by MPOs. a. A Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a programming docu- ment that is updated at least every four years, containing projects that require a Federal action or that are regionally significant. Once approved by the MPO and Governor, the TIPS is incorporated into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The STIP requires joint approval from FHWA and FTA under 23 CFR Parts 450.324 and 450.326. Once the TIP is adopted, changes (administrative modifications or amendments as defined in 23 USC 450.104) are subject to approval based on procedures established by the MPO, state DOT, and U.S. DOT. State DOTS and the MPOs within each state have developed the internal pro- cedures for adopting such "modifications" and "amendments," so that projects can move forward in what is perceived as a timely fashion. b. Guidance memoranda could be issued by FHWA and FTA to clarify an understanding that Federal requirements do not restrict procedures that afford timely action on TIP amendments -that these procedures are a matter of local determination and are not only acceptable but encouraged. c. Methods at the MPO level for expediting such changes without jeopar- dizing public input could include: i. Redefining the level of change that triggers an amendment; ii. Reducing the length of the public comment period; iii. Grouping amendments; and iv. Holding more frequent `virtual" Policy Board meetings. 2--4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 183 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj 3. Extend through statute the SAFETEA-LU Section 6005 pilot that delegates authority to conduct NEPA on behalf of the Federal government to any state who can demonstrate the capacity to do so. a. SAFETEA-LU Section 6005, codi- fied as 23 United States Code (USC) 327(h), established a project delivery pilot program for five states, allowing them to apply to U.S. DOT to assume all U.S. DOT environmental responsibilities under NEPA and other environ- mental laws (excluding the Clean Air Act and transportation plan- ning requirements). California is the only State participating in the Pilot Program. The program is now scheduled to terminate on August 10, 2012. b. In the fifth annual report sub- mitted to Congress for the period through August 10, 2010, FHWA observed that "During the past year, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has functioned Program and has worked on continuous process and procedural improvements, in response to feedback from the FHWA audits and their self -assessments." c. The provisions contained in Section 6005 could be made permanent and the option extended to other states who qualify. A regulatory action would need to take place to define qualifications; there would be benefit to provide policy direction as to those qualifications in report language as well as to grandfather California. d. An alternative approach could be State certification for all or some of the Federal responsibility. A statutory change could allow Federal NEPA requirements to be met simultaneously with State "NEPA-like" statutes if it can be demonstrated that both State and Federal policy goals are equivalent. California is the first, and city stafiewgrar�� _ :s responsibility under the NEPA: DesignalwrC��k��To .. Program to assume the Federal"_Ftgttgay.. Administration's (FHWA) responsibilities; fotthe National Environmental Policy Act,(N'E(zpl," other Federal envuonmentahlaiNs: =Thfaykr allows California to accelerate transpoeinon��p acts without compromising;enwmnme talprotesl standards. Benefits ofpertcipahoninclude: " Eliminates one layer of document review;.. " Retains all project review authority within" the State; " Caltrans consults directly with FederelResaurce Agencies; " Technical Reviews/consultations occur at the local level, eliminating back and forth trans- mittals with FHWA; Builds relationships with resource agencies; and Builds DOT staff capabilities. successfully under the Pilot 4. Adopt the recommendation of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission that observed the redundancy and waste associated with the current system of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS): a full Draft EIS, followed by a Final EIS, and then a Record of Decision (ROD) are prepared and processed in sequence. One of these steps could be eliminated without reducing the credibility of the public comment and dis- position steps. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-5 184 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery In practice: • Draft EIS prepared and cleared by agencies for circulation and comment; Agency(s) review and comment, including review of public comments on DEIS itself; - Final EIS prepared and cleared by agencies for circulation and comment; - Agency(s) review and comment, including review of public comments on FEIS itself; and Agency prepares a ROD which addresses public and agency comments as well. Another public comment period is usually provided for. a. Addressing such inefficiencies should be placed on the agenda for the new Executive Order described in Approach 2 below for administrative action as many of the specific requirements are functions of interpreta- tion/regulation rather than statute. Cooperation with CEQ could drive regulatory change and/or policy direction could be addressed by Congress in statute and report language. The CEQ regulations could be adjusted (along with the agency level implementing regulations) without violating the spirit of NEPA. A combined process could eliminate dupli- cation and reopening the issues once specific matters were addressed unless facts have changed in the interim. b. Background - Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issues Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR §§1500-1508). To address the NEPA responsibilities established by CEQ, FHWA issued regulations (23 CFR §771), Environmental Impact and Related Procedures. The citations per- tinent to this proposal from the CEQ regulations include: i. Section 1502.9 draft, final, and supplemental statements. Requires both draft and final EISs, both of which "must fulfill and satisfy to the fullest extent possible the requirements established for final state- ments in section 102(2)(C) of the Act." ii. Section 1505.2 Record of decision (ROD). Requires that "At the time of its decision...each agency shall prepare a concise public record of decision" The regulation spells out that the ROD should essentially contain the decision, all alternatives and factors taken into account, explain how harm is avoided/minimized by way of the decision. In practice, this is not a concise record but a restatement. c. Modem communication media such as the Internet are sufficiently ubiquitous to be embraced as the major means to solicit input and comment. This would avoid the cost and delay associated with printing volumes of materials or holding multiple meetings that add little public access value. Implementing regulations from CEQ should acknowledge that consideration can be given to situations where access to electronic media is so limited as to significantly hinder public input from affected communities. Public participation plans should address those audiences on an exception basis. 2-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 185 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery d. Archaic communication requirements such as legal notification postings, formal public hearings, extensive mailings, etc., should be reviewed and updated in light of the acceptance and effectiveness of new media and other communication techniques. e. The publication of environmental decisions which trigger a 180-day statute of limitations for lawsuits challenging Federal agency approvals should be made standard practice on the part of the lead agency. Alternatively, the statute that created this period could be amended to start the 180-day period automatically upon signature of the ROD. 5. Direct and provide specific funding for USEPA and U.S. DOT to conduct research to determine whether a modular or scenario approach to conformity (rather than numerous incremental approaches) is feasible, provided that local impacts can be taken into consideration. In order to encourage programming that provides full information in a timely manner as to the combination of projects contained in a TIP/STIP, an approach to conformity calculations should be explored that is not exclusively linked to specific projects but instead to geared toward various scenarios. a. A Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a programming docu- ment that is updated at least every four years, containing projects that require a Federal action or that are regionally significant. Once the TIP is adopted, changes (administrative modifications or amendments as defined in 23 USC 450.104) are subject to approval which could include a redemonstration of conformity (if in maintenance or nonattainment) for the proposed change to be considered. b. Frequent analytical "runs" of the conformity model are time and resource intensive; the perception is strong among transportation practitioners that AQ advocates at the Federal level consider such delays to be acceptable and appear to be biased toward "no -build" approaches. In contrast, such iterative analyses are often considered by project sponsors to be unnecessary and unjustified, depending upon the scale of the change. Since timeliness and tradeoff understandings are more important to decision -makers at a larger scale particularly considering the limited precision provided by conformity models. Thus, the implications might be able to be determined at the scenario level and still be influential to the decision process. c. There is no off -the -shelf model available for such an approach at this time; thus new or refined models are a key component of the research. Incorporate into statute explicit policy direction to USEPA/U.S. DOT to support the revision of air quality regulations in a manner that is intended to avoid analytical burdens that preclude officials from understanding the implications of alternative combinations of transportation projects, policies, and operations. d. A "Test and Evaluation" approach could be initiated jointly by FHWA and FTA with EPA to test the feasibility of such modeling and adminis- trative procedures, and in the meantime, allow recipients to receive timely conformity approval. An interagency MOU could be establish as Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2_7 186 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery • an initiative to minimize unnecessary delay due to iterative conformity determinations while encouraging recipients to build the capacity to undertake necessary analyses. b. Expand the availability and use of programmatic agreements for additional CEs_ States currently develop agreements with FHWA that allow them to essentially determine classes of improvements that will be CEs, eliminating the need to review individual projects. Now that there has been a long period of experience with CEs, there are likely to be additional improvement types that could be defined in such a way as to be added to the list and used with confidence that due diligence is taking place. This is happening in a piecemeal fashion at the individual grantee level (mostly by FHWA Divisions for items that are noncontroversial in their locations). FHWA and FTA could initiate a solicitation from their grantees as to the areas that could benefit from additional programmatic CEs. a. Background - The technique of programmatic agreements is contained in CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1508.4 and represents categories of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the envi- ronment and, therefore, neither an environmental assessment (EA) nor an EIS is required. A specific list of CEs that normally do not require any NEPA documentation or FHWA approval is set forth in 23 CFR 771.117(c). Other projects, pursuant to 23 CFR 771.117(d), also may qual- ify as CEs if appropriately analyzed, documented, and approved by FHWA at the Division level. States currently develop agreements with FHWA that allow them to essentially determine classes of improvements that will be CEs, eliminating the need to review individual projects. 7. Streamline and coordinate reporting requirements to reduce redundant reporting to multiple entities. a. Particularly considering the relative size of the Federal transportation grant programs, Administrative actions should take into consideration the multiple uses of grant information. The challenges associated with new reporting requirements under ARRA should be considered "lessons learned" and duplication should be avoided. b. Evolving reporting requirements under the Recovery Act (U.S. DOT pro- gram reporting, OMB standardized reporting, supplemental reports required by the Congress) demonstrated extra resource requirements. As reported by the GAO, "The existing Federal surface transportation struc- ture has well -established programs and processes that were understood by state departments of transportation, local transit agencies, and others. The Recovery Act requirements and supplemental guidance have created many challenges for state highway and transit program officials who were only accustomed to meeting normal reporting requirements." 8_ Simplify Federal approval processes when Federal formula grants are less than one-third of the project costs. a. Titles 23 and 49 could be amended to provide authority for recipients of formula grants providing more than two-thirds of the project funding to 2-8 Cambridge Systematics, lnc. 187 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project DeGoeni certify that they will comply with all Federal statutory requirements and be permitted to proceed without further approvals. i_ These actions would be subject to recall, or a "shut -down" notice should the Federal agency make a finding that a particular Federal statutory requirement is not being met. ii. Require in statute that U.S. DOT, along with other regulatory agencies, initiate an effort to develop consistent expectations for environmental permitting and procurement requirements across all modal formula grant programs. iii. This would not only promote an "even playing field" such that grant recipients would be able to manage on a more intermodal basis, but would give such projects more flexibility to choose from the appro- priate funding source. iv. The degree of judgment in applying these processes to specific con- texts should not be reduced by the statute. b. Background - One of the advantages of formula grants is their effi- ciency - a characteristic that is critical to public works programs that have a long planning and implementation horizon. c. In contrast, discretionary programs create a "supplicant role" for potential grant recipients - large discretionary awards require specialized applica- tions with large, up -front costs and long waiting periods between deci- sions. Technical reviews are often blended with policy and political priorities. These may be justified for the largest of mega projects. Simpli- fied criteria should be used for smaller investments and particularly for those which are relatively routine and where the authority to select projects within program purposes rests with the recipient. This has been the longstanding approach under Title 23. Expectations for Title 49 pro- grams have been less so, strongly influenced by the New Starts processes. d. Reauthorization is the appropriate setting to reinforce longstanding expectations for conducting Federal approvals in both highway and tran- sit programs under the highway formula model. Authorizers can make clear that during implementation, the temptation to apply large discretio- nary application rules to more routine, formula grants where the Federal funds are only one of many sources are to be avoided. 9. Require in statute that U.S. DOT initiate an effort to develop consistent expectations for environmental permitting and procurement requirements across all modal formula grant programs. 10. Advance as full partners the teaming practices and "work-arounds" that have been opportunistically used by sponsors and agencies to make Federal processes work. These are discussed in more detail in Approach 2 but are repeated here as they could reflect a Federal commitment to outcomes. (Best Practice) 11. Establish Administratively clear, up -front criteria for Federal eligibility and project approval to build an understanding of what information is necessary Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-9 188 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery to advance a successful project. Formula funding with clear financial matching requirements help grant recipients be more realistic as they have "skin in the game." (Best Practice) 12. (Best Practice) 13. Development of multiagency stewardship agreements can help set ground rules and manage expectations as individual projects move through the approval pipeline. (Best Practice) 2.2 APPROACH 2 - TEAMING PARTNERS FOR PERFORMANCE Improvements to Grant Programs will clarify the respective roles of Federal, state, and local agencies for accountability and efficiency in achieving jointly developed milestones. Findings • Relationships between and among Federal agencies, grant recipients, and subgrantees are key to timely program delivery and implementation. Strong relationships built on trust are critical to supporting innovative processes that accelerate program and project delivery. • Effectiveness of Federal investment suffers when oversight is equated with risk aversion. In effect, control is valued over timeliness or budget. Delay is considered acceptable by the grant makers and regulators and even seen as evidence of diligence. This is out of step with today's business environment which recognizes the value of time for both public and private investments. Federal agencies are not accountable for delays or cost increases imposed by the approval processes. Federal agencies frequently engage in numerous and iterative critiques and are not assessed on their ability to establish and communicate criteria and directions "up front," particularly for formula grants. Combining reviews rather than conducting them sequentially have been shown to have benefits for all involved (for example: NEPA/404). In contrast, emergency situations demonstrate that repair and replace- ment of facilities require minimal processing and that Federal skills and experience can add significant value. When public consensus and pres- sure are present, barriers to expedited processing essentially disappear because Federal agencies' priorities are in sync with those of their Grant recipients. It can be argued that should be the case even in "slow" emer- gencies such as predictably deteriorating facilities. 2-10 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. • • 189 " " Grant recipients can improve timeli- ness when they work to find common goals with Federal agencies. When grant recipients work to understand and address agency policies, priori- ties, and other concerns (for example, by initiating progressive management and accounting practices), their efforts are usually well received. (See Case Study in Utah at right.) Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery In Utah, the transit agency, UTA strives.,I ha complete buy -in on all project. Alf stakeher_,,, are involved from the beginning ore project add they identify mutual interests. UTA also meets wIW the FTA regional office once a moan) to irnderstai d what is working and what is not On any given'= project. If (here is a major issue, UTA will ask for a longer meeting with FTA so they can work every- thing out together. This way, paperwork is not transferred back and forth multiple times, saving administrative time. " Timely regulatory reviews and actions are valuable even if the result is "no" Accelerating program and project delivery is particularly critical when resources are stretched thin and immediate employment benefits are avail- able. The worst situation for potential grant recipients is to be "strung along," i.e., they must expend scarce resources to make progress under a process that leaves projects and programs in limbo or they cannot move to consider alternatives because it would undermine their negotiation position. High -Potential Actions 1. Establish in Federal law a new "Program Delivery Partnering Plan" option that would clarify expectations for Federal grant recipients and agencies. At the option of the potential grant recipients, at the time that a class of projects is being considered for inclusion in the (S)TIP, the grant recipients can submit a Program Delivery Partnering Plan and/or convene an interagency meering to develop such a plan, including a time line and process agreement. a. This provision could be either in an amendment to 23 USC 106 or con- tained in report Ianguage to accompany reauthorization. b. Federal formula funds would be eligible to pay the expenses of such plan- ning, including conduct of the meetings and procuring high -quality faci- litation. Features of the Project Delivery Partnering Plan (below) could be adopted as appropriate. c. Model for Consideration - The authority to conduct program oversight is contained in 23 USC 106 and has been interpreted as requiring FHWA and the State to enter into an agreement documenting the extent to which the State assumes the responsibilities of FHWA under Title 23. The Stewardship/Oversight Agreement formalizes these delegated responsi- bilities and agreements to address how the Federal -aid highway program will be administered in the State. FHWA Divisions currently develop tailored Stewardship Plans, individual to each state, which document such expectations and working relationships. d. The Program Delivery Partnering PIan envisioned here would include a broader set of partners, including Federal and state resource agencies and others as locally applicable. It could be useful in working across modes Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2 ll 190 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj as well since at the request of the grant recipients, modal agencies would be compelled to participate. 2. Establish in Federal law a comparable optional "Project Delivery Partnering Plan" requirement for Federal grant recipients and agencies. At the option of the potential grant recipients, at the time that a project is being considered for inclusion in the (S)TIP, the grant recipients can submit a Project Delivery Partnering Plan and/or convene an interagency meeting to develop such a plan, including a time line and process agreement. a. This plan would clarify expectations for Federal grant recipients and agencies. This could be either in an amendment to 23 USC 106 or con- tained in report language to accompany reauthorization. b. Policy direction in accompanying report language to agencies would be explicit in support of the constructive use of elevation to resolve problems expeditiously. c. Policy direction to agencies also would explicitly allow for a "default' value in the arranged time lines; i.e., failure to take a Federal approval action according to schedule means Federal concurrence with advance- ment to the next stage unless Federal agencies identify specific concerns and specific remedies in accordance with the time line. d. Federal formula funds would be eligible to pay the expenses of such planning, including conduct of the meetings and procuring high -quality facilitation. e. Extend the option to transit and other modes of using Federal formula funds to supplement resources for project reviews (environmental and otherwise), with clear interagency MOUs. f. Model for Consideration - Requirements currently in law for Financial Plans for mega highway projects. 23 USC 106(h) currently requires reci- pients of Federal financial assistance to develop an annual financial plan for Major Projects of $500 million or more and projects with a total cost of between $100 million to $500 million. The focus of the existing require- ments are financial planning whereas the Project Delivery Partnering concept could extend to the full development and execution cycles for proj- ects and include the full set of Federal agencies in the understandings. 3. Establish in law a "prompt action" provision with Federal budget conse- quences. Under such a provision, Federal agencies would be required to act on project approvals within a set deadline. a. Baselines would need to be established through a rulemaking process. b. Failure to deliver could result in delay costs charged to the agency. For example, the penalty for delay in approving a document could be set as a fixed percentage of the cost to prepare the document. c. Alternatively, failure to deliver could be considered approval and accep- tance to move to next implementation step. 2-12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 191 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliaenj d. Such "prompt payment' requirements could be waived if a "Program Delivery Partnering Plan" were in place. This would motivate agencies to participate in such interagency agreements. e. Model for Consideration - "Prompt payment" act under which the Federal government would pay interest should it fail to pay legitimate invoices on a timely basis. "Prompt payment' provisions exist through- out Federal programs which apply to both recipients (in payment of their contractors and subcontractors) and the Federal government. For exam- ple, under the Federal -aid Highway Program, the Federal government must pay interest should it fail to pay Iegitimate invoices on a timely basis. 4. Establish in law a partnering Recognition and Award Program. Demonstrate the value of partnering and problem avoidance by setting up an Award pro- gram within the Federal establishment that highlights and rewards collabor- ative practices with exceptional outcomes, including strong grant recipients partnering relationships and Federal agency value added, resulting in accele- rated program delivery through problem avoidance. a. The Federal Government has the authority under Title 5 USC to conduct such programs to recognize and motivate both Federal employees and grant recipients/the public. The degree to which such programs would be established in statute would be a function of the high visibility that sponsors would want to create. b. Goal would be not only to reward outstanding performers but to help replicate key features of such constructive experiences. A panel of peers would determine the selections based on applications. Award money could be made directly to individuals on staff of either agencies and/or recipients. c. Partnering across modal lines and jurisdictions would be encouraged with specific categories of best practices established to showcase these aspects. d. In our interviews, we frequently heard that constructive working rela- tionships particularly with customer -focused Federal field offices recog- nize the "win -win" relationship at both the agency and personal levels - that Grant recipients success is Federal success. It would be stifling to dictate "how" such relationships would develop but the features of suc- cessful models exist; holding regular meetings to discuss projects, issues, and advance trust and partnerships were frequently cited. e. Partnering across modal lines and jurisdictions would be encouraged with specific categories of best practices established to showcase these aspects. f. Model for Consideration - FHWA has numerous award and recognition programs that reward collaborative performance - this would be tied specifically to acceleration as well as quality results. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-13 192 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivmj • 5. UtiIize the new Executive Order that requires Federal agencies to review their rules to remove those that "stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive" Work with the Obama Administration to apply the Regulatory Review embodied in EO 13563, issued January 18, 2011, to those regulations and agency practices that impact timely surface transportation grant delivery. a. Issuance of an EO is the prerogative of the White House and then has the force of law with respect to Executive Branch agencies. b. Model for consideration with lessons learned: i. EO 13274 Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews (originally issued by President Bush in September 2002) had the purpose to "emphasize the importance of expedited transportation project delivery while being good stewards of the environment." ii. Under the Bush era EO, a continuing set of activities was established which brought the various executive branch departments together as a Task Force to address the issues that exist due to coordination and communication failures. The Task Force has continued at a staff level, including environmental toolkit development and capacity training by FHWA and FTA. iii. What appears to be missing is continuation of the eight agency Task Force charged with developing policy recommendations regarding aspects of the environmental review process or the designation of new priority projects and serving as a means to elevate issues to the highest decision points. c. Alternatively, the interagency Task Force established under the EO could be established by Congress, making these Task Forces and activities permanent. 6. Establish in law and provide dedicated funding, a "Transportation Program Delivery Academy." The purpose would be to improve the training and understanding among senior officials at Federal/state/IocaI levels, not just within the transportation agencies, but in the other regulatory agencies as well. a. "Slots" in the program would be reserved for non -transportation regula- tors and this policy direction would be provided for in report language accompanying the statute. Support from the Administration at the high- est levels (such as the Council on Environmental Quality) would be bene- ficial. "Swaps" of personnel under interagency memoranda would limit the out of pocket training costs for such a program. b. Certification could be established as demonstration of qualification for senior -level rating in the Federal Civil Service to motivate participation. 2-14 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 193 " Accelerating federal Program and Project Delivery c. The scope would not be limited to mega projects but to program manage- ment at the executive level. Participation would be open to private sector professionals through tuition. d. Through rotational assignments and certification programs, greater expo- sure and greater competency would be developed among program administrators. Coursework would sensitize program managers to development and implementation issues and provide opportunity to experience integrated planning and other techniques. e. Model for Consideration - The National Highway Institute (NHI), a staff office in FHWA Headquarters was established by Congress in 1970 as the training arm of FHWA, and develops technical training for FHWA, state, and local employees associated with Federal -aid highway work. This training is conducted primarily through a program of short courses both in the classroom and on-line. Tuition and direct educational expenses (excluding salaries) are an eligible use of Federal -aid formula funds. Par- ticipation in these courses is voluntary. f. ModeI for Consideration - Several topical "centers for excellence" were established as part of SAFE FEA-LU's research programs. Under this program, AASHTO conducts its Center for Environmental Excellence in cooperation with FHWA to promote environmental stewardship, encour- age innovative ways to streamline the transportation delivery process, and serve as a resource for transportation professionals. Such a center could be directed to establish and execute a certification program. 7. Take fuller advantage of provisions which permit recipients to supplement staff at FHWA Division offices and/or Resource Agency field offices, to expedite high -priority projects for environmental review; extend that statu- tory authority to other reviews. a. When grant recipients have cho- sen to use Federal -aid formula funds to supplement staff at FHWA Division offices or other regulatory agency field offices, a clear benefit has been shown when an understanding (with written Memoranda of Understanding) between the agencies is developed as to the priorities to be addressed and the projects that those staff will be working on. The expectations are clearly to address workload issues rather than to introduce a bias in the analysis or favorable treatment in the Federal decisions. (Best Practice) (See Case Study in Missouri at right.) b. 23 USC 139(j) codifies the eligibility established in SAFETEA-LU, permit- ting Federal -aid formula funds or Title 49 funds to provide additional resources to Federal agencies (including U.S. DOT), state agencies, and tribes participating in the environmental review process. This could be amended to extend beyond environmental work to other aspects and modes of program and project delivery. Many DOTS fund positions in resource agencies .. and retain consultants for posihons ' .M ether . agencies to expedite the review and, approval'; process. In Missouri, the DOT shares office space' with the Department of Natural Resources, which - facilitates conversation and creates a good working relationship. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-15 194 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj • 8. Expand the use of integrated analysis and permit approvals such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act Section 404 procedures. a. As explained on FHWA's website: "In 1992, the U.S. DOT, EPA, and the Department of the Army issued a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entitled "Implementation of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (1SILA)." .... This MOA established initiatives to improve the regulation and reduce inefficiencies under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. ... Merging the FHWA NEPA and Section 404 permit processes expedites project decision -making and leads to one overall public interest decision, at one point in time, for a Federal -aid project. Both the NEPA and Section 404 processes involve the evaluation of alter- natives, the assessment of impacts to resources, and the balancing of resource impacts and project need." This is an opportunity for sponsors to adopt best practice. In practice, regional efforts to adopt and tailor the integration more locally are key to making the process successful and are highly dependent upon regional leadership and relationships. b. Transportation law does not require the NEPA/404 process. The decision to use a formalized merger process or other formal streamIining mechan- ism is in practice essentially the option of the sponsor such as the state DOT. c. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR §§1500-1508). The citations pertinent to this proposal from the CEQ regulations include: i. Section 1506.4 combining documents. "Any environmental document in compliance with NEPA may be combined with any other agency document to reduce duplication and paperwork." ii. Section 1502.25 "To the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare [environmental impact analyses] concurrently with and integrated with... related surveys and studies required by... other environmen- tal review laws and executive orders." 9. Initiate early and ongoing teaming between Federal transportation agen- cies, Resource Agencies, and Grant recipients/program sponsors to create high-performance teams with shared goals and outcome expectations on major projects. joint planning and awareness begins well in advance of The North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) begarri�h Impact Bridge Replacement PregraniA:`Plar( design, and replace bridges within one. year, front start to finish. To accomplish this, NCDOT created* an Interagency leadership Team, bringing resource agencies together to jointly develop a streamlined environmental process for rapid delivery. requests for "official action." Early identification of potential issues and strategizing for results creates trust, credibility, opportunity for innovation, and mutual respect. Sponsoring agencies have the benefit of more complete information so that they can make decisions that avoid wasting time pursing unachievable program or project goals. (Best Practice) (See Case Study in North Carolina at right.) 2-16 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 195 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven' 10. Require relevant Federal agencies to participate with recipients and project sponsors as standard protocol in establishing and managing to a time line with a series of clear milestones. Federal agencies adopt this step as a serious component of their oversight and stewardship responsibilities. Lessons learned and relationships developed around large and complex projects are then applied across the board. (Best Practice) 11. Ensure that interagency working groups have formal agreements or informal understandings in place as to when decisions can be "elevated" to higher authorities to break impasses, and a clear expectation that such elevation options will be used by project sponsors only if the working group cannot resolve the issues in a timely manner. It has been observed that agency staff prefer to handle issues at as low a level as possible, closest to where the direct responsibility -lies, and thus the pressure to avoid elevation can be construc- tive. Professional facilitators are often employed to promote progress on highly visible projects. (Best Practice) 12. Apply "practical design" philosophies, along with context -sensitive solutions - style techniques. a. Bringing the public to the table early in the transportation planning process, through context -sensitive solutions (CSS), ensures that there are no surprises or public outcry at later stages in the project develop- ment process. (Best Practice) (See Case Study in Michigan at right.) b. Whether it is under the umbrella of "Practical Design," "Smart Transportation" as in Pennsylvania, or CSS, a growing number of States have embraced flexibility in design standards as a means to bring environmental and community - based concerns into the forefront. c. The AASHTO guidelines at the design level, for example, have consistently provided flexibility in design however, culturally, engi- neering judgment has almost always favored a conservative approach that avoids deviating from the highest standards whether from fear of tort liability or the desire to provide the public with long-lasting quality products or both. The Grand Vision in Michigan Gs ono pf;inn comprehensive citizen -led mitiatiVe5` m ) to address growth and transportation rssuesiN��` six -county Michigan region.` The grerrrAgmated over a disagreement with a proposed highway `atrd r bridge project. The lack of'indial cellaberatiorr caused the funding to move from the transportation project to this community planning effort. The Grand Vision now provides an open and trans- parent process so consensus can be reached and projects can advance. A number of State Departments of Transpodatiorr 7 including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massact*ett5,_ Vermont, Missouri, Washington, and Oregon:are _= using a new, practical design approach to accele- rate transportation projects:; Known specilieally, es Smart Transportation inPennsylvania, the program advances projects by. " Identifying opportunities for cost savings by. making sure that existing infrastructure invest- ments are taken care of first; " Ensuring that all project needs are clearly " understood and defined; " Approaching design standards, with more flexibility; " Prioritizing high-valuellow-cost projects; " Creating opportunities for sharing resources (across jurisdictions and across agencies); and " Utilizing Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) principles to involve the community early in the planning process. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-17 196 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven] d. "Practical design standards" have been defined as a collaborative, inter- disciplinary approach that involves interested entitles to develop a facil- ity that fits the physical setting, balances costs with scope, maintains safety and mobility, and preserves the scenic, aesthetic, historic and envi- ronmental resources. e. Another benefit is that this approach can decrease program and project delivery time and reduce project costs by scaling the project to the situation. 2.3 APPROACH 3 - INTERNAL RECIPIENT FOCUS FOR EFFICIENCY Grant recipients -based strategies can reap program -wide time and cost savings on both routine and major projects. Findings • Across the transportation sector, project delays are often considered "stan- dard practice" and "beyond the control" of the sponsoring agencies. There are many reasons for this perception. This research sought to look compre- hensively at sources of delay associated with Federally funded transportation projects and to identify possible remedies. It should be noted that beyond the delays that are directly attributable to Federal laws and regulations, the perception can discourage private sector acceleration efforts when Federal funds are used. The remedies that are described here reflect an assessment that some delays are at least in part the result of industry practice rather than any specific Federal requirement. Without a specific statutory or regulatory impediment, there is greater potential for expediting Federally funded projects by smoothing the way for the adoption of techniques and manage- ment practices that move beyond traditionally low expectations by those working on transportation projects to higher ones befitting the public's business. • When Federal project delays are discussed, Grant recipients often attribute such delays to "Iack of funding." In reality, we have come to understand that sometimes sponsors begin work on development of projects in part to satisfy various constituencies, e.g., a region within a state. In such cases, project development may later be delayed intentionally, due to a lack of construction funds and thus cannot be fairly attributed to Federal requirements. A related observation is that it is the lack of predictability of future funding as much as the funding level that impacts how "project pipelines" are managed by both grant recipients and grant making agencies alike. Strategically managing acquisition and deployment of staff and other resources is significantly improved for projects with relatively long development phases when future program levels are predictable, even if only within a range of certainty. 2-18 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 197 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj - Operational policy varies among potential grant recipients as to whether there is sufficient value in developing and keeping current a set of `on - deck" and closer to "ready -to -go" projects to justify the investment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) gave us a window into the implications of these policies. Having a group of "shovel ready" projects paid off for grant recipients who, as a result of ARRA's short advance time and tight deadlines, were in a position to be opportunistic. Others grant recipients have taken a more conservative approach and conserve overhead costs by delineating and designing only their top priori- ties. They argue that a "shelf' of `old" projects does not always conform to evolving priorities and builds unreasonable expectations among constituents. Grant recipients acknowledge that their experience with delay in using Federal funds can impact their program strategies. The degree to which grant recipients are dependent on Federal funds for their capital program has a great influence on these decisions as well. (See Case Study in San Diego at right.) � For those grant recipients whose own regulations and requirements closely mirror Federal requirements, it is more efficient to treat all projects as if they will be Federalized, optimizing their ability to move across Federal program funding "silos." This offers the advantage of being able to shift and substitute projects more easily should the Federal funding be delayed. For those who have significant capital funding sources beyond the Federal programs and desire to minimize delay from significantly slower Federal approval processes, they apply the Federal funding for less controversial, less environmentally sensitive, and simpler projects even if those projects may not be their highest priority. In such situa- tions, concentrating non -Federal funding on more complex projects where local control of time and budgets is more easily maintained has great value. " The San Diego Association of , Governments (SANDAG), the MPO for the San Diego region' receives a half -cent local sales tax and partners with Calimns, MTS, and NCTD to advance high - priority transportation projects. " Looking inward, some grant recipients are changing their operating structure to better focus their limited resources. As with most organizations, particu- larly those with the size and impact of transportation agencies, leadership plays a critical role in preparing for and carrying out functional responsibili- ties. As DOTs have matured and missions have evolved, strong leadership at the top has been recognized as key to success. When communication of priorities is strong and work teams are empowered and accountable, program/project delivery benefits can be measured in both time and cost. A number of the interviewed DOTS argued that leadership is the key element to accelerating delivery, specifically including: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2 79 198 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery • - Setting priorities, following through with internal resources and conse- quences, and personally intervening with external partners to keep these priorities on schedule and within budget. Establishing internal structures that better balance the tendency of functional specialty units to inhibit a comprehensive project perspec- tive. Top leadership is seen as critical to effectively establishing and using project management teams that are accountable for results, open to innovation, and create opportunities for better communication across functions along the entire `life" of a project. (See case study for Kansas at right.) • Some grant recipients have recognized that they can increase efficiency (and in the long run reduce costs, increase predictability, and accelerate individual projects) if they "bundle" projects with similar characteristics. In a sense, they can harness "economies of scale" if they can justify obtaining and orga- nizing resources based on the common elements of a class of projects. Prime candidates for this treatment include asset preservation for a class of facilities (such as bridges or pavement), safety upgrades in a transportation corridor or corridors, or operations (such as installation and maintenance of traffic signals). This would still allow for projects to be customized for site and community conditions but the investment in addressing common features for priority classes of investments can be substantial. The key is finding the proper balance between standardization and customization to outweigh the costs associated with preparation as compared to those associated with "one - of -a -kind" efforts. Examples include: The Kansas DOT (KDOT), as well as seiieraf aher agencies have adopted a `team appr ia, 0, major highway projects by organizing pro tear z`'" with members representing different _ notional areas of the Department. The focus of the teinf:i s< to develop a higher -quality. project, on `time, within budget through better coordination and com- munication during the project development process. Alternatively, the Utah Transit Agency establishes one project manager for the life of a project to ensure that a project retains continuity as it moves between different departments. "Banking" various mitigation investments such as wetlands and other environmental features. (See case study San Diego at right.) "Templates" have been adopted to help standardize the project devel- opment process in a production - line fashion. The process of build- ing a template not only has the advantage of developing an agreed - upon process that Federal agencies might accept on a streamlined basis but also helps develop tech- nical proficiency by recipient staff. (See case study Maryland at right.) The San Diego Association of Governments (SA IDA% the MPO for the San Diego region sets aside local - funding for an Environmental Mitigation Program_ When the environmental impacts of a transportation project need to be mitigated, the funds are already in place to do so, accelerating the project. The Maryland State Highway Administration (ShfA}J cultivates their employees so they are piofcier* in? their subject areas. This technique can accelerate projects because it offers one pant of contact for a key area, ensures that tasks are executed correctly the first time, and bum bust among other agencies by allowing them to work with the same SHA personnel. 2-20 Cambridge Systematics, lnc. 199 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj - Safety audits have helped identify corridor -wide improvements that can yield benefits across similar facilities in a state or other jurisdiction. " Among the most difficult project phases on which to control budget and schedule for transportation agencies involves right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation, and railroad intersections. These activities can become turf wars between transportation interests and relatively independent third parties - "all" that can be accomplished from the point of view of some transportation agencies is to meet Federal uniform relocation and other "non -transportation" requirements as fast and as cheaply as possible. The challenges multiply if, because of location uncertainties, they are not addressed until late in the design phase or early in the construction phase. The lessons Iearned about interagency collaboration can be applied here as well. - Finding common ground in advance of individual project decisions can help grant recipients regularly work with these third parties. For exam- ple, utility companies have their own resource constraints and infra- structure management pressures. If transportation agencies and utilities can stake out a mutuality of interests, they can help each other find syn- ergy or at least avoid direct conflict. - Particularly for subsurface utilities in congested and older urban areas, the exact location of these utilities may not be known. Developing a long- term relationship with these third parties, including developing mapping resources for shared use in advance of any particular project siting, can provide very valuable information in a timely manner. - Integrated internal teams which bring right-of-way specialists into the project development process as early as possible can help avoid delays due to insufficient time gaining access to residential and commercial properties where there are conflicts with the transportation right-of-way. High -Potential Actions 1. Incorporate into Federal partnership agreements explicit commitments by their headquarters/resource center/regions/field offices in support of remaining on schedule and on budget. As an initiative of the U.S. DOT, these commitments would not be empty promises but backed up with allocation of U.S. DOT'S staff, research agenda and budget to deploy appropriate tools and techniques. Alternatively, Congressional support could be provided by appropriation or reauthorization line item or report language. a. Based on that mission, U.S. DOT'S research agenda and budget would reflect a plan to concentrate Federal research and staff resources on sup- port for technical assistance, cross -training, and tools to foster improved business practices. b. This could be coordinated with the NCHRP and TCRP research agendas as well. As a complementary or alternative approach, a pooled fund Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-21 200 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven,/ • study or administrative initiative could increase exposure to tools or practices by: i. Sharing templates and other innovative techniques, including pub- lishing successful experiences; and ii. Sharing latest techniques in cost estimating and control of scope, including assisting agencies in determining the earliest possible time during program and project development to match cost with scope. 2. An initiative of the U.S. DOT could seek a Federal research budget line item that would sponsor a peer review and/or develop a model STIP/TIP database that could help recipients in presenting information and serve to increase transparency and access to project information while minimizing special purpose reporting. Alternatively, Congressional support could be provided by appropriation or reauthorization line item or report language. a. b. Sharing cost and scope information about projects in a centralized state system could ensure that the most up-to-date information is available to internal decision -makers, Federal partners, and the public. Since a primary goal in creating STIPs and TIPS was facilitating coordinated planning, such tools could be a step toward stream- lining the current STIP/TIP pro- cesses. (See Case Study Albany at right.) The Capital District Transportationgr�riltt MPO for Albany, New York"uhlrzes t O rkhtrph . eSTIP program to update"the SifPjfiriPsel once a TIP amendment has been prea` kr Although this adds an extra step for the. MPo rl i ensures that the amendment, particularly the ' financial information and the time line, are consistent across regional and stale levels. 3. Establish a partnering grant initiative between Federal Agencies and grant recipients to help transportation agencies apply quality innovative contract management principles. Congressional support could be provided by appropriation or reauthorization line item or report language. a. Upon application by a grant recipients, the partnering agencies would work together to prepare for such procurements that do not follow the traditional Design/Bid/Build approach, including a thorough and thoughtful approach to communicating a project's specific outcomes. b. This represents a cultural change for both owners and contractors where a more proactive role by the Contractor and a less controlling, oversight role by the Owner is key to maximizing its benefits. c. The literature shows that applying traditional Federal oversight criteria (developed for the Design/Bid/Build model) can be counterproductive in these newer relationships. 2-22 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 201 " d. In contrast, Federal agencies can add value in a Design -Build situa- tion if they consider themselves part of a Project Quality Assurance team, documenting that proper Quality Control and Quality Assurance is being performed. This partnering initiative could be accomplished administratively or with Congressional direction. (See Case Study Missouri at right.) 4. Foster investments by public agencies to support their internal operations such as information systems at the program and/or system levels that speed decisions in the long run. Such investments should not be considered "excess overhead" - they can be worthy investments in their ability to leverage the ability to expedite program -wide priorities. A new Federal program, as a takedown from a national category, or Congressional appropriation or reauthorization line item would highlight such practices. a. Investments in ongoing program or system wide efforts can reap time benefits on multiple projects, foster expedited decision -making, and inspire partner confidence. These can include: i. GIS mapping of roadways and roadsides; ii. Resource inventories; iii. "Land banking" (buying land on the open market ahead of project development to reduce ROW acquisition costs and to protect trans- portation corridors); and iv. Mitigation "banking" of environmental and historic assets. b. Developing stronger relationships with utilities can have a long -run payoff. Involving them early in the process; meeting with them to dis- cuss the schedule of upcoming projects; creating a mutual understanding of priorities. 5. Invest in the internal capabilities to effectively use innovative contracting mechanisms such as Design/Build and construction management innova- tions that foster acceptance in the local industry. Forward thinking users of Federal funds have worked to align agency interests with contractor interests under innovative contracting mechanisms. Essentially, they identify the major risks/concerns for a given project (completing work in a certain period of time, keeping a certain capacity available during construction, etc.) and structure monetary incentives accordingly to incentivize contractor. a. To reap the benefits of such innovative contracting approaches requires these agencies to invest in the capacity to manage innovative contracting for quality as well as time. Design -Build and related innovative con- tracting procedures have become more widely accepted across the Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delioenj The Missoun DOT created the ParinershgF Development Process, which is a four -step process that encourages other agencies to partner with MODOT so that innovative financing methods can be developed for transportation projects. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-23 202 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery • industry and many states now have some experience using Design -Build or other innovative contacting practices on their transportation projects. b. This system minimizes the project risk for an owner and reduces the delivery schedule by overlapping the design phase and the con- struction phase of a project. It is particularly important to the owner and the contractor that requirements for results to be clear y spelled out in the request for pro- posals. The owner needs to establish internally and in advance the criteria by which it will evaluate whether a proposal is responsive; subse- quently, the owner needs to determine how the responsibility to assure that results will be assured. (See Case Study for Missouri at right.) Some (Best Practice) variations on the theme: i. Design -Build - Allows construction to begin prior to completion of final design. "This parallel processing .... Accelerating project start- up. ... Risk is that construction might be started before all environ- mental permits/approvals have been granted." ii. A+B Contracting - Includes built-in financial incentive for the con- tractor to complete a job on or ahead of schedule, as well as disincen- tives for not finishing on time. iii. Construction Manager - General contractor (CM -GC). Extends upon the Design -Build approach by bringing the contractor to the table even earlier in the design process. iv. Evergreen Contracts - "On -call' or task order agreements with pre - qualified technical consultants significantly abbreviate the procure- ment process when DOT staff need assistance on particular project issues. The Missouri DOT has enhanced the iontraelerf'= owner relationship by hosting quarlely.ineeings;`: with representatives of the general: cdntreeting,' industry. By establishing a dialogue and including the contractors in the process, a mutual respect has formed. This translates into more efficient con- tracting methods. 6. Revise current Federal guidance and regulation to encourage quality part- nerships between utilities and DOTs by making it feasible for DOTS to develop this business line, either via utility contactors or as "force account' work. Utilities could pay DOT to do work or vice versa, allowing DOT to achieve greater control over project schedules. Barriers are related to indus- try and administrative practice and perceived benefits to recipients rather than statute. (See Case Study Minnesota at right.) The Minnesota DOT (MnDOT)"implemented a.tlfilitk: Coordination Process, which is meant to resolve` utility conflicts early and help advance `all Utility" work, prior to construction. MnDOT provides check lists to the project manager, the utility owner; and the local agency project manager so that all pathos clearly understand their roles, responsibilities, and next steps to expedite the relocation. 2-24 Cambridge Systematics, Inc 203 " 7. Employ integrated project -based teams, including participating agencies and local governments. Some grant recipients have adopted business practices such as integrated project teams, to help ensure project management continuity across the various project phases, from start to finish. This can extend beyond DOTS to local levels of govemment who are Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery The Maine State Legislature passed the Lobel.. Bridge Program, which divided bridge repair responsibilities between MaineDOT and the towns. MaineDOT was responsible for the larger bridges and the towns were responsible for the smaller spans. This helped accelerate the large bridge projects since DOT no longer had to worry about calculating cost shares, preparing town billing, or other administrative functions that tend to slow down the prods. the beneficiaries of grants and may have the capacity to administer them. The advantage of including on these teams members from the across all agency functions (and potentially Federal partners) lies in enhanced communication on a timely basis. Further, vesting such teams with accountability and empowerment has been shown to help meet time, budget and quality standards. (Best Practice) (See Case Study for Maine at right.) 8. Improved internal processes can leverage greater trust with external partner- ships. Stakeholder and partner confidence grows with demonstrated success. Some grant recipients have begun by standardizing the routine on less con- troversial projects and this has helped them gain support from Federal field staff for expedited treatment. (Best Practice) Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2-25 204 " " 205 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj Appendix A A. Interviews for OCTA Federal Process Improvement Initiative1 No. Organization Lead Interview Title Type 1 !American Association of State I John Horsley Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Executive Director 2 !American Council of Engineering i Matthew Reiffer Director, Transportation Companies (ACEC) !Programs 3 American Public Transportation I William Millar j Executive Director Association (APTA) 4 . American Society of Civil Brian Pallasch ; Engineers (ASCE) 5 Caftans Rick Land Managing Director, Government Relations Association - Highways Association - Highways Association - Transit Association - Highways DOT - Highways 6 International Bridge, Tunnel, and ' Neil Gray Director, Government Affairs Association - Highways Tumpike Association (IBTTA) - - ----------- 7 Kansas DOT Deb Miller Secretary of Transportation DOT - Highways 8 Maryland State Highway I Neil Pedersen DOT - Highways Administration 9 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) Chief Engineer Administrator Chris Boylan Deputy Executive Director, Transit Corporate and Community Affairs 10 Metropolitan Transportation ' Alix Bockelman; `Commission (California) Rebecca Long 11 I Metropolitan Washington Council Ron Kirby ' of Governments (MWCOG) 12 National Association of City Eric Gilliand Transportation Officials (NACTO) 13 National League of Cities (NLC) Leslie Wollack 14 North Carolina DOT 15 Oklahoma DOT Calvin Leggett Gary Ridley Director, Programming and Allocations; Senior Legislative I Analyst Director of Transportation Planning Executive Director MPO- Transit and Highways MPO - Transit and Highways Association - Cities Program Director, Infrastructure I Association - Cities and Sustainability, Federal Relations Manager, Program Development DOT -Highways Branch Secretary of Transportation I DOT - Highways 1 Note: More than 40 actual interviews were conducted as some individuals and agencies were interviewed multiple times. Several additional interviews were conduct on condition of anonymity. Cambridge Systematics, Mc. A-1 206 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery Appendix A • No. i Organization Lead Interview Title Type 16 ' Pennsylvania DOT 17 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 18 Transportation Consultant 19 Transportation Consultant 20 Texas DOT 21 Utah DOT 22 Utah Transit Authority 23 Washington DOT '; Larry Shifflel; !: Jim Ritzmann Dan Martin Richard Doyle i Pete Rahn Amadeo Saenz Carlos Braceras Michael Allegra Kathleen Davis Director of Programming; ' DOT — Highways Deputy Secretary for Planning Principal Planner, Project MPO — Transit and Highways • Implementation Division Former Regional FTA Transit Administrator i Former Director of MODOT, Principal, HNTB Executive Director Deputy Director of the Utah DOT General Manager I Director, Highways and Local Programs DOT — Highways DOT — Highways DOT — Highways Transit ; DOT —Highways • A-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 207 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery Appendix B B. Case Studies North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT): Low -Impact Bridge Replacement Program Accelerating Delivery with Early and Ongoing Teaming Efforts In North Carolina, it was standard practice for simple bridge replacement projects to take the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) three to five years to deliver. This consumed time, but it also consumed funding. In the time it took to replace one bridge, two additional ones became deficient, and the financial resources could not keep pace. To address these issues, DOT appointed an internal team to make recommenda- tions for improvement. In doing so, they realized that there were two specific concerns. The scope ,of bridge replacement projects had expanded significantly over the years. Simple, or low -impact, replacements addressed a number of needs, such as bridge approach highway alignment and roadway width, instead of focusing on the immediate need, the bridge itself. As a result, simple replace- ments had become bigger and longer projects, with larger price tags, and more environmental impacts. To accelerate bridge projects and maxim- ize financial resources, the team made two recommendations; modify the design standards for bridge replacements, and plan, design, and construct simple replacements, from start to let, in a one- year timeframe. The Department developed the "Subregional Tier Design Guidelines for Bridge Projects" to limit scope expansion. These guidelines directed planners and designers to minimize changes in the vertical grade, structure length and width, approach roadway limits and right-of-way for each site. The Guidelines helped focus the replacement process to the bridge itself, accelerating the project. To reach the aggressive one-year goal for replacing these bridges, the Department knew that the biggest delay could result from the environmental review process. To address this early, the Department solicited the help of the North Carolina Interagency Leadership Team. The Team consisted of NCDOT, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, North Carolina Department of To be considered a tow -impact bridge replacement, the project must: " Have construction costs of $1,,2 million or less; " Require minimal permits; " Have minor right-of-way and Utility impacts; " Not require a FEMA study or on site detour; and " Meet other low -impact characteristics. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-1 208 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery Appendix B Commerce, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Fisheries, North Carolina Agriculture and Consumer Services, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Their goal was to work together and identify program efficiencies to accelerate transportation projects. In partic- ular, they developed a streamlined environmental review process to help deliver low -impact bridge replacements in the one-year timeframe. The efforts of this group, as well as the internal group, led to the development of the Low -Impact Bridge Replace Manual, which provides specific guidance on how to deliver they bridges quickly and efficiently. For more information on the Program, the Manual can be viewed at: http://www.ncdot.org/ download/ projects/ ncbridges/lowimpactbridge/final manual.pdf. The Grand Vision, Michigan Incorporating Citizen Input Into the Planning Process In early 2000, proposed projects in Traverse City, Michigan had reached the final stages of environmental review. The intent was to build a bridge over the Boardman River, and realign and widen a number of nearby roads. However, envi- ronmental groups contended that the projects would encourage sprawl, fail to solve regional traffic problems, threaten the safety of children at Sabin Elementary School, destroy vital wetlands and wildlife habitat, and degrade the county Nature Education Reserve. During public meet- ings to discuss the preliminary designs for these projects, community leaders, urged by growing public discontent, decided to take a new direction. Using the Federal money that was origi- nally allocated for the bridge and road work, Michigan leaders representing local and state government, business, environmental interests, and social services hired a consultant team to lead a two-year planning effort in place of this con- struction. The end result was a highly collaborative citizen -led effort called, the Grand Vision. Grand Vision Guiding Pririciples: • Improve the region's eXisting 4170Ic afro and public transportation, arid -provide better infrastructure for bikers and pedestriaris. • Foster public and private investments: to _ strengthen cities, villages and planned.growlh," areas. • Expand diverse and affdrdable housing options that fit the region's character. • Encourage local food, farming and rural development as a vital part of our economy, culture and identity - Incorporate sustainable energy principles into building, transportation, power generation, and all aspects of the region's economy. Protect, preserve, and restore the water resources, forests, natural areas, and scenic beauty of the region. The consultant team, led by national experts in visioning, public involvement, and scenario planning hosted a number of workshops, to identify the best solu- tions for balancing transportation, land use, and housing opportunities in the region. By the end of the planning process, 15,000 people had participated in B-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 209 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven,' Appendix B workshops, served on volunteer committees, and ultimately created a vision for future growth. Today, there are six county teams in Michigan (Antrim, Benzie, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Leelanau, and Wexford) that are working to implement the principles of the Grand Vision in their Counties. All future transportation and growth investments are based completely on this citizen led vision for the future. A lot of time and resources were used to move the original bridge and widening projects through the environmental review process. Had the public been con- sulted earlier, that time and money could have been used more efficiently. The Grand Vision demonstrates how critical it is to involve the public and garner their support to advance critical projects. For more information of the efforts of the Grand Vision, the web site is: http://www.thegrandvision.org/. North Central Texas Council of Governments, Dallas, Texas TIP Amendment and Modification Procedures The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) is the desig- nated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Dallas, Texas region. Every MPO is required by Federal law to develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP is a programming document that lists and prioritizes Federal transportation projects, covering a period of four years. In recent years, the TIP has become a living document, being revised and updated constantly. If a project in the TIP requires a major change, it is called an amendment; for minor changes, it is called a revision or an administrative modification Basic Definitions for Revisions and Amendments` Mirror Revision A minor change wttllrrctt*,, , to a project, project phase costs, to funding„:: sources, or to project phase initiation" dates. Amendment - A major change:to the TIP such as an addition or deletion of a'project, a major_ charge in the project cost or initiation dates, or a major change in the design concept or design scope. Amendments require a public review and comment period, a re -demonstration of fiscal constraint, and potentially an air quality conformity determination (if in a maintenance or non - attainment area) for the proposed charge to be considered. Federal regulations contain overarching definitions for what constitutes an amendment versus a modification, but it is left up to the individual MPO to coordinate with the state DOT, transit operators, and Federal transportation agencies to further define what actions specifically trigger an administrative modification or amendment. Over the last 20 years, state DOTS and MPO(s) within each state have worked out specific definitions for "modifications" and "amendments" and established the internal procedures for adopting them. This has resulted in approaches that streamline the general process so that projects can move forward in a timely fashion while still complying with all regional, state, and Federal requirements. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-3 210 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery Appendix B • NCTCOG has worked with the Texas DOT to develop useful guidance and pro- cedures on how to handle TIP amendments and modifications in a cooperative and efficient manner. They jointly developed the Transportation improvement Program Modification Policy: Policies and Procedures To Streamline Project Delivery. By clearly defining all types of project changes (major and minor), what triggers a major or minor change, and the correct procedures for making the change, projects can move forward expejiitiously. These procedures empower the MPO to categorize a change and move the project forward, instead of having to wait on a decision from the DOT or FHWA division office. For more information on the NCTCOG TIP Procedures, the web site is: http://www.nctcog.org/ trans/tip/ModificationPolicy.pdf. Minnesota Department of Transportation: Utility Coordination Process Working with Utility Companies to Resolve Conflicts Early and Advance Projects One of the early hurdles for any large Federal transportation project is to suc- cessfully complete the environmental review phase. The next set of hurdles comes during the detailed design and con- struction phases, when a number of actions must take place, including utility relocation. This can easily derail or delay a project, but the Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) has created a Utility Coordination Process to minimize the potential problems associated with utility work. Goals of the MnDOT Utility Goordi Process: • Minimize project delays; tonstructioa and contractor claims associated With tiltil issues; • Optimize the project development.plocess _` with greater emphasis on early coordination to'reduce design and construction time later in the process; • Strengthen relationships and cooperation with utility owners; and • Foster consistent application. According to the AASHTO web site on Accelerating Project Delivery During Detailed Design and Construction, the challenges that transportation agencies face with utilities are: state transportation departments have little or no admin- istrative powers over utility companies that fail to relocate and clear utility con- flicts to meet the project schedule. A history of transportation projects being shelved or postponed during the development process has caused many utility companies to be reluctant to commit funds for utility relocation until there is certainty that the project will be constructed. In many cases, the state transpor- tation agency does not have authority to pay for the utility relocation, so it needs to be performed at the utility's expense; therefore, it becomes a lower priority for the utility company. In 2005, MnDOT decided to address these challenges and created a set of goals to foster relationships and enhance coordination efforts with utility companies. The overall intent was to identify mutual benefits and accelerate project delivery. To B-4 Cambridge Systemalics, Inc. 211 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj Appendix- B understand what was working and what was not, MnDOT formed an Implementation Team, consisting of DOT staff, private utility companies, city and county government, and consulting firms. The Team was charged with developing an Implementation Plan, with specific strategies and actions for achieving the utility coordination goals established in 2005. The Team met with project managers to gather their insights into how well coor- dination efforts with utilities were progressing. It turned out that there were a number of barriers, so the Implementation Team devised strategies and specific action steps for overcoming each one. The recommendations in the Plan are use- ful to any transportation agency, struggling with utility issues on major projects. The full Plan can be found on the MnDOT web site at: http:// www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/files/pdf/ tools-forms/implementation-plan.pdf. Missouri Department of Transportation: Partnership Development Process Leveraging Resources to Advance Transportation Projects One of the major barriers to timely project delivery is the lack of full or adequate funding. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has recognized this need and created a number of funding programs to enhance existing resources and help build key transportation projects. Under the Partnership Development Program, MoDOT offers a variety of financing options for public/public and public/private partnerships. They help finance transportation projects that serve a public purpose, including: highway and rail projects, transit equipment, air and water transportation facilities and elderly/handicapped vehicles. The financial programs they currently offer include: Partnership Funding Programs " Cost Share/Economic Development Funding: This money is meant to build partnerships with local entities by pooling efforts and resources to deliver state highway and bridge projects. Benef its of Financial Pannershi " Jointly solve problems;` " Build and strengthen relationships; " Increase efficiency; " Develop innovative solutions; and " Improve coordination. " Cost Participation: This program helps localities make improvements or add enhancements to a project that MoDOT is already constructing. Eligible enti- ties can save on contractor mobilization and other costs by partnering with MoDOT. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. B-5 212 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery Appendix B • MoDOT Partnership Debt -Finance Programs • Missouri Transportation Finance Corporation (MTFC): Any highway project eligible for Federal assistance under Title 23 of the U.S. Code and any transit capital project eligible for Federal assistance under Title 49 of the U.S. Code can receive assistance under this program. The MTFC can provide financial support to both public and private sponsors of eligible transportation projects and can assist in financing any stage of the project's development. • Statewide Transportation Assistance Revolving Fund (STAR): The STAR fund provides loans to local entities for nonhighway projects such as rail, waterway and air travel infrastructure. The STAR fund can also provide loans to fund rolling stock for transit and the purchase of vehicles for elderly or handicapped persons. MoDOT Local Funding Options • MoDOT encourages the development of local districts that can leverage tax or bond money to finance transportation infrastructure. These include Transportation Development Districts, Transportation Corporations, Community Improvement Districts, Neighborhood Improvement Districts, Tax Increment Financing, and Economic Development Sales Tax. To learn more about the MoDOT Partnership Development Program, the web site is: http://www.modot.mo.gov/PartnershipDevelopment/index.htm. 13-6 - Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 213 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven., Appendix C C. Employment Effects C.1 OBJECTIVE The OCTA seeks to shorten the time it takes to apply Federal transportation funds to its priority projects in order to accelerate the economic and productivity benefits of those investments, primarily employment. This analysis addresses the question: What are the employment impacts from transport investments and what are the implications of acceleration of prompt program delivery on ' job creation? C.2 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Regional employment is often an important government objective. The impacts of construction, operation and maintenance of transport infrastructure on employment include both created and relocated jobs. Construction can be assessed by methods which allow the direct, indirect and induced employment impacts of transport infrastructure projects within the construction period to be assessed. Direct and indirect employment linked to the operation and maintenance of transport infrastructure is largely related to the level of traffic, which can also be assessed. Direct benefit of transport infrastructure investment is improvement of travel conditions for its users. Users' behavior will thus change, with wider impacts on the transportation network and regional economy. The impacts on the regional economy include accessibility, level and location of employment and increased efficiency. Analysis of the impact of transportation investments on employment in a regional economy is performed over the construction and operating phases of the infrastructure. Employment associated with construction period is termed short- term impact, and employment associated with the operating phase is termed long-term impacts. Figure C.1 shows the framework for this analysis. Cambridge Systematics, inc. C_1 214 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven.' Appendix C • Figure C.1 Analytical Framework for Employment Impacts Productivity Transportattort Systent Inveshraent� Lafor and Market Access ,.'. Competitiveness Economic Growth`.`; C.3 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS Transportation projects confer specific economic benefits in the short term due to the purchase of goods and services; especially labor services (as shown in Figure C.1), which are required during the construction phase. However, the magnitude and distribution of these benefits may vary with the type and location of improvement undertaken and the specification of construction materials. When a major motorway construction or repair project occurs in a region, local resources available in that region can become exhausted. This can occur when the region is sparsely populated or Iacks specific types of skilled labor. Also, when the number and size of local companies are inadequate to meet the requirements of the contracting authority, resources from outside the local region are harnessed. Table C.1 shows the economic impact of REMI (Regional Economic Modeling Inc.) simulation of a proposed highway construction project of $300 million to be started in 2011, with estimated construction period of three years. Table C.2 shows the results of a nine-year delay of the proposed project (assuming no cost escalation). The effect of nine-year construction delay is the difference in total impacts shown in Tables C.1 and C.2. From these tables, the delay accounted for loss of 3,050 jobs and $92 million in GDP. At 3 percent annual inflation, the cost of that same $300 million investment rises to $391.4 million and the economic impact associated with the revised project cost was the same as that shown in Table C.2. C-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 215 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery Appendiy C Table C.1 Construction Impact of a $300 Million Highway Project Construction Penod - 2071-2073 Economic Variables Construction Period 2011 2012 2013 Total Employment (Thousands) GDP (2000 Dollars in Billions) 2.650 2.650 2.580 0.089 0.095 0.097 7.880 0.281 Table C.2 Construction Impact of a $300 Million Highway Project Construction Period - 2020-2022 Economic Variables Construction Period 2020 2021 2022 Total Employment (Thousands) GDP (2000 Dollars in Billions) 1.630 1.620 1.580 0.060 0.064 0.065 4.830 0.189 Direct Jobs Direct jobs are generated through the following operations: design, land clear- ance, earthworks, drainage, engineering structures, pavement, and safety equipment. Jobs relating to planning/design are created in the offices of the engineering or planning firm(s). The remaining jobs are created on -site. The number of jobs is determined by size and duration of the project. Indirect Jobs Site supplies mainly concern quarry materials, cement, power, transport, ser- vices, steel, wood, and equipment. Some of these materials are imported, while the remainder is produced in the region. The demand for products for the con- struction site generates demand for goods and services for the production of regional (non -imported) site supplies. This demand, in turn, generates demand for additional goods required to make the products; this continues until the effect is exhausted. This demand increases output of the production firms and gene- rates additional jobs. The level of jobs created depends on the proportion of con- struction cost spent locally or in the region. The expenditure consists of domestic intermediary consumption, imported intermediary consumption and the value- added component of the supply sector (salaries and social charges, company profits, taxes). Domestic intermediary consumption is the main driver of indirect jobs. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C-3 216 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery Appendix C Induced Jobs These jobs are linked to additional expenditure corresponding to salaries paid at the construction site and to salaries paid to employees of the construction supply economy (value-added). This refers to additional business in the areas of food, housing, leisure and transport. Marginal changes in revenue mechanically create new consumption according to the marginal propensity to consume and import, and thus any additional production that generates new income. C.4 LONG-TERM IMPACTS Jobs associated with operating phase of the infrastructure are discussed below. These jobs are either generated directly by the operation of the infrastructure or by industry through improved competitiveness, derived from the operation of the infrastructure, see Figure C.1. Competitive Impacts Competitive impact is the major source of long-term job creation. Unlike the other impacts, jobs associated with competitive impacts are not directly related to construction or operation of the transportation infrastructure. They are gener- ated from the impact of the improved infrastructure on regional or business competitiveness. Travel time savings and accessibility are the principal benefits that drive regional competitiveness, increased output and job creation. Travel cost and time reduction, and reliability arising from transportation improvement translate into economic growth and job creation. This is attained through improved regional competitiveness, a derivative of increased produc- tivity and access to labor and consumer/supplier markets. Travel time savings are benefits resulting from improvement in the efficiency of the transport system (shortened routes, reliability, etc.). For freight, travel time savings lead to monetary savings due to reduced hourly costs of transport ser- vices (e.g., drivers' wages, insurance, etc.). Additional benefit to businesses, especially those that are freight dependent, is the conversion of travel time savings to reduced supply chain costs such as inventory carrying costs. These cost reduction translate into lower production cost, increased competitiveness, and higher output, thus creating job opportunities to support output growth in the short and long run. In addition to travel time savings, transportation improvement may provide enhanced access to key suppliers' and/or consumer markets or improved con- nections to intermodal facility. This may provide incentive for expansion of existing businesses or attraction of new businesses, thus creating job opportuni- ties. In the case of passenger rail transit, agglomeration economies can lead to transit -oriented development that results in a net gain of land development -based economic activity in addition to the benefits arising from travel efficiencies. C4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 217 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj Appendix C Another mechanism for increase competitiveness is improved access to labor markets resulting in an increase in labor supply. This increases potential skill sets and Ievels and potentially more competitive wage rates, leading to increase competitiveness. Improved competitiveness leads to increased output and job creation. Accelerated project implementation is expected to yield incremental employment and regional economic development (benefits) impacts. The incremental benefits stems from the reduced opportunity cost due to the acceleration. Due to dis- counting factors applied to future benefits to estimate its present value, total eco- nomic benefit to society is inversely related to the expected time interval for benefit realization. For example, at five percent discount rate, the present value of $100, five years from today is $78.35. This means that the opportunity cost of $100, five years from today is $21.64. Similarly, the net present value of benefit stemming from a delayed project is diminished. The longer the delay, the lower the present value of the associated benefit Reduction in vehicle operating costs (VOC) may be another source of business competitiveness. For fixed trip matrices, improved transportation efficiency leads to less fuel consumption and vehicle wear and tear, thus reducing oper- ating cost. However, the improved efficiency may induce new travels, reveal the latent demand for travel, or cause changes to trip destinations. These changes in trips may provide benefits (less VOC) or loss of benefits (increased VOC) to vari- ous road users. The latter deteriorates business competitiveness, leads to reduced output and job loss, all other factors remaining unchanged. Accelerated Project Implementation Similar to the short-term impacts, acceleration of project implementation will lead to long-term incremental benefits during the operating phase of the infra- structure. The analysis below shows the economic impact associated with the benefit derived by the retail sector from three-year operation of the proposed $300 million highway infrastructure. The analysis assumes $20 million reduction in operating cost of the retail sector. Tables C.3 and C.4 show the results of economic impact associated with on -time implementation and that for a nine-year delay respectively. Based on the results, the nine-year delay in project implementation led to a loss of 680 jobs and $10 million in GDP. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C-S 218 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven., Appendix C • Table C.3 Economic Impact Arising from Efficiency Gains 2074-2016 Economic Variables Operation Period 2014 2015 2016 Total Employment (Thousands) GDP (2000 Dollars in Billions) 0.76 0.94 1.07 2.77 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.15 Table C.4 Economic Impact Arising from Efficiency Gains 2023-2025 Economic Variables Operation Period 2023 2024 2025 Total Employment (Thousands) GDP (2000 Dollars in Billions) 0.56 0.71 0.82 2.08 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.14 As businesses expand due to improved competitiveness, demand for input mate- rials and services increases in tandem to accommodate the expansion, thus causing further expansion in its supporting activities downstream. Therefore, indirect jobs are those created in the expansion of the supporting businesses associated with primary beneficiaries of competitive impacts. The increased demand for goods and services from supporting activities further causes additional production of goods to make the products, thus creating further jobs. The Ievel of jobs created depends on the local production capacity for the required goods or services. Induced jobs associated with competitive impacts are generated by expenditure of salaries paid to employees associated direct and indirect jobs This additional expenditure increases output and jobs in retail, housing, recreation and food ser- vices sectors. Marginal changes in revenue create new consumption according to the marginal propensity to consume and import, and thus any additional pro- duction that generates new income. C-6 Cambridge Systematics, Inc 219 " Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivery Appendix C C.5 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS Direct Jobs " Toll Collection/Management - These types of jobs are limited to toll roads/ bridges. Tolled transportation infrastructure creates job opportunities for third -party toll collection/management agencies. The number of employees per toll station depends on the traffic level, number of road lanes and level of electronic or automation services. " Maintenance Works - These jobs consist of work undertaken by companies independent of the infrastructure construction company. Jobs include work on carriageways, other fixed assets, and maintenance of road signs. " Public Safety - The number of public safety and enforcement is, in part based on the system of transportation infrastructure. Indirect Jobs Indirect jobs associated with operating the infrastructure are generated by demand for goods and services by toll agencies, maintenance works, public safety. Induced Jobs Induced jobs are generated by expenditure of incomes paid to employees asso- ciated with direct jobs. Induced jobs are mainly generated in the wholesale and retail (including convenient shops), recreation and food services sectors. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. C 220 " Accelerating Federal Program find Project Delivery Appendix D D. Synopsis of Key Options Requiring Federal Action Proposal Action Law Reg. Policy 1-1 Extend pre -award spending authority currently in Title 49 to the Federal -aid Highway Program that exists for Federal transit programs. I Amend Section 115 of Title 23, Advance Construction. " . Allows recipients to avoid losing eligibility for actions taken in advance of approval to use Federal funds; and " Would clarify that the recipient would take any risks associated with actions prior to Federal approval. " I 1-2 Administratively clarify that TIP FHWA and FTA issue memoranda to clarify that timely Amendments can and should be ; action on TIP amendments are a matter of local determi- expedited by MPOs. nation and are not only acceptable but encouraged. 1-3 Extend through statute the SAFETEA-LU Section 6005 pilot that delegates author- ; ity to conduct NEPA for highway projects on behalf of the Federal government to any state who can demonstrate the capacity to do so. Amend SAFETEA-LU Section 6005 (23 USC 327(h)) as relates to the five -state pilot. I In order of difficulty/urgency: t " Pilot beyond August 2012; " Permanent status; " Extended to any other states who qualify; and _ _ I 1-4 . Remove redundant steps in the current system of processing Environmental Impact Statements: Draft EIS, Final EIS, !; and then a Record of Decision (ROD) in sequence. Modemize communication techniques built on Internet -based systems. i 1 5 Change air quality regulations to adopt a modular or scenario approach to conformity. i i i i i " Remove sovereign immunity requirement. In cooperation with Council on Environmental Quality (CEO), revise their Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR ��1500-1508) CEO to make regula- tory change. The CEO regulations could be adjusted (along with the agency -level implementing regulations) without violating the spirit of NEPA. Alternatively: policy direction by Congress. Establish through interagency MOU an initiative to minim- ize unnecessary delay due to iterative conformity determi- nations while encouraging recipients to build the capacity to undertake necessary analyses. A "Test and Evaluation" approach could be initialed jointly by FHWA and FTA with EPA to test the feasibility of such modeling and administrative procedures, and in the mean- time, allow recipients to receive timely conformity approval. " Cambridge Systematics, Inc- D-1 222 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj Appendix D Proposal Action Law Reg. Policy 1-6 Expand the availability and use of pro- grammatic agreements for additional CEs and focus on consistent prompt review/approval. 1-7 Streamline and coordinate reporting requirements to reduce overlapping i, reporting to multiple entities. Revise programmatic agreements definition as contained in CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1508A. A specific list of CEs that normally do not require any NEPA documentation or FHWA approval is set forth in 23 CFR 771.117(c). Other projects, pursuant to 23 CFR i 771.117(d), may also qualify as CEs. Administrative actions should take into consideration the multiple uses of grant information to minimize reporting ;burden. • 1-8 • Simplify Federal approval processes when Federal formula grants are one- third or less of project costs. i Amend Titles 23 and 49 to provide authority for recipients of formula grants providing more than two-thirds of the j project funding to certify that they will comply with all Federal statutory requirements and be permitted to pro - Geed without further approvals. 1-9 Require U.S. DOT to initiate an effort to develop consistent expectations for envi- ronmental permitting and procurement ( requirements across all of the modes' formula grant programs. 2-1 : Establish a new "Program Delivery Partnering Plan" capability for Federal agencies and recipients. _-.._. 2-2 . Establish in Federal law a 'Project Delivery Partnering Plan" requirement for Federal agencies and recipients. U.S. DOT could initiate independently as part of regulatory I review or Congress could require it through statute/report I language. I Amend 23 USC 106 to establish a new "Program Delivery Partnering Plan" option that would clarify expectations for Federal grant recipients and agencies. Policy direction in accompanying report language to Agencies would be explicit in support of the constructive use of elevation to resolve problems expeditiously. Amend 23 USC 106 to establish a new "Project Delivery Partnering Plan" option that would clarify expectations for Federal grant recipients and agencies. Policy direction to ' Agencies would also explicitly allow for a "default" value in the arranged timelines, i.e., failure to take a Federal approval action according to schedule means Federal concurrence with advancement to the next stage unless Federal agencies identify specific concems and specific • remedies in accordance with the timetine. •• • 2-3 ! Establish in Federal law or regulations a Establish in law a "prompt action" provision with Federal "prompt action" provision for Federal budget consequences. agencies. • • Baselines would need to be established through a rule- making process. • Such "prompt payment" requirements could be waived if a "Program Delivery Partnering Plan" were in place. This would motivate agencies to participate in such inter- agency agreements. • D-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 223 " " 2 6 Establish a "Transportation Delivery !Academy" and certification program. 2 7 I Take fuller advantage of provisions which permit recipients to supplement staff at FHWA Division offices and/or Resource Agency field offices, to expe- dite high -priority projects for environ- mental; extend that statutory authority to other reviews. 2.8 . Expand the use of integrated analysis and permit approvals such as National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Water Act Section 404 procedures. 2-9 Initiate early and ongoing teaming between Federal agencies and grant " recipients. 2-10'; Apply "practical design" philosophies, along with context -sensitive solutions - style techniques that bring the public to; the table earlier and use appropriate design standards. Accelerating Federal Program and Project Delivenj Appendix D Proposal Action Law Reg. Policy 2-4 Establish in law a partnering recognition Highlight and reward collaborative practices with excep- " and award program. tional outcomes through a partnering Recognition and Award Program. The Federal Govemment has the author- ity under Title 5 USC to conduct such programs to recog- nize and motivate both Federal employees and grant recipients/the public. The degree to which such programs would be established in statute would be a function of the high visibility that sponsors would want to create. 2-5 Utilize the new Executive Order 13563 to review rules to remove those that "stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive." i i " I Issuance of an Executive Order is the prerogative of the i White House and has the force of law for executive branch agencies. Regulatory review currently underway. Alternatively, an Interagency Task Force as in prior EO could be established by Congress, making the Task Force and its activities permanent. _......_._ _ _ --- - _ _...._--------- Establish in law and adequately fund a "Transportation " Program Delivery Academy." This could use the "centers for excellence" model which were established as part of SAFETEA-LU's research programs. Such a center could be funded by Congress to establish and execute a certifi- cation program. Amend 23 USC 1390) to extend beyond environmental " work to other aspects and modes of program and project delivery. Extend the option to transit and other modes of using 1 " Federal formula funds to supplement resources for project reviews (environmental and otherwise), with clear inter- agency MOUs. Council on Environmental Quality (CEO) issued Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR ��1500-1508). Advance as an Executive branch initiative. Congressional support could be provided with appropria- tion or reauthorization line -items or report language. Incorporate into Federal partnership agreements specific resources. Amend Titles 23 and 49 to Incorporate into definition of construction at the option of grantees. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. D-3 224 Accelerating Federal Program and Project Deliven.' Appendix D • Proposal Action Law Reg. ' Policy 3-1 Incorporate into Federal partnership ' agreements explicit commitments that will help projects remain on schedule and on budget. Back up those commit- ments with allocation of U.S. DDT's research agenda and budget to deploy i appropriate tools and techniques. 3-2 Seek a Federal research budget line - item that would sponsor a peer review and/or develop a model Statewide Transportation improvement. Establish a Federal program either as an Executive branch initiative or Congressional action. Support could be pro- vided with appropriation or reauthorization line -items or report language.. Establish a partnering initiative between Federal Agencies and grant recipients to help transportation agencies apply quality innovative contract management principles. • I Initiative to establish a program database that could serve • to increase transparency and access to project information "while minimizing special purpose reporting • 3-3 22 Establish a partnering grant initiative between Federal Agencies and grant recipients to help transportation agen- cies apply quality innovative contract management principles. Revise current Federal guidance and regulation to encourage quality partner- ships between utilities and DOTS by making it feasible for DOTS to develop this business line and allowing DOTs to maintain control over the schedule. Seek a Federal program either as an Executive branch initiative or Congressional action. Support could be pro- vided with appropriation or reauthorization line -items or report language. Barriers are related to industry and administrative practice and perceived benefits to recipients rather than statute. Utilities could pay DOT to do work or vice versa, allowing DOT to achieve greater control over project schedules. D-4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 225 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Federal Authorization Legislative Ad Hoc Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Transportation Finance Legislation FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATIVE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Adopt as a policy principle that expansion and enhancement of existing credit assistance programs such as Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) is preferred over the creation of a national infrastructure bank; 2) Adopt a support if amended position on H.R. 1123 (Richardson); and 3) Adopt proposed amendments to H.R. 1123 as principles for any future legislation relating to the TIFIA program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Credit assistance to state and local transportation agencies is very likely to be a major component of federal authorization. Loaning funds to leverage private, state, and local dollars is a less costly to the federal budget, while enabling projects to move forward. Greater access to low-cost federal borrowing has great potential for self-help counties such as Riverside County to save money and get job -creating projects on the street sooner. While the discussion of debt in Washington, D.C. becomes more politically charged, the area of infrastructure investment is usually a rare area where bipartisanship can prevail. The Obama Administration has focused heavily on the idea of creating a national infrastructure bank. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D- WV) have each introduced infrastructure bank legislation. Authorizing committee chairpersons in each chamber, Representative John Mica (R-FL-7) at House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T&I) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D- CA) have prioritized the expansion of TIFIA. Agenda Item 8Q 226 After careful policy review, staff recommends that the Commission adopt a policy that prioritizes the expansion and enhancement of existing credit programs such as TIFIA over the creation of new financial institutions. TIFIA is a program that has worked extremely well and is simply too small to offer all of the national benefits that could be provided if there were more funds available for credit subsidies. By growing this program, which leverages 10 non-federal dollars for every federal dollar invested, self-help counties with high credit ratings such as Riverside County can immediately begin to apply for funds to accelerate voter -approved projects that have a revenue stream behind them, such as Measure A. TIFIA is a program that is known and will not require a new bureaucracy with new rules to be created, as would be the case with an infrastructure bank. Staff believes the federal government should stick with what works and build on it. H.R. 1123 — TIFIA Expansion Act of 2011 Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach) has introduced the TIFIA Expansion Act of 2011, largely based on a proposal by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The motivation for the bill and Metro's efforts are to better leverage self-help transportation sales tax measures such as those approved by voters in Southern California. TIFIA is seen by many policymakers as a program with great potential to become a more effective leveraging tool to accelerate transportation projects where agencies have reliable revenue streams such as long-term voter -approved taxes for specific projects. Given the Commission's 10-Year Western Riverside County Highway Delivery Plan of Measure A projects, such efforts to expand and enhance TIFIA are of prime interest. H.R. 1123 more than triples the existing TIFIA program from $122 million annually to $375 million. The cap on TIFIA's share of the total project cost is increased from 33% to 49%. The bill also creates a new mechanism within TIFIA that allows the Secretary of Transportation to make multi -year TIFIA funding commitments to projects or a program of related projects (example: a sales tax measure's expenditure plan) in a master credit agreement. Currently, TIFIA awards are made on a project -by -project basis and a year -by -year basis. This ability to make an up- front commitment of funds would allow self-help agencies to package several projects and submit them for long-term funding. The bill requires such projects or programs of projects to have a minimum cost of $1 billion. The bill establishes new evaluation criteria for master credit agreements: reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) and positive impact on congestion. Finally, the bill allows for the Secretary to reduce the interest rate on a TIFIA loan if clean construction equipment is used on the project. Overall, the bill provides significant new capacity to a program that is in high demand and currently unable to support all of the projects requesting assistance. Agenda Item 80 • 227 " The concept of a master credit agreement could be a promising opportunity for self-help agencies such as the Commission. Generally, staff believes the bill heads in the right direction and plays well in Washington, D.C. where policymakers are looking to enable more investment in transportation without significantly increasing federal spending. Furthermore, H.R. 1123 relies on an existing credit program that has proven itself to be effective. Expanding an existing program is preferable to staff over creating a new financial institution that will have to take time to establish its own rules and a new bureaucracy. The approach in H.R. 1123 is efficient. Finally, the bill is a result of an intensive effort by Metro to raise the visibility of self-help taxes and write specific policy solutions that reward and create incentives for those who help themselves. For this work, Metro is to be commended. However, staff believes that the Commission and other self-help agencies throughout California and the nation stand to benefit from several amendments to H.R. 1123. Commission staff concerns are as follows: " The criteria that GHG reductions be evaluated in master credit agreements could be a de facto tilting of the scales towards mass transit projects and away from highways. Furthermore, this additional policy detracts from the original intent of TIFIA: a gap financing mechanism for regionally significant projects, regardless of mode. Staff believes that layering additional goals beyond investment in financially -sound projects and existing statutory criteria is incongruent with TIFIA's objectives. " While master credit agreements could benefit entire sales tax programs, they could also eat up significant capacity in the out -years of the TIFIA program, leaving fewer dollars available for single projects. Applicants with larger programs could wind up taking a disproportionate share of multi -year funding, squeezing out others. " H.R. 1123 could probably be even more ambitious by further increasing the dollar amount in the program and expanding the eligible types of costs that can be funded by TIFIA. " The Commission supports an idea floated by U.S. DOT in 2010 that would allow project sponsors to self -subsidize its own TIFIA loan. Given the capacity constraints of the program, allowing sponsors to pay a portion or all of their 10% credit subsidy (the cost to the federal treasury of providing the loan) would open allow the TIFIA program to accept more worthy projects and create more jobs and economic benefits for the nation. " Finally, an existing issue in the TIFIA program is that of the springing lien. If a borrower defaults on their loan, the TIFIA loan becomes senior debt for repayment, on par with the other private debt on the project. This increases the risk to the private investor and has the effect of driving up the interest Agenda Item 8Q 228 rate on a project's private financing, thus increasing the project's overall cost. Staff and consultants believe that the law should be clarified to ensure that the federal debt remains patient. In light of the above, staff recommends that the Ad Hoc Committee adopt a position of support if amended on H.R.1 123 and seek the following amendments: 1. Strike any references to GHG reductions as an evaluation criteria; 2. Cap the amount of TIFIA funds that can be committed for master credit agreements in any given year; 3. The size of the TIFIA program should be at least $1 billion to 5 billion of federal budget authority annually; 4. Allow 100% of planning and preliminary design costs to be eligible for TIFIA funding; 5. Allow project sponsors to have the option to commit other federal, state, or local funds to pay for the TIFIA credit subsidy as a means to receive higher priority or bypass the competition stage, while still requiring thorough financial vetting of the project; and 6. Add language to eliminate the springing lien. Additionally, staff recommends the adoption of these amendments as guiding principles for the Commission's position on any future legislation that seeks to enhance the TIFIA program. Attachment: H.R. 1123 Agenda Item 80 • 229 METNENTICATEET OS VENT MEEwwnioN GPO 112CONGRESS HR.1123,sT SEsioN • To amend title 23, United States Code, to revise certain infrastructure finance provisions. IN THE IIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 16, 2011 b1s. RacmAnDsoN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and lnfrastlucturc A BILL To amend title 23, United States Code, to revise certain infrastructure finance provisions. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tines of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION I. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the "TIFIA ExTansion Act 5 of 2011". 6 SEC. 2. TIFIA FUNDING OF QUALIFIED TRANSIT CAPITAL 7 PROJECTS. 8 (a) DEFINITION OF MASTER, CREDIT AGREEMENT.- 9 Section 601(a) of title 23, United States Code, is amend- 10 ed- 230 2 1 (1) in paragraph (8)- 2 (A) by striking "and" at the end of sub- 3 paragraph (C); 4 (B) by striking the period at the end of 5 subparagraph (D) and inserting "and;"; and 6 (C) by adding at the end the following: 7 "(E) a project or program of related 8 projects that- 9 "(i) is for the design, acquisition, con- 10 struction, or rehabilitation of one or more 11 transportation projects that reduces emis- 12 lions of greenhouse gases or has a positive 13 impact on congestion; and 14 "(ii) receives not more than 30 per- 15 cent of its funding for capital costs from 16 Federal grant funds made available under 17 this title or chapter 53 of title 49, United 18 States Code."; and 19 (2) by adding at the end the following: 20 "(15) MASTER CREDIT AGREEMENT. —The term 21 `master credit agreement' means an agreement en- 22 tered into by and between the Secretary and an obli- 23 gor for a project defined in paragraph (9)(E) that- •HR 1123 rH 231 " 3 1 "(A) makes contingent commitments of 2 one or more secured loans or other Federal 3 credit instruments at future dates; 4 "(B) establishes the amounts and general 5 terms and conditions of such secured loans or 6 other Federal credit instruments; 7 "(C) identifies the dedicated revenue 8 sources that will secure the repayment of such 9 secured loans or other Federal credit instru- 10 meats; and 11 "(D) provides for the obligation of fonds 12 for such secured loans or other Federal credit 13 instruments a.fter all requirements under sec- 14 tion 602(c) have been met for the project, in- 15 chiding compliance with the requirements of the 16 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 17 U.S.C. 432i et seq.).". 18 (b) ELIGIBILITY AND ELIGIBLE PROJECTED 19 COSTS.  Section 602(a) of title 23, United States Code, 20 is amended- 21 (1) in paragraph (1) by adding before the pe- 22 riod at the end the following: 23 "(1) , including, in the case of a master credit 24 agreement, at such time as the disbursement of loan " HR 1123 IH 232 4 1 proceeds or the provision of other credit assistance 2 pursuant to the master credit agreement"; and 3 (2) in paragraph 3- 4 (A) by striking "subparagraph (B)" in 5 subparagraph (A) and inserting "subpara- 6 graphs (B) and (C)"; and 7 (B) by adding at the end the following: 8 "(C) MEGA TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. —In 9 the case of a project defined in section 601(a)(8)(E), 10 eligible project costs shall be reasonably anticipated 11 to equal or exceed $1;000,000,000.". 12 (c) SECURED LOANS. Section 603(b) 13 (1) in paragraph (2) of title 23, United States 14 Code, is amended by striking "33 percent" and in- 15 serting "49 percent"; 16 (2) in paragraph (4)- 17 (A) by striking "The interest rate" and in- 18 serting the following: 19 "(A) IN GENERAL. —The interest rate"; 20 and 21 (B) by adding. at the end the following new 22 subparagraph: 23 "(B) REDUCTION IN INTEREST RATE_ 24 "(i) IN GENERAL. —If the Secretary 25 determines that the interest rate described •H 1 1123 IH • • 233 " 1 under subparagraph (A) has increased by 2 more than 1 percent between the time the 3 Secretary signs the master credit agree- 4 meat and the time at which the secured 5 loan is made with respect to a project that 6 is the subject of such master credit agree- 7 ment, the Secretary may allow the interest 8 rate on the secured loan to be up to g "(I) 1 percent lower than sub- 10 paragn-aph (A) allows; or 11 "(II) for a secured loan being 12 made with respect to a project that is 13 certified by the Secretary, in consulta- 14 tion with the Administrator of the En- 15 vironmental Protection Agency, as 16 only using clean construction equip- 17 went, 1.5 percent lower than subpara- 18 graph (A) allows. 19 "(ii) CLEAN CONSTRUCTION EQUIP- 20 MENT DEFINED.  For purposes of this 21 subparagraph, the term `clean construction 22 equipment' means nonroad constnction ve- 23 hicles or equipment powered by diesel en- 24 pines that " HR 1123 IH 234 6 1 "(I) are certified to meet the En- 2 vironmental Protection Agency's Tier 3 4 nonroad engine fine particulate 4 emission standards, published in the 5 Federal Register on June 29, 2004 6 (69 Fed. Reg. 38958); or 7 "(II) achieve through other 8 mea.ns a particulate matter emission 9 reduction of 85 percent or more from 10 uncontrolled engine emission levels."; 11 and 12 (3) in paragraph (6) by inserting before the pe- 13 rind the following: ", except that when making a se- 14 cured loan, the Secretary may waive the application 15 of this paragraph with respect to the loan if' the 16 amount of the loam does not exceed 33 percent of 17 the reasonably anticipated eligible project costs and 18 the loan is secured by tax revenue". 19 (d) Lr�Es OP CREDIT. —Section 604(b)(2) of' title 23, 20 United States Code, is amended by striking "33 percent" 21 and inserting "49 percent". 22 (e) PUNDINO.—Section 608(a) of title 23, United 23 States Code, is amended- 24 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking "$122,000,000 25 for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009 and in- •HR. 1123 1H • 235 " 7 1 serting "$375,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 2 through 2015"; and 3 (2) in paragraph (3) by striking "$2,200,000 4 for each of fiscal gears 2005 through 2009" and in- 5 serting "$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 6 through 2015". 7 (f) CERTAIN YlNOBLIGATED BALANCES. With re- 8 spect to a secured loan made pursuant to chapter 6 of 9 title 23, United States Code, only unobligated balances 10 provided to carry out such chapter that were appropriated 11 for a fiscal year prior to the fiscal year in which such se- 12 cured loan is made, and which remain available, may be 13 used to carry out the authority granted to the Secretary 14 of Transportation by the amendment made by subsection 15 (c)(2)(B). 16 (g) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.  Section 603(a)(1) 17 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting 18 after "into agreements" the following: ", including master 19 credit agreements,". .HR 1123 IH 0 236 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 201 1 /12  Fiscal Year 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plans CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to review and approve, in concept, the FY 201 1 /12 - FY 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plans (SRTPs) for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine), and the Commission's Commuter Rail program. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Riverside County FY 2011/12  FY 2013/14 SRTPs cover the three apportionment areas of the county and are comprised of plans for the municipal operators, PVVTA, RTA, SunLine, and the Commission's Commuter Rail program. The SRTPs provide a detailed summary of each operator's current transit services and performance measures, as well as a brief overview of planned improvements scheduled for the next three years. Staff is requesting that the SRTPs be approved in concept only, as requests for financial allocations will be made at the July Commission meeting. Under state law, the Commission is tasked with the responsibility to identify, analyze, and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators. While reviewing and analyzing individual route productivity remains with the transit operators and their governing boards, the Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that transit operators are utilizing Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds efficiently and effectively with the need to provide high quality service. The SRTPs were developed to meet the Commission's Productivity Improvement Program (PIP), which was adopted as part of a comprehensive effort to work with the county's public transit operators to provide better service and improve efficiency. The PIP indicators include operating costs per revenue hour, fare box 237 Agenda Item 9 recovery ratio, subsidies, passengers per revenue hour and revenue mile, which are critical in ensuring that service can be maximized in an efficient manner. The SRTP process also requires that transit operators address recommendations that are made by regular performance audits. It also provides opportunities for operators to be eligible for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants to support operations and equipment replacement. This year's preparation of SRTPs remained to be constrained by the current recession that continues to impact the operators' ability to meet the growing demand for transit services. This annual update aims to continue evaluating current transit service and performance measures to keep up with substantial increase in travel demand within the region as well as improving necessary access and mobility for the large segment of the county's elderly, disabled and lower - income populations. City of Banning The city of Banning (Banning) works closely with the city of Beaumont (Beaumont) to provide a seamless transit system for the residents of Banning, Beaumont, the unincorporated areas of Cabazon, Cherry Valley, and the commercial area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians reservation. Planned services for FY 2011/12 include: • Provide modified Sunday service; • Purchase and install auto display and enunciator equipment for fixed route fleet, purchase one American Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible van, shop truck, and one vehicle for fixed route; • Add two new shelters and replace passenger amenities such as bus shelters, benches, bus stop signs, and trash receptacles; and • Closely monitor the current service to Mt. San Jacinto College Pass campus and address needs as necessary. City of Beaumont Beaumont Transit provides both dial -a -ride and fixed route services and works closely with Banning to provide a seamless transit system in the Pass area. Planned services for FY 2011 /12 include: • Perform systemwide route restructure studies; • Extend customer service hours to three facilities with extended service and weekend hours and also consider adding a third dial -a -ride route the first week of every month; 238 • • Agenda Item 9 " " " Increase current service by adding additional buses at peak times; and " Purchase GPS units for all vehicles to track vehicle location and install additional bus shelters, benches and kiosks at all major stops. City of Corona The city of Corona (Corona) operates two fixed routes known as the Corona Cruiser and a general public dial -a -ride program. Corona closely coordinates all transfers with both RTA and the Commission's Commuter Rail services. Planned services for FY 2011/12 include: " Purchase and take delivery of nine replacement dial -a -ride buses and one replacement Corona Cruiser bus during summer 2011; " Purchase and take delivery of four replacement Corona Cruiser buses in spring 2012; " Commence installation of bus stop shelters, benches, and solar powered lighting at up to 25 bus stops; " Conduct a rider survey to ascertain service needs, identify areas for improvement, and rider demographics; and " Promote alternative modes of transportation by improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities and expanding the bicycle route network. City of Riverside - Special Services Riverside Special Services (RSS) operates a 24-hour advance reservation dial -a -ride for seniors and persons with disabilities within the Riverside city limits. The program serves as an alternative to RTA's transit service for seniors and persons with disabilities unable to use fixed route service. Planned services for FY 201 1 /12 include: " Begin the construction of a new compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle maintenance facility in July 2011 with anticipated completion of the project by December 2011; " Install additional slow fill stations at the Riverside Corporation Yard following completion of the CNG maintenance facility; " Purchase upgraded radios, a dispatch system with auxiliary battery and generators using grant funds received through the Proposition 1 B Security program; " Conducted a passenger satisfaction survey in May 2011; and " Received the delivery of four paratransit vehicles in February 2011 funded with FTA grant monies. 239 Agenda Item 9 Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency The PVVTA provides fixed route and a transportation reimbursement program for individuals who cannot ride the public bus system. The fixed route can deviate up to three-quarters of a mile away from the actual fixed route. Service is provided within the city of Blythe and surrounding unincorporated county areas in the Palo Verde Valley. Planned services for FY 2011 /12 include: • Modify Route Blue Route 1 and Gold Route 2 to realign current time points to meet up with all other routes and streamline headways; • Modify Green Route 4 by expanding service hours and routing to include Mesa Verde and timed connection to Palo Verde College; • Consider adding two one-way trips on Red Route 3 to meet current demand; • Add new Silver Route 5 to provide system -wide deviated fixed route service within the city of Blythe, Ripley, Mesa Verde and selected trips to Ehrenberg, Arizona; and • Complete the upgrades to the newly purchased transit facility. Riverside Transit Agency RTA provides local, intercity, and regional transportation services. As the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) for western Riverside County it is responsible for coordinating transit services throughout the service area, providing driver training and assistance with grant applications. Planned services for FY 2011/12 include: • Conduct a comprehensive operational analysis study to review existing operational services and provide a strategic plan for enhancements to begin in 2014; • Implement RTA's 3-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and begin procurement of revenue vehicle replacements ($21.5 million), non -revenue vehicles ($0.4 million), spare parts and tire lease maintenance ($1.9 million), facility maintenance ($0.9 million), and information systems for travel training; • Continue refining existing service through improved scheduling and streamlining. No new services will be added unless fully funded by grant monies or city -sponsored revenues; and • Increase operating budget by approximately 8% over FY 2010/11 budget. SunLine Transit Agency SunLine is the CTSA for Coachella Valley and is responsible for coordinating transit services in the valley, which covers a service area of approximately 1,120 square 240 • • Agenda Item 9 " " " miles. SunLine provides both local and regional transportation services with 11 fixed routes and demand response dial -a -ride services known as SunDial. Planned services for FY 201 1 /12 include: " Implement a new commuter express route from Coachella Valley to the Pass Area and a Taxi Voucher Program in Coachella Valley; " Implement Line 81 in the city of Indio (Indio) to offer transit service to new retail and commercial stores north of Interstate 10 and realign Line 80 based on comments received from Indio to provide service to unserved areas; " Finalize environmental assessment, engineering, and master plan for new administrative building; " Conduct feasibility study to determine best use for the facility in Indio and also undertake alternative analysis study for BRT implementation in Coachella Valley; and " Complete American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funded capital transit projects, procure more bus shelters for installation, and continue working with local jurisdictions on bus stop improvement issues. Commission's Commuter Rail Program The Southern California Regional Rail Authority operates seven commuter rail lines with 52 locomotives and 150 commuter rail cars. Three routes, the Riverside to Los Angeles Line, the Inland Empire to Orange County Line (IEOC), and the Riverside to Los Angeles via Fullerton Line (91 Line) directly serve Western Riverside County with connecting service available to destinations on the other four lines. Planned services for FY 201 1 /12 include: " Continue engineering and possible start of construction of the Perris Valley Line (Riverside  Moreno Valley  Perris) Metrolink extension project. " Maintain current Metrolink service levels in Riverside County; " No plan to raise systemwide fares; and " Continue delivery of new rail coaches to allow for future expansion of service. Attachments: FY 201 1 /12-FY 2013/14 Operator SRTPs  Posted on Commission Website 1) City of Banning 2) City of Beaumont 3) City of Corona 4) City of Riverside 5) PVVTA 6) RTA 7) SunLine 8) Commuter Rail Program 241 Agenda Item 9 BANNING TRANSIT SYSTEM FY 2011/12 – 2013/14 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Pass Transit is a cooperative effort between the City of Banning and the City of Beaumont 5.26.11 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2  CHAPTER 1 – SYSTEM OVERLAY ............................................................................... 1  1.1 Description of Service Area ...................................................................................................... 1  1.2 Population Profile and Demographic Projections .................................................................. 3  1.3 Fixed Route Transit Services and Paratransit Service, Regional Express Bus Service . 4  1.4 Current Fare Structure and Proposed Fare Structure .......................................................... 6  1.5 Revenue Fleet ............................................................................................................................. 8  1.6 Existing Facility/Planned Facilities ........................................................................................... 9  CHAPTER 2 – EXISTING SERVICE AND ROUTE PERFORMANCE ......................... 10  2.1 Fixed Route Service – Route by Route Analysis ................................................................. 10  2.2 Dial-A-Ride Service – System Performance ........................................................................ 10  2.3 Key Performance Indicators ................................................................................................... 10  2.4 Productivity Improvement Efforts ........................................................................................... 11  2.5 Major Trip Generators and Projected Growth Over Next Two Years ............................... 12  2.6 Equipment, Passenger Amenities and Facility Needs ........................................................ 12  CHAPTER 3 – PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES AND IMPLEMENTATION ............... 12  3.1 Recent Service Changes ........................................................................................................ 12  3.2 Recommended Local & Express Route ................................................................................ 13  3.3 Marketing Plans and Promotions ........................................................................................... 13  3.4 Budget Impact on Proposed Changes .................................................................................. 13  CHAPTER 4 – FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS .................................................... 13  4.1 Operating and Capital Budget ................................................................................................ 13  4.2 Funding Plans to Support Proposed Operating and Capital Program ............................. 14  4.3 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements ......................................................................... 14  TABLES Table 1 - Fleet Inventory……………………………………………………………….. 15 Table 2 - SRTP Service Summary…………………………………………………….. 16 Table 3 - SRTP Route Statistics………………………………………………………. 19 Table 3A - Individual Route Description………………………………………………... 20 Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12…………………………... 22 Table 5.1 - Summary of Funds Requested in FY 2012/13……………………………. 23 Table 5.2 - Summary of Funds Requested in FY 2013/14……………………………. 24 Table 6 - FY 2009 Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations………………. 25 Table 7 - Service Provider Performance Target Report Year to Date …………….. 26 Table 8 - FY 11/112 SRTP Performance Report……………………………………... 27 Table 9 - Highlights of Short Range Transit Plan…………………………………….. 28 1 INTRODUCTION Banning Transit System began as one intercity fixed route in April 1973, and then expanded to two routes in September 1985. Fixed route service to Cabazon and the commercial area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Reservation began in July 1995, as the system’s third route. Banning Dial-A-Ride service for seniors and persons with disabilities began in October 1985. Pass Transit as a combined effort between Banning Transit System and Beaumont Transit System started in November 2004. Routes 1 and 2 were modified from the previous Banning Transit System Cabazon Route and Beaumont Transit System Route 1. Banning’s Northern Route was renumbered Route 5 and Banning’s Southern Route was renumbered Route 6. Beaumont’s existing Routes 3 and 4 remained the same. A Memorandum of Understanding was developed to allow each city’s Dial-A-Ride services to cross jurisdictional boundary lines so that a passenger did not have to transfer. A new joint Rider’s Guide was developed, combined transfers and ten-ride ticket books were printed, buses and bus stop signs were decaled ‘Pass Transit’ and fares were established to be the same for the convenience of riders. In January 2009, monthly passes were offered for sale at the Banning Community Center Office, 789 N. San Gorgonio Avenue. The Banning Transit System functions as a department within the City. The contract for the Transit Manager through Professional Transit Management (PTM) that began in April 2008 has been canceled by the City of Banning effective June 30, 2010 in order to decrease budget expenses. The Transit Department is managed by and under the direction of the Community Services Director. The City of Banning Transit Department employs a Lead Bus Driver/Trainer, five full-time bus drivers, five part-time bus drivers, two part-time Dial-A-Ride drivers, one full-time Office Specialist, and one full-time Equipment Mechanic. CHAPTER 1 – SYSTEM OVERLAY 1.1 Description of Service Area The Banning Pass Transit serves the commercial and residential areas of Banning and residential and commercial areas in Cabazon with additional service to limited commercial areas in Beaumont. Transit service was implemented in Banning in April 1973. The Banning Dial-A-Ride service was implemented in Banning in October 1985. The Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride services the entire city limits of Banning and provides service to areas of Beaumont and Cabazon within ¾ mile of the fixed route bus service. 2 3 1.2 Population and Demographic Projections Banning’s current population estimate from the California Department of Finance is 29,603. Growth is anticipated to remain flat for the upcoming fiscal year. At the time of preparing this report, the 2010 Census had not yet been published; the 2000 census reported there were 23,562 people, 8,923 households, and 6,237 families residing in the city. Population density was 1,022 people per square mile (395/km2). There were 9,761 housing units at an average density of 423/sq mi (164/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 64.19% White, 30.21% Hispanic or Latino of any race, 8.55% African-American, 2.52% Native American, 5.38% Asian, 0.15% Pacific Islander, 14.88% from other races, and 4.36% from two or more races. Of the 8,923 households, 26.3% had children under the age of 18. 53.2% were married couples living together. 12.5% had a female head of household, and 30.1% were non- families. 25.8% of all households were made up of individuals and 16.1% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.60 and the average family size was 3.11. Twenty-six and four tenths of a percent of the city’s population was under 18 years of age, 7.4% was 18 to 24 years old, 20.95 was 25 to 44 years of age, 18.4% was 45 to 64 years old, and 26.8% were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 41. For every 100 females there were 90.9 males and for every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 86.7 males. Data from a 2010 Pass Area Transit Study reported that more than two-thirds of the ridership (65%) is female. Ridership ethnicity closely parallels the population ethnicity in the City of Banning. • Hispanic - 42% • White - 36% • African American - 15% • Asian - 1% • Others - 6% The surveys further showed that 76% of the system’s fixed route ridership use transit services at least three times a week, and that nearly 15% ride the bus 6 days a week. 26% of the system’s Dial-A-Ride ridership use transit services at least three times a week, 64% of the ridership use transit services for local trips within the Banning/Beaumont/Cabazon area, 27% use transit for travel outside of the local service areas, and 89% of the system’s ridership do not have access to a car. Respondents also indicated that transit services are readily available with the majority of riders walking five minutes or less to the bus stop. Eighty-seven percent of the rider 4 households speak English as their primary language and 13% speak Spanish as their primary language. It would appear that the majority of regular Banning Transit System riders counted in the above percentages share the commonality of either being underemployed or unemployed. In spite of the flat economy, the demand for transit services appears to have remained at a fairly level rate, perhaps falling off slightly. Based on the survey results, it would appear that the majority of regular Banning Transit System riders share the commonality of either being underemployed or unemployed; 28% of riders reported that were unemployed and nearly 85% reported a total annual household income of less than $20,000. In spite of the flat economy, the demand for transit services appears to have remained at a fairly level rate, perhaps falling off slightly. 1.3 Fixed Route Transit Services and Paratransit Service, Regional Express Bus Service The Banning Pass Transit System offers three routes, Routes 1, 5, and 6 as well as a Dial-A-Ride Service. Routes 5 and 6 operate on a 75 minute headway. Route 6 has recently been modified to include a stop at the MSJC Pass Campus. Routes 1 and 2 (Route 2 provides the Beaumont Transit System’s Cabazon service) complement each other throughout the commercial areas of Beaumont, Banning, Cabazon, and the Morongo commercial development, with both Routes 1 and 2 operating every two hours. Route 1 is the only service that travels into eastern Cabazon, whereas Route 2 is the only service that travels into northeastern Beaumont. Pass Transit service into Cabazon is the result of a memorandum of understanding between RTA and the City of Banning in an effort to reduce duplicative transit service in the Pass Area and to satisfy an unmet transit need at the time. Routes will be modified as needed to better serve unmet transit needs. A summary of Pass Transit routes operated by Banning Transit System are shown below: Route 1 - Beaumont/Banning/Cabazon This route operates on a two-hour headway and is complemented by an overlap with Route 2 (Beaumont Pass Transit) along 75% of the route. Route 1 is the only service to the remote Esperanza & Elm area of southeastern Cabazon. The route also provides service to the residential areas of Cabazon, James Venable Cabazon Community Center, Casino Morongo, Desert Hills Premium Outlets and Cabazon Outlets, the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs Avenue in Banning, and the commercial areas along 6th Street and Beaumont Avenue in Beaumont. 5 Route 5 – Northern Banning This route operates on a 75 minute headway and provides service to the residential areas of the City of Banning that lie north of the I-10 freeway, Nicolet Middle School, Hoffer Elementary School, Banning Public Library, Coombs The route operates on a 75 minute headway and provides service to the residential Intermediate School, Hemmerling Elementary School and the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs Avenue. Route 6 – Southern Banning The route operates on a 75 minute headway and provides service to the residential areas south of the I-10 freeway and the MSJC Pass Campus, a small residential section north of Ramsey Street at the east end of the City of Banning, the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs Avenue, Banning High School, Smith Correctional Facility, apartment complexes in the south, and on request, the Banning Municipal Airport. Banning Pass Transit fixed route service hours are: Monday – Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Banning Transit System Pass Transit provides service hours from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on the following holidays: Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, and the day after Thanksgiving Day. No service is provided on the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Banning Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride Banning Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride provides service to seniors (60+), persons with disabilities, and individuals certified for complementary paratransit service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Call Center hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and voice mail can be left anytime and will be responded to as soon as possible. Service hours for Banning Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride are : Seniors (age 60 & older) and persons with disabilities without ADA certification Monday – Friday 8:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. Saturday & Sunday No Service Persons with ADA Complementary Paratransit Certification Monday – Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday Service provided on request 6 Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride is provided within the entire city limits of Banning and Beaumont and within a ¾ mile boundary of the Routes 1 and 2 service areas in Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride provides service hours to ADA Certified passengers only from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday – Friday and on the following holidays: Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, and the day after Thanksgiving Day. No service is provided on the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride is provided within the entire city limits of Banning and Beaumont and within a ¾ mile boundary of the Routes 1 and 2 service areas in Cabazon. The City of Banning provides the ADA certification for Pass Transit Dial-A- Ride services operated by the City of Banning. The primary uses of Banning Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride are for transportation to medical appointments, workshop programs for persons with disabilities, shopping areas, employment, and include connections to Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and Pass Transit fixed routes. Through a cooperative memorandum of understanding, Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride operated by the Beaumont Transit system will provide its residents with service in Banning and within a ¾ mile boundary of Route 2 in Cabazon. Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride operated by the Banning Transit System will provide its residents with service in the city limits of Beaumont (excluding Cherry Valley). There are no direct connections between the Pass Area and the Coachella Valley on public transit. Greyhound Lines, Inc. through their Crucero subsidiary provides intercity bus service between Los Angeles, Banning, Palm Springs, Imperial County, and Mexicali four times each day. Caltrans Division of Rail, through Amtrak operates Amtrak California Thruway bus service between Indio, Beaumont City Hall and Bakersfield with connections to Amtrak California San Joaquin to Oakland or Sacramento via Central Valley cities. 1.4 Current Fare Structure and Proposed Fare Structure The fare structure was adjusted in January 2009. Currently, the fixed route fare is $1.00/one way trip for general fare passengers. Fares for senior citizens age 60 years and older and persons with disabilities is $.60/one-way trip. A zone fare of $.25 exists for persons traveling between Banning/Beaumont and Cabazon/Morongo service areas. (The route is twice the length of any other route in the system. The zone fare helps to recover operating costs for travel beyond the City limits.) Ten-ride ticket books are offered for $9.00 each; senior citizens and persons with disabilities can purchase Ten- Ride ticket books at a reduced cost of $5.40 each. Monthly passes became available in January 2009. General fare monthly passes are offered at $34.00 each and Senior/Disabled monthly passes are offered at $20.50 each. There will be a student rate introduced in July, 2011. This will be a rate reduction and will match the youth fare that is charged Beaumont, $.85/one-way trip and $23.50 for a monthly pass. 7 Ten-Ride Ticket Books can be purchased at Banning Transit System Administrative Offices located at 789 North San Gorgonio Avenue and Banning City Hall Finance Department located at 99 East Ramsey Street. Monthly Passes can be purchased at the Banning Community Center Office, 789 N. San Gorgonio Avenue. The City of Beaumont also offers the same Ten-Ride Ticket Book for sale onboard Routes 2, 3, and 4 or at Beaumont City Hall. Pass Transit tickets, monthly and day passes are honored by both the Banning and Beaumont Transit Systems. Transfers are no longer valid on the Pass Transit System. RTA accepts day and monthly passes where Pass Transit routes connect to RTA routes. The final increase of fares went into effect July 2009 to ensure that the City is in compliance with achieving a 10% farebox recovery ratio. PASS TRANSIT FIXED ROUTE FARE STRUCTURE Category Current Fare Full Fare in Banning or Beaumont $ 1.00 Zone Fare to/from/within $ .25 Cabazon Seniors (age 60 and up) $ .60 Persons with Disabilities $ .60 Day Pass (general) $ 3.00 Day Pass (senior/disabled) $ 1.80 Monthly Pass $34.00 Monthly Pass (senior/disabled) $20.50 Other Transit Items 10-Ride Ticket Book/$9.00 Seniors/Persons With Disabilities 10-Ride Ticket Book/$5.40. Children (5 yrs. & younger) First two children ride free w/paying Adult – Additional children pay $ 1.00 A fixed route disability discount card is available from the Banning Transit System Administrative Office for those who have a disability, a Medicare card or ADA Certification. This card allows the eligible user to pay the fare of “Persons with Disabilities” when traveling on the Pass Transit system and RTA. 8 Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride is restricted to persons with disabilities and seniors age 60 years and older. The Dial-A-Ride fare is $1.35/one-way trip. PASS TRANSIT DIAL-A-RIDE FARE STRUCTURE Category Current Fare Full Fare $1.35/one-way trip Attendants Free if required with an ADA Certified Passenger No Show $1.35/no show* Zone Fares None 10 Tripper $12.15 (10 one-ride tickets) *No Shows are trips scheduled but not taken or cancelled There are currently no plans in FY 2011/12 to change the current fare structure for either the fixed route or Dial-A-Ride systems. 1.5 Revenue Fleet Banning Transit System operates five fixed route vehicles (three in revenue service and two as spares), all of which are powered by compressed natural gas (CNG). The vehicles are equipped with bicycle racks for two bicycles, and are in compliance with the ADA with mobility device lifts and two tie-down stations per bus. The transit system also operates three Dial-A-Ride vehicles (two in revenue service and one as a spare) that are gasoline powered and in compliance with the ADA, with mobility device lifts and tie- down stations for four mobility devices. Banning Pass Transit also has three support vehicles that are used for driver relief or administrative errands. The City adheres to California Highway Patrol (CHP) mandated Preventive Maintenance Inspection criteria and is very proactive in maintenance efforts. The predicted replacement level for fixed route service buses is every 10 years. Currently, there are five fixed route buses of which three are in revenue service and two are rotation buses. Two new buses were delivered in September 2010 and put into rotation. A replacement bus for the fixed route will be needed in FY 2012/13. The Dial-A-Ride buses should be replaced at 150,000 miles. Currently, there are two Dial-a-Ride buses in revenue service and one rotation Dial-A-Ride. See the City of Banning Fleet Inventory Table 1 for individual vehicle characteristics. 9 The following two pictures show a fixed route and a dial-a-ride vehicle: 1.6 Existing Facility/Planned Facilities Banning Transit System functions as a department within the City and utilizes existing facilities. Transit Administrative staff is housed at the City’s Community Center located at 789 North San Gorgonio Avenue. The maintenance, parking, fueling of the buses, and storage of bus stop amenities are performed at the City’s Corporation Yard located at 176 East Lincoln Street. Maintenance of the vehicles is performed by the Public Works Department, Fleet Maintenance Division. City administrative staff, including Finance and Human Resources, is located at Banning City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street. Banning Police, which provides security services for Pass Transit, is located at 125 East Ramsey Street. CNG vehicles for the transit system are fueled at the City of Banning Corporation Yard. The fueling station is the only CNG station in the City of Banning large enough to meet the demands of the transit system and Banning Unified School District. There are currently no plans to expand Banning Pass Transit System facilities. CHAPTER 2 – EXISTING SERVICE AND ROUTE PERFORMANCE 2.1 Fixed Route Service – Route by Route Analysis Ridership for Banning Pass Transit Route 1 July-March in 2009-10 was 31,743, Route 5 was 40,025 and Route 6 was 26,991 for a total of 98,759. These numbers were compiled from the Trans Track ridership data. Ridership for Banning Pass Transit Route 1 July-March in 2010-11 was 29,637, Route 5 was 33,177, and Route 6 was 28,141 for a total of 90,955. Ridership numbers for 2010-11 average 975 less per month compared to FY 2009-10. The loss in ridership can be directly attributed to higher unemployment rates and the subsequent drop in disposable income, thereby greatly 10 reducing the number of passengers commuting to work, running errands, shopping or taking pleasure trips. Banning Transit System staff has available comment cards, a direct telephone line to the Banning Transit Office, e-mail, mail, fax-a-comment, complaint or suggestion for the public to communicate with the Transit Department. A Transit Advisory Committee was recently created to assist the City in monitoring transit services. Banning Transit System staff actively participates in community events with local organizations. The Pass Transit Information Center provides Dial-a-Ride information, reservations, cancellations, fixed route schedules and information. Hours of operation are Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Presently, the Transit Information Center is closed on Fridays, weekends, and on all major holidays. The Transit Information Center is located at the Banning Community Center, inside the Transit Administrative Offices, located at 789 North San Gorgonio Avenue in Banning. This center is also responsible for taking complaints and passing them to the appropriate party. The City has made a commitment to provide reliable, responsive information to the public and be proactive in responding to customer comments, complaints, and suggestions. The Transit General Manager utilizes transit services on a frequent basis to talk with riders and drivers to obtain comments. 2.2 Dial-A-Ride Service – System Performance Ridership for the Banning Dial-A-Ride July-March in 2009-10 was 6,472. Ridership numbers for the Banning Dial-A-Ride July-March 2011 was 6,296. Ridership numbers for 2010-11 average 22 less per month than for FY09-10 per Transtrack data. The loss in ridership can be directly attributed to a drop in disposable income, thereby reducing passengers running errands, shopping, or taking pleasure trips. 2.3 Key Performance Indicators The Riverside County Transportation Commission has adopted a Productivity Improvement Plan (PIP) for the transit and commuter rail operators of Riverside County. The PIP sets forth efficiency and effectiveness standards that the transit operators are to meet. Progress towards these standards is reported quarterly to the Commission. Below are tables of the operating performance indicators adopted in the PIP and this plan’s projections for the coming year. 11 Banning Transit System/Pass Transit Performance Measures The FY 2010/11 projections are based on operating data through March 2011, projected through June, 2011. Since these are only estimates, the performance indicators are subject to change. For Fiscal Year 2011/12, the Banning Transit System expects to be in compliance with at least 4 of the 7 performance targets. Additional details on key indicators for demand responsive and fixed route service are shown in Table 2. The Banning Transit System does not receive any federal funding and is not required to report to the National Transit Database. 2.4 Productivity Improvement Efforts In January 2009 Monthly and Day Passes were made available for purchase offering significant savings to the passengers utilizing the Fixed Route Service. A bus driver attended all of the Banning Unified School District’s Open Houses and Back to School Nights providing written and verbal information about the Banning Pass Transit services. A Banning Pass Transit information booth was stationed at major community events throughout the City of Banning. The Community Services Director regularly visits the Banning Senior Center and Nutrition Site providing information on the Fixed Route and Dial-A-Ride and answering any questions or concerns that current and potential passengers may have. In order to meet the PIP, staff will review all routes to make sure that service is warranted and will eliminate any unproductive areas. Analyzing all routes and monitoring them for unproductive service areas will be an ongoing activity. Banning Transit System / Pass Transit FY 2008 Audited FY 2009 Audited FY 2010 Actual FY 2011 Projected (Based on 3rd Quarter Actuals) FY 2012 Planned Performance Statistics Unlinked Passenger Trips 133,939 173,351 127,392 97,251 131,834 Operating Cost per Revenue Hours $80.30 $88.15 $84.33 $81.79 $92.87 Farebox Recovery Ratio 12.34% 11.73% 10.93% 10.15% 10.60% Subsidy per Passenger $7.65 $6.48 $8.49 $7.70 $8.56 Subsidy per Passenger Mile N/A N/A 3.18 $3.01 $3.31 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $70.47 $77.81 $75.11 $73.49 $83.02 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $4.23 $4.69 $4.65 $4.56 $5.14 Passengers per Revenue Hour 9.28 12.0 8.8 9.50 9.70 Passengers per Revenue Mile 0.56 0.72 0.55 0.59 0.60 12 2.5 Major Trip Generators and Projected Growth Over Next Two Years Major passenger trip destinations that the Banning Pass Transit services are the Kmart Shopping Center, the 2nd Street Marketplace in Beaumont, the WalMart Supercenter in Beaumont, the Fox Cinema in Banning, the Cabazon Outlet Stores, Desert Hills Premium Outlets and Casino Morongo. There is a high demand for service to these destinations whether for employment, necessities or pleasure. Requests for transit service to the Coachella Valley, Idyllwild, and the Morongo Basin have been received. Staff is aware of the desire and need for public transportation to these areas; however, the flat economic growth of the entire country currently makes any expansion of service to these areas impossible. Whether or not these destinations can ever be considered much less carried out is wholly dependent on a complete economic recovery and ridership large enough to support it. 2.6 Equipment, Passenger Amenities and Facility Needs Passenger amenities include 170 sign posted bus stops, 13 bus shelters with information panels, 6 benches, and 13 trash cans. Bus Schedule holders were ordered and installed in bus shelters throughout the fixed routes and route holders were purchased and installed in the fixed route buses. Much needed shop equipment for bus and Dial-A-Ride maintenance and repairs were also purchased. Nine new benches and trash receptacles are being installed and more identical benches and trash receptacles will be purchased to complete the replacement of the old benches and trash receptacles throughout the fixed routes. Two new fixed route buses were delivered in 2010, as well as a relief truck and administrative vehicle. A shop truck, new fareboxes, digital security cameras, and automated enunciator and display equipment are in the process of being purchased. A need for a replacement fixed route bus is anticipated for FY 2012-13. CHAPTER 3 – PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES AND IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 Recent Service Changes Banning Pass Transit service hours were reduced in October 2010. Staff consistently reviews the three service routes for any improvements needed. To this point, the highest impact has been the elimination of Sunday service. Transit staff is currently assessing how partial Sunday service can be restored. The bus fares remain at their July 2009 implemented level with no plans for any service increases at this time; however, there will be a reduction in student fares. 13 3.2 Recommended Local & Express Route With the economy rebounding, it may be possible to expand service hours and routes to try and generate increased ridership. Staff is currently analyzing routes and passenger trips and intends to reinstate at least partial service on Sunday. 3.3 Marketing Plans and Promotions Providing Banning Pass Transit and Dial-A-Ride information on the local television channel, staff appearances at Banning Unified School District Back to School Nights and Open Houses, flyers and posters placed throughout the city and outside areas (Beaumont and Cabazon) serviced by the transit system and newspaper ads can all be utilized to educate the public about the Banning Pass Transit and Dial-A-Ride services available. The following marketing efforts will be undertaken to promote ridership growth. 1. Continue outreach programs to schools and at community events. 2. Attend senior community meetings to provide information. 3. Participation in the Mt. San Jacinto Jr. College GO-PASS Program to encourage ridership of college students. 4. Enclose flyers with transit information in city utility bills. The City of Banning’s website at www.ci.banning.ca.us provides basic Pass Transit route and schedule information. Transit staff is currently working to make information about routes and services more accessible. Customers can submit comments, complaints, concerns and suggestions through the city website. 3.4 Budget Impact on Proposed Changes With the necessity of making budget cuts, it would be impossible to expand service hours or routes for FY 2011-12. Cutting service hours may occur by eliminating Sunday service in order to meet budget constraints. CHAPTER 4 – FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS 4.1 Operating and Capital Budget For FY 11/12, operating funds needed to operate the Banning Pass Transit System are $1,260,587 for the Fixed Route and DAR. The operating funds consist of $1,130,537 local transportation funds (LTF). The projected farebox revenue for FY 11/12 is $128,500. Additional funding in the amount of $1,550 will come from interest income. 14 In an effort to reduce administrative operating expenses, the contract services agreement between the City of Banning and Professional Transit Management, LTD (PMT,LTD) was cancelled effective June 30, 2010. 4.2 Funding Plans to Support Proposed Operating and Capital Program No capital funds are being requested for FY 11/12. 4.3 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements The City of Banning submitted an Americans with Disabilities Act Paratransit Plan to the FTA on January 26, 1992. Pass Transit fixed route buses are equipped with ADA compliant mobility device lifts and are accessible to persons with disabilities. A procedure is in place to provide service to a customer in a mobility device should a fixed route bus lift fail. Banning Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride services provide ADA complementary paratransit service for the fixed route services operated by Banning Transit System. Beaumont Transit System offers the same service through its Pass Transit Dial-a-Ride operation. The system uses a self-certification process with professional verification. Banning Transit System staff processes ADA certifications for Pass Transit operations. Title VI Banning Transit System/Pass Transit does not utilize federal funds for operating expenses. As such, Title VI requirements do not currently apply to the transit system. Alternatively Fueled Vehicles (RCTC Policy) Pass Transit fixed-route buses are CNG powered. Pass Transit Dial-a-Ride vehicles (which are less than 33,000 lbs. GVW and 15-passenger capacity) and administrative and driver relief vehicles are gasoline powered. Future vehicle purchases will be in compliance with the RCTC and South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) policies regarding alternative fuel transit vehicles. The CNG Fueling Station at the City of Banning Corporation Yard provides expanded CNG capacity and fast fueling capability. With increased capacity and redundant compressor units, having adequate and reliable CNG pumping capacity will not be an issue in the foreseeable future. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program The City of Banning has adopted a DBE plan and methodology which is in compliance with the State of California’s requirements. The plan and goals will be updated on an as needed basis. 15 16 17 18 19 20 TABLE 3A: INDIVIDUAL ROUTE DESCRIPTION Route 1 – Beaumont/Banning/Cabazon Pass Transit Route 1 provides service predominately along Ramsey Street & 6th Street between Beaumont City Hall, Banning and Cabazon, while serving the Casino Morongo, Cabazon neighborhoods and Cabazon shopping areas. This route operates on a two- hour headway and is complemented by an overlap with Route 2 (operated by Beaumont Transit System) along 75% of the route. It provides service to the remote Esperanza and Elm area of Cabazon. The route also provides service to the residential areas of Cabazon, James Venable Community Center, Casino Morongo, Desert Hills Premium Outlets and Cabazon outlets, and the commercial areas along 6th Street and Beaumont Avenue in Beaumont. This route provides riders access to many civic, educational and county sponsored public social service offices within the City of Banning and the unincorporated community of Cabazon. Destinations on Route 1 include: K-Mart, Albertsons, Wal-Mart Supercenter, Beaumont City Hall, Greyhound Crucero Agency, Amtrak California Thruway bus stop, Banning City Hall, The Gas Company, San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, Fox Cinemas, Banning Police Department, Desert Hills Premium Outlets, Cabazon Outlets, Casino Morongo and James Venable Community Center. Route 5 – Northern Banning This route operates on a 75 minute headway and provides service to the residential areas of the City of Banning that lie north of the I-10 Freeway, the Riverside County Courthouse, the Banning Municipal Library, the Coombs Intermediate School, and the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs Avenue. This neighborhood feeder route provides connections to many civic, educational and county sponsored public social service offices, Banning City Hall, Fox Cinemas, K-Mart, Albertsons, Rite Aid Pharmacy, Walgreens Pharmacy, San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, Banning Chamber of Commerce, Riverside County Superior Court, Banning Public Library, Banning Community Center, Banning Senior Center, Repplier Park Aquatics Center, U.S. Post Office, and various other shopping and school locations within the community. Route 6 – Southern Banning This route operates on a 76 minute headway and provides service to the residential areas south of the I-10 Freeway, a small residential section north of Ramsey Street at the east end of the City of Banning, the commercial areas along Ramsey Street and Highland Springs Avenue, Banning High School, apartment complexes, the Riverside County Smith Correctional Facility, and the Mt. San Jacinto College. 21 This neighborhood feeder route provides connections to many civic, educational and county sponsored public social service offices, Banning City Hall, Fox Cinemas, K-Mart, Albertsons, Rite Aid Pharmacy, Walgreens Pharmacy, San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, Banning High School, the Riverside County Smith Correctional Facility, The Banning Municipal Airport, U.S. Post Office, and various other shopping and school locations within the community. Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride is provided within the entire city limits of Banning and Beaumont and within a ¾ mile boundary of Routes 1 and 2 services in Cabazon. The City of Banning provides the ADA certification for Pass Transit Dial-A-ride services operated by the cities of Banning and Beaumont. Seniors (age 60 years and older), persons with disabilities, and ADA eligible passengers are eligible for dial-a-ride throughout the entire service area. Service hours vary for non-ADA eligible passengers. These categories of passengers also are required to fill out a certification application to determine eligibility of service. Once certified, a card is issued to the applicant. General public passengers (ages 5 – 59 years) are not eligible for dial-a-ride service. The primary uses of Pass Transit Dial-A-Ride are for transportation to medical appointments, workshop programs for persons with disabilities, shopping areas, employment, and connections with Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and Pass Transit Fixed Routes. 22 CITY OF BANNING FY 2011/12 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12Project DescriptionCapital Project Number (1)Total Amount of FundsLTF STAProp 1B (PTMISEA)Prop 1B SecurityMeasure A Fare BoxOther (2)FY 2011/12 Operating Assistance $1,260,587 $1,130,537 $128,500 $1,550Subtotal: Operating$1,260,587 $1,130,537 $0 $0 $0 $0 $128,500 $1,550Subtotal: Capital$0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total: Operating & Capital$1,260,587$1,130,537 $0$0 $0$0 $128,500 $1,550Note: Other (2) is from Interest Income 23 CITY OF BANNING FY 2012/13 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5.1 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2012/13 Project Description Capital Project Number (1)Total Amount of Funds LTF STAProp 1B (PTMISEA) Fare Box Other (2) FY 12/13 Operating Assitance $1,332,891 $1,204,391 $127,000 $1,500 Subtotal: Operating$1,332,891 $1,204,391 $0 $0 $127,000 $1,500 No Capital Request Subtotal: Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total: Operating & Capital $1,332,891 $1,204,391 $0 $0 $127,000 $1,500 24 CITY OF BANNING FY 2013/14 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5.2 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2013/14 Project Description Capital Project Number (1)Total Amount of Funds LTF STAProp 1B (PTMISEA) Fare Box Other (2) FY 13/14 Operating Assistance $1,355,580 $1,223,980 $130,100 $1,500 Subtotal: Operating$1,355,580 $1,223,980 $0 $0 $130,100 $1,500 No Capital Request Subtotal: Capital $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total: Operating & Capital $1,355,580 $1,223,980 $0 $0 $130,100 $1,500 25 TABLE 6 – AUDIT Audit Recommendations (Covering FY 2006/07 – FY 2008/09) Action(s) Taken And Results 1. Banning Transit should implement the remaining three prior audit recommendations: ♦ Provide Passenger Mile data in TransTrack ♦ Continued Recruitment of Drivers ♦ Provide incentives for drivers to maintain longevity Passenger Mile data in TransTrack was implemented in 2006 The hiring process for drivers has been greatly improved through developing better communication with Human Resources. Employee Recognition program is in place honoring employees at each 10 year mark. We also provide an excellent retirement package and recognize seniority for scheduling. 2. Develop and enforce employee policies and rules specific to providing consistent transit service. Development of a procedures manual is currently in progress with an estimated completion date of September, 2011. 3. Conduct daily reconciliation of farebox revenues with passenger counts. A procedure has been developed and implemented that allows for daily reconciliation of farebox revenues with passenger counts. 26 27 28 TABLE 9 – HIGHLIGHTS OF 2011/12 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN ƒ Modernization of 13 bus shelters and addition of two new shelters. ƒ Replace existing bus benches and add additional benches and trash receptacles. ƒ Purchase and install auto display and enunciator equipment in fixed route fleet. ƒ Purchase ADA accessible van and one fixed route coach with past STA allocations. ƒ Purchase shop truck to expedite repairs to buses experiencing breakdowns on route with previous year STA allocations ƒ Install additional bus stop signs along routes 1, 5, and 6, thereby, reducing the number of flag stops. ƒ Provide modified Sunday service. ƒ Closely monitor service to the MSJC Pass Campus and address needs as necessary. ƒ Continue working with the City of Beaumont staff regarding the coordination of routes, schedules, passenger amenities, and fares to ensure that Pass Transit is seamless and simple to use by Pass Area residents. BANNING TRANSIT SYSTEM/PASS TRANSIT FY 2007/08 Audited FY 2008/09 Audited FY 2009/10 Audited FY 2010/11 Estimate FY 2011/12 Planned (Based on 3rd Quarter Actuals) Systemwide Ridership 133,939 173,351 127,932 129,668 131,834 Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $80.03 $88.15 $84.33 $81.79 92.94   29 30 31 32 33 34 City of Beaumont SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FY 2011/12 - FY 2013/14 5.31.11 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents CHAPTER 1 – SYSTEM OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 1  POPULATION PROFILE AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS ..................................................................................... 1  RIDERSHIP DEMOGRAPHICS ..................................................................................................................................... 2  FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SERVICES ........................................................................................................................... 4  PARATRANSIT SERVICES .......................................................................................................................................... 4  REGIONAL EXPRESS BUS SERVICE.......................................................................................................................... 5  FARE STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................................................... 5  FLEET CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................................................ 6  FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................................................. 7  CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING SERVICE AND ROUTE PERFORMANCE ............................................................... 8  FIXED ROUTE SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................ 8  DIAL-A-RIDE SERVICE ............................................................................................................................................ 10  KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS........................................................................................................................... 10  PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS ............................................................................................................... 11  MAJOR TRIP GENERATORS AND PROJECTED GROWTH ........................................................................................ 11  EQUIPMENT, PASSENGER AMENITIES AND FACILITY NEEDS ................................................................................. 12  CHAPTER 3 - PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................................. 13  RECENT SERVICE CHANGES .................................................................................................................................. 13  MARKETING PLANS AND PROMOTION .................................................................................................................... 13  CHAPTER 4 – FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS .......................................................................................... 14  OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET ........................................................................................................................ 14  FUNDING PLANS TO SUPPORT PROPOSED OPERATING AND CAPITAL PROGRAM ................................................ 14  REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................................. 15  Table 1 – Fleet Inventory 16 Table 2 – SRTP Service Summary 18 Table 3 – SRTP Route Statistics 23 Table 3A – Individual Route Descriptions 24 Table 4 – Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12 25 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification, Project No. 12-1 26 Table 5.1 & 5.2 – Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2012/13-2013/14 27 Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification, Project No. 13-1 28 Table 5.2A – Capital Project Justification, Project No.14-1 29 Table 6 – Progress to Implement Triennial Performance Audit 30 Table 7 – Service Provider Performance Targets Report 31 Table 8 – SRTP Performance Report 32 Table 9 – Highlights of 2011/12 – 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan 33 1 CHAPTER 1 – SYSTEM OVERVIEW The Pass Transit System is the result of a cooperative effort between the City of Banning (Banning Municipal Transit System) and the City of Beaumont (Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency). The Pass Transit System consists of two independent, but well coordinated, transit systems. The coordinated service area of Pass Transit includes the cities of Banning, Beaumont and Calimesa, the unincorporated areas of Cabazon and Cherry Valley, and the commercial area of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Reservation. Both fixed route and dial-a-ride services are provided throughout the service area. There are three major thoroughfares passing through the City of Beaumont including Interstate 10, State Highway 60, and Route 79. Major employers within the area include the Casino Morongo, Lowe’s Distribution Center, Beaumont and Banning Unified School Districts, San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, 2nd Street Marketplace which includes the WalMart Supercenter, Desert Hills Premium Outlets, and several manufacturing companies. Beaumont Pass Transit services one high school, two continuation schools, two middle schools, and six elementary schools. One adult school, one continuation school, one alternative school, two private schools, a community college and a private university are also located within the service area. Additionally, several routes and dial-a-ride serve the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital, Beaver Medical Center, and Loma Linda University Hospital, many physicians’ offices, chiropractic offices, optometry offices and dental facilities. Beaumont community has 12,908 housing units, ten mobile home parks and five motels, twenty-three churches and one library, fifteen parks and other recreational areas all located within the service area of Beaumont Pass Transit. It should be noted that this Short Range Transit Plan incorporates the elements of the Pass Area Transit Plan that addresses service within the system's service area, specifically focusing on Beaumont. The City of Banning will submit a separate SRTP addressing the Banning Municipal Transit System. Even though the two transit service providers operate closely in providing a seamless service to the residents of the Pass Area, the transit agencies are separate entities. Nothing in this document is intended to indicate anything more than a cooperative effort between the two transit systems. In recent months, the two cities have met to discuss the future of Pass Transit and several options are being explored at this time. Population Profile and Demographic Projections The latest available statistics from the California Department of Finance show residential population within Beaumont and the entire Pass Transit System's service 2 area had a 13% increase from year 2009 (32,500) to year 2010 (36,877). The unincorporated area of Cherry Valley had a population of 6,362 residents in 2010. In 2008 and 2010, Beaumont was named the second fastest growing city in the State of California with a 224% increase from 2000 to 2010. This coincides with Riverside County being the fastest growing county in the state in 2010 with a 42% increase over the year 2000. The 2010 census indicated that the Beaumont community is ethnically diverse with a makeup of: Caucasian (63%), Hispanic (40%), Black (6%), Asian and Pacific Islander (8%), and all other races (16%). Senior citizens (age 65+) make up 11% of the population, indicating a potential for growth in the demand for Dial-A-Ride services and a slight growth in Fixed Route services. Youth (age 18 and under) also make up a substantial portion of the population (30%). The 2010 census showed the median household income within Beaumont was $34,254, well below the national average of $41,994. This indicated the potential of an exceptional need for transit services. However, in 2007, the average home price was $322,500 noting a high percentage of two-income families and a much higher median household income than reported at the 2000 census. This translates to less of a need for transit services today than in previous years on much of Beaumont’s system. Finally, it is important to note that Beaumont’s Route 2 stretches into Cabazon and the City of Banning, where 14% of households are below poverty level, according to the 2000 census, indicating the presence of a number of transit dependent individuals specifically on that route. Ridership Demographics This section provides demographic information that shows our passenger profile including the gender, age, ethnicity, and income of the riders. Data available is from ridership surveys taken from 2010 to 2011. The majority of riders are female (62%). Eleven percent (11%) of the riders are under 19 years of age. Eighty percent (80%) of the riders are of working age (19 to 60). Finally, nine percent (9%) of riders are over 60. The ethnic distribution of riders shows that a majority are Hispanic or Black with 40% of the ridership being Caucasian. 3 Ridership Ethnicity Thirty-nine percent (39%) of riders are employed either full or part time and sixteen percent (16%) are students. Retirees make up nine percent (9%) of the ridership while the unemployed are fifteen percent (15%) of total ridership. Income levels of bus riders are low. About seventy-three percent (73%) make less than $20,000 per year. Bus riders also are transit dependent and seventy-six percent (76%) of them do not have a car available for the trip they were taking. Approximately one-half of our riders use transit to get to their place of employment. It should be noted that of the riders that do own a vehicle, thirty-three percent (33%) of those ride the bus because driving is too expensive. Ridership Household Income 4 Ridership Employment Status Additional ridership statistics: • Seventy-six percent (76%) of riders do not own a car. • Ninety-eight percent (98%) of riders walk 4 or fewer blocks to the bus stop. • Twenty percent (20%) of riders said they were using the bus to go to school. • Eighty percent (80%) of the riders are of working age (19 to 60). • Nine percent (9%) of riders are over 60. • Thirty-seven percent (37%) ride at least five (5) days every week. Fixed Route Transit Services The Pass Transit System operates ten fixed routes and one express route. Routes 2, 3, 4, 7, Express Route 8, 9, 10, and 11 are operated by the Beaumont Transit System. Routes 1, 5, and 6 are operated by the Banning Transit System. See "Appendix A" for the system route map. Routes 3 through 6 operate on one-hour headway. Routes 1 (Banning) and 2 complement each other offering a two-hour headway throughout the commercial areas of Beaumont, Banning, Cabazon, and the Morongo commercial development. Routes 7, 9 and 10 offer limited services in the mornings and afternoons. Route 11 offers limited services in the mornings. Express Route 8 offers on demand limited service to the city of Calimesa three times per day. Fixed route service hours are: Monday – Friday 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Limited service (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) is provided on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Veterans’ Day, and the day after Thanksgiving Day. No service is provided on New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Paratransit Services Dial-A-Ride provides service to seniors, persons with disabilities, and individuals certified for complementary paratransit service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Service hours for the dial-a-ride service are: Elderly and Disabled without ADA certification Monday - Saturday 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. Persons with ADA Complementary Paratransit Certification Monday - Friday 6.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 5 Limited service (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) is provided on Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, and the day after Thanksgiving Day. No service is provided on New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Regional Express Bus Service Passengers can use Day Passes to transfer between the Pass Transit System fixed routes and the RTA Line 31 to Hemet and Line 35 to Moreno Valley. There is a latent demand for better connections into eastern Riverside and San Bernardino counties for medical and social services as well as westward to the Palm Desert area for employment purposes. We look forward to working with SunLine should they implement a connector route from the desert communities. Fare Structure The fare structure was adjusted in 2010. The current fixed route fare is $1.00/one-way trip for general passengers. Student passengers pay $.85/one-way. The fare is $.55/one-way trip for senior citizens and persons with disabilities. A zone fare of $.25 exists for travel between Banning and Cabazon/Morongo Reservation service areas. (The route is twice the length of any other route in the system. The zone fare helps to recover operating costs.) Passengers under 46” in height pay $.25. Ten-ride ticket books are offered for $9.00 each; senior citizens and persons with disabilities can purchase the books at a reduced cost of $5.40/10-ride book. Day passes are sold for $3.00 each; senior citizens and persons with disabilities can purchase the passes for $1.80. Monthly passes are $34.00; youth are $23.50; senior citizens and persons with disabilities are $20.50 each. In addition to those passes, a 10 tripper pass for $12.15 is offered on dial-a ride services. Staff will consider proposing a fare increase equal to approximately 15% effective July 2011 for Fixed Route and Dial-A-Ride passengers. Should the cities of Beaumont and Banning agree on this fare structure and with Council approval, Pass Transit Beaumont would have the following proposed fares: 6 FIXED ROUTE FARE STRUCTURE Category Current Fare Proposed Fare Full  Fare $1.00 $1.15 Student Fare $0.75 N/A Youth  (Grades 1 ‐12) N/A $0.85 Child under 46'' tall N/A $0.25 Elderly  /Disabled $0.55 $0.60 Zone(s) $0.25 $0.25 Ticket  Books (10 one ‐ride) Full  Fare $9.00 $10.35 Ticket  Books (10 one ‐ride) Elderly/Disabled $5.40 $5.40 Day  Pass Full  Fare $3.00 $3.45 Day Pass Elderly/Disabled $1.80 $1.80 Monthly Pass Full Fare $34.00 $39.00 Monthly Pass Youth N/A $23.50 Monthly Pass Student/Elderly/Disabled $20.50 $20.50 Express  Route General  Passengers $1.75 $2.05 Elderly/Disabled $1.25 $1.45 Please note that the ticket books are currently sold as 9 tickets and the 10th ticket is free. The proposed fare increase would include 10 for 10 and eliminate the free ticket. DIAL-A-RIDE FARE STRUCTURE Category Current Fare Proposed Fare Full  Fare $1.35 $1.55 Attendants $1.70 $2.10 No show (collected during  the  next ride) $1.35 $1.55 10 Tripper (10 one ‐ride) $12.15 $13.95 Fleet Characteristics The Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency operates eight fixed route vehicles (five in revenue service and three in reserve). Three of the vehicles are CNG-powered, two are 7 diesel-powered, and two are gasoline powered. All are equipped with bicycle racks and ADA compliant with wheelchair lifts and tie-down stations. The transit system also operates four Dial-A-Ride vehicles (three in revenue service and one in reserve). All are gasoline powered. Three of the four vehicles are ADA compliant with wheelchair lifts and tie-down stations (please see City of Beaumont Table 1 for individual vehicle characteristics and replacement schedule). Four new unleaded buses were purchased in the last year and are currently in service. Two CNG vehicles were purchased this year and are also in service. The CNG buses are fueled at fueling stations located at the Beaumont Unified School District’s transportation yard and at the City of Banning corporate yard. The fueling stations are currently the only CNG stations in the Pass Area large enough to meet the transit system's demand. The remaining two diesel-powered buses will be replaced with CNG within the next year. Staff is working with vendors to piggy-back on the State of California’s bid to secure the vehicles. Facilities Administrative services for the Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency are provided by staff from various City of Beaumont departments with the majority of operations located at the Transit Services yard. Effective July 1, 2011, all customer service type functions, including bus passes, maps and schedules, and general transit information will be performed at the following locations with extended service hours at two of the locations: Beaumont Civic Center Hours: Monday-Thursday 8:00am to 5:00pm Friday 8:00am-Noon Beaumont Police Dept. Hours: Monday-Friday 7:00am-7:00pm Sat and Sun 7:00am-Noon Community Recreation Center Hours: Sunday-Saturday 6:00am-8:00pm Responsibility for overall administration of the transit system is provided by the City Resources Director. Maintenance of the vehicles is provided by Transit staff. 8 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING SERVICE AND ROUTE PERFORMANCE System-wide ridership in FY 2009 was 98,039. In August 2009, the Beaumont Unified School District terminated all transportation services to both middle schools and the high school. In FY 2010, ridership increased by 33% to 141,629 mainly attributed to the increase in student passengers. Estimated system-wide ridership for FY 2011 after 3rd quarter counts were tabulated is 163,574, an 8% increase over the planned amount of 151,580. The system-wide projected ridership for FY 2012 is 81418, a 5% projected increase over the FY 2011 estimate. Fixed Route Service The Pass Transit System operates seven fixed routes and one express route. Routes 2, 3, 4, 7, Express Route 8, 9, 10 and 11 are operated by the Beaumont Transit System. Routes 1, 5, and 6 are operated by the Banning Transit System. See "Appendix A" for the system route map. Routes 3 through 6 operate on one-hour headway. Routes 1 (Banning) and 2 complement each other offering a two-hour headway throughout the commercial areas of Beaumont, Banning, Cabazon, and the Morongo commercial development. Routes 7, 9, and 10 offer limited services in the mornings and afternoons. Route 11 offers limited service in the mornings. Express Route 8 offers on demand limited service three times per day to the city of Calimesa. Route 1 This route is operated by the City of Banning. Please refer to Banning’s Short Range Transit Plan. Route 2 This route operates on a two-hour headway and is complemented by an overlap with Route 1 that reduces headway on 75% of the route to one hour. The route provides service to the residential area along the western portion of Beaumont, the commercial areas along 6th Street, Beaumont Avenue, Oak Valley Parkway and Highland Springs Avenue in Beaumont, including the Rite-Aid, Wal-Mart Supercenter shopping center, the commercial areas along Ramsey Street in Banning, the Cabazon Community Center, Casino Morongo, and Desert Hills and Cabazon Outlet Malls. Route 3 This route operates on a one-hour headway and serves the residential areas of Beaumont (north of 1-10 freeway). It also serves the commercial areas of Beaumont including the Oak Valley and Wal-Mart Supercenter shopping centers and Beaumont High School. In FY 09 Beaumont improved Route 3 by making the routing more direct, 9 eliminating fixed route service to most of Cherry Valley in favor of deviated service on demand and by adding routing through the Sundance development. Route 4 This route operates on a one-hour headway and serves downtown Beaumont and the residential areas of the city of Beaumont including a small portion south of Interstate 10. In FY 07-08, Beaumont improved Route 4 by simplifying some routing while maintaining neighborhood coverage. It was determined that the best way to maintain the coverage is through a one-way loop which is not the most effective routing option for transit. Route 4 continues to serve the commercial and industrial areas of Beaumont. Route 5 This route is operated by the City of Banning. Please refer to Banning’s Short Range Transit Plan. Route 6 This route is operated by the City of Banning. Please refer to Banning’s Short Range Transit Plan. Route 7 This route operates on half-hour headway between the hours of 6:30am and 7:30am and again between the hours of 2:45pm and 4:00pm. The route services Rite-Aid shopping center, the Oak Valley community, the westerly portion of Interstate 10 more commonly referred to as the Tournament Hills area, Cherry Valley, the high school and commercial areas. A tripper bus service has been added to meet the growing demand of passengers on this route. Route 8 This route operates on a three-quarter hour headway as a modified “on-demand” express route between the 2nd Street Marketplace and the City of Calimesa via Interstate 10, with a stop at Loma Linda University Medical Center and Beaumont Civic Center. Service is provided three times a day, Monday through Friday. Route 9 This route operates on half-hour headway between the hours of 6:30am and 7:30am and again between the hours of 2:45pm and 4:00pm. The route services the southerly portion of Interstate 10, Loma Linda Medical Center, the Seneca Springs community, downtown, the middle schools and the high school. Route 10 (formerly Route 3 Alternative) This route interlines with Route 3 and operates on a one-hour headway during the hours of 11:00am – 12:00pm and then again between the hours of 2:00pm and 3:00pm. The route services the high school, two middle schools, Sundance, the Civic Center, Three Rings Ranch, community recreation centers and downtown. The route began service in July 2008 and provides a direct link to child care facilities in Beaumont. 10 Route 11 This route interlines with Route 4 and operates on a three-quarter hour headway between 6:30am and 7:15am. This route services the westerly portion of Banning more commonly referred to as “Midway”, downtown Beaumont, Oak Valley and Beaumont High School. Dial-A-Ride Service Dial-A-Ride operates on a reservation system. Passengers are asked to call at least 24-hours in advance to schedule a pick-up. Dial-A-Ride ridership for FY 2010 was 21,615. Projected ridership for FY 2011 is 17,603. Ridership for FY 2012 is budgeted at 18,131. Data is currently being analyzed to determine the need for a third Dial-A-Ride vehicle to meet the demand of ADA and senior citizen passengers, specifically the first week of the month. Key Performance Indicators The Riverside County Transportation Commission has adopted a Productivity Improvement Plan (PIP) for the transit and commuter rail operators of Riverside County. The PIP sets forth efficiency and effectiveness standards that the transit operators are to meet. Progress towards these standards is reported quarterly to the Commission. Below is a table of the operating performance indicators adopted in the PIP and this plan's projections for FY 2011/12. Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency Based on actual year to date revenues and weighted projections, the Beaumont Transit System estimates fare box recovery ratio of 9.65% for FY 2011. System wide fare box ratio is projected at 13.62% for FY 2012. Performance Statistics Unlinked Passenger Trips 141,629 139,528 30% 181,418 Operating Cost Per Revenue Hours $79.35 $78.42 13% $88.98 Fare box Recovery Ratio 19.26%9.65% 41% 13.62% Subsidy per Passenger $12.70 $8.63 -23%$6.68 Subsidy per Passenger Mile $5.87 $4.15 29% $5.35 Subsidy per Revenue Hour $77.60 $70.84 8% $76.86 Subsidy per Revenue Mile $5.68 $5.11 5% $5.35 Passengers per Revenue Hour 6.1 8.2 40 % 11.50 Passengers per Revenue Mile 0.45 0.59 36% 0.80 Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency FY 2012 Projected FY 2010 Audited FY 2011 Estimated %Increase/ Decrease 11 The City of Beaumont is still actively pursuing the prospect of merging the Beaumont Transit services with the City of Banning. A combined system would offer certain economies of scale, guarantee of seamless service, continuity of fares and the potential of significant cost savings. Productivity Improvement Efforts Beaumont Transit has made a significant effort to improve productivity in the last two fiscal years and will continue to do so in the future, as evident by our passenger increase. Such notable improvements include fiscal responsibility, increasing passenger fares to meet more of the increased costs of operating the transit services, more efficient data compilation, and combining staffing assignments to reduce personnel overhead. The most significant improvement included successfully marketing local students to use transit as an alternative to transportation to and from school. Effective July 1, 2011, the Beaumont Pass Transit will offer customer service type functions at three locations including: Beaumont Civic Center, Beaumont Police Department, and the Community Recreation Center. With the addition of two locations to serve the needs of our customers and the added benefit of operating hours early in the morning, later in the evening and over the weekend, we anticipate more effective communication with our passengers and are hopeful that we will continue to grow and expand our system. Major Trip Generators and Projected Growth Major trip destinations include the high school and middle schools, commercial areas along Beaumont Avenue, 6th Street, 2nd Street Marketplace, Oak Valley shopping center, Ramsey Street and Highland Springs Avenue; the Super Wal-Mart transfer point; area elementary, intermediate and high schools; Desert Hills Outlet Malls, Cabazon Outlet Mall, and Casino Morongo; Beaver Medical and the Highland Springs medical offices adjacent to the San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital and thrift store; Riverside County Department of Public Social Services; Banning Mental Health and public health clinic; and H.E.L.P. In August 2009, the Beaumont Unified School District terminated all transportation services to both middle schools and the high school forcing students to find alternate transportation. All of the three routes that specifically accommodate student passengers are at capacity. A tripper bus was added to Route 7 to accommodate the overflow of passengers that travel on that route. A tripper bus will be considered for Route 9 as the system grows. As the City of Beaumont grows, senior citizen and ADA qualified populations have increased along with the general population growth. However, the City of Beaumont currently has two major developments specifically for active adults with more planned in the near future. Data is currently being analyzed to determine the need for a third Dial- A-Ride vehicle to meet the demand of ADA and senior citizen passengers, specifically the first week of the month. 12 Providing service to major employers, including Stater Brothers., Duraplastics, Wal-Mart Supercenter, Lowe’s Distribution Plant, and Home Depot, was anticipated to increase ridership. Ridership has increased to the Wal-Mart Supercenter. Future warehouse distribution centers are anticipated in the next two years and staff will monitor these developments closely and plan route changes in accordance with work hours. Ridership to Home Depot and the Oak Valley shopping center has not increased as anticipated. The service to these centers and its utilization will be part of an ongoing system evaluation and monitoring. In August 2009, the City of Beaumont was notified by the Beaumont Unified School District that school district bus routes to the two middle schools and senior school would be eliminated in FY 2010. This triggered adding two additional fixed routes to our system to meet the needs of the student population left without transportation. Two more routes have been added in the last year to add to the growing youth population. All routes are extremely successful. Finally, expanded outreach efforts to senior citizen organizations, schools and major employers are included in the plan for FY 2012. Equipment, Passenger Amenities and Facility Needs The system's fixed route buses are equipped with passenger operated bicycle racks. All revenue service vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts and tie-down stations. Eight vehicles are equipped with seatbelts. Bus stops in commercial areas are equipped with benches. Kiosks are being installed at all major bus stop signs. Waste containers are available at many of the commercial bus stops. Flag down stops are utilized in a few of the residential areas of Beaumont. Currently, bus shelters are located at only five of the system's most heavily used stops with more bus shelters planned for FY 2012. In 2009, a new bus shelter area, including three shelters, were installed using STA capital funding at the Wal-Mart Supercenter on 2nd Street Marketplace. Upgrades to the remaining shelters including new glass, new mesh steel panels and new paint were performed in the past two months. More shelters are scheduled to be installed at the high school, middle schools, and downtown by the end of this calendar year. Staff is working closely with the school district to design a new bus turn out and install new shelters at the south end of the high school. The anticipated completion date for that project is December 2011. This past month, staff entered into an agreement with a GIS consultant to design a system wide map to include all routes in the Pass area. We anticipate completion including printing and distribution by July 2011. At the end of 2010, staff completed training and implementation on Google Transit, with the assistance of RCTC staff. All bus stops and times are accessible via the web on Google Transit. 13 CHAPTER 3 - PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES AND IMPLEMENTATION Recent Service Changes New Service Routes In FY 2011, two new routes (Routes 10 and 11) were created to service student passengers traveling to and from area schools. The Calimesa Express Route (Route 8) was transformed to a modified on demand type service to help increase the Farebox Recovery Ratio. It has been well received by many passengers. In June 2010, staff proposed modifying Route 3 to eliminate service during periods of low ridership, specifically Saturdays. Public hearings were held to allow passengers the opportunity to comment on these changes and Council approved the proposal. A tripper bus was added to Route 7 in August 2010 to increase ridership and accommodate passengers traveling to and from the high school and middle schools. Further studies will be done to consider adding a permanent route to meet the growing demand. Route 8 was modified in 2010 to add the new Loma Linda University Medical Center as a stop on the route. Consideration will be made to add San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital as a stop in the near future. Future changes to routes will include adding a bus to existing routes during peak times to accommodate the growing number of passengers in certain identified areas. Marketing Plans and Promotion Efforts have been made to market the Pass Transit System over the past year and will continue in the coming year. These efforts include purchasing advertising on a map of the San Gorgonio Pass Area, distribution of route maps through the utility bills, delivering route maps to the library, chamber of commerce, local businesses and shelters. Route maps have also been placed on all of the buses in map holders. This past month, staff entered into an agreement with a GIS consultant to design a system wide map to include all routes in the Pass area. We anticipate completion including printing and distribution by July 2011. Kiosks are being installed at all major bus stop signs with current maps and time points included. A sub-committee of the Transportation Now Chapter was created in 2009 to address marketing efforts to students in the Pass Area. From that sub-committee, a co- sponsored event between Banning, Beaumont, RTA and the Mt. San Jacinto Community College took place in August to market college students and encourage 14 them to ride mass transit to and from the community college. With that, Pass Transit followed RTA’s lead and allowed all GoPass holders to ride Pass Transit free. Staff will continue to support this effort in the coming year. During school orientation, staff met with students and parents to educate them on their transit options in the Pass Area. We have been invited back for the coming school year and look forward to the upcoming events. Finally, a scholarship program was implemented in January 2010 after we were contacted by a local family and the school district seeking assistance in transporting two students from the Banning Midway area to Beaumont High School. Staff met with the family and agreed upon a series of transit related assignments to be performed and completed in exchange for monthly bus passes. From that, a committee was formed to set criteria, receive applications, and monitor the progress of the recipients. It has been determined that this scholarship program has been successful and we will request Council formally adopt the program in August 2011 for the FY 2012 school year. CHAPTER 4 – FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS Operating and Capital Budget Although the State reduction in funding has adversely impacted our operating budget, staff feels confident that all of the following will greatly improve our operations and we will be able to meet the budget limitations set by the State: • continue to concentrate on marketing the youth in the Pass area to increase ridership • re-organizing routes to better accommodate ridership and reduce overhead costs • offer more information on system routes with extended customer service hours The majority of the capital improvement projects were completed in the last year with the purchase of six new buses. We will continue to aggressively complete the final projects in the next year. Funding Plans to Support Proposed Operating and Capital Program The City of Beaumont receives a portion of its operating expenses from LTF funding. In prior years, staff requested that City Council fund the remaining balance of operating expenses from the general fund. As such, staff has requested that City Council fund the remaining balance of transit operating expenses for the FY 2012. Formal adoption of the FY 2012 budget is expected in June 2011. Capital projects are funded through STA funds and grants. 15 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 The Dial-A-Ride services provide ADA complementary paratransit service for the fixed route services. The system uses a self-certification process with professional verification. The City of Beaumont has allowed RTA to certify its ADA passengers and work under the umbrella of RTA's ADA policy as a provider of ADA paratransit. Title VI The Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency does not utilize federal funds for operating expenses. As such, Title VI requirements do not currently apply to the transit system. Alternatively Fueled Vehicles (RCTC Policy) The Beaumont Municipal Transit System operates three CNG powered buses on its fixed routes. The balance of the system's revenue service vehicles is diesel and gasoline powered. Future vehicle purchases will be in compliance with the RCTC and SCAQMD policies regarding alternative fuel transit vehicles. STA Compliance Beaumont Municipal Transit Agency does not utilize State Transit Assistance (STA) funding for operating expenses. As such, compliance with the Public Utilities Commission requirement is not applicable. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Line Route Description Areas/Sites Serviced 2Wal‐Mart shopping center west to  Beaumont then east to Cabazon via   6th Street/Ramsey  St. 2nd Street Marketplace shopping center and  transfer  point to RTA, San Gorgonio hospital,  Beaumont Civic Center, banks, downtown   Beaumont, Wellwood Child Care, Three Rings   Ranch, Noble Creek Park District, Oak Valley  Community, Stater  Bros./Walgreens  shopping  center, Orchard Park Apartments, Sports  Park,  shopping/restaurants along 6th Street, Mt. View  and San Gorgonio middle schools, Palm  Elementary, Beaver Medical  Clinic, DPSS, Banning  City Hall, unincorporated Cabazon, Desert Hills  outlet mall, Cabazon Outlet Mall, and Morongo  Resort Casino 3Wal‐Mart shopping center then  north through Sundance community  to Beaumont High School  with  immediate return via  the same route 2nd Street Marketplace shopping center and  transfer  to RTA, San Gorgonio hospital, Sundance  elementary, Sundance Community, Orchard Park  Apartments, Mt. View and San Gorgonio middle  schools, Sports  Park, Cherry Valley, and Beaumont  High School 4Wal‐Mart shopping center then  north to  hospital, west via  6th Street  then  north on Beaumont Ave., south  on Pennsylvania 2nd Street Marketplace shopping center and  transfer  point to RTA, San Gorgonio hospital,  Beaumont Civic Center, banks, downtown   Beaumont, library, Stater Bros./Walgreens   shopping center, Orchard Park Apartments, Sports   Park, shopping/restaurants  along 6th Street and  Beaumont Ave, Mt. View and San Gorgonio middle  schools, and various  apartment complexes 7 Brookside Ave, Oak View Drive, Oak  Valley Parkway, Desert Lawn Drive,  return to Brookside, Beaumont Ave,  and repeat loop Fairway Canyon, Tournament Hills, Tournament  Hills  elementary, Beaumont High, Mt. View Middle  School, San Gorgonio Middle school, Oak Valley  Greens, Oak Valley Shopping Center, Stetson  community, and Cherry Valley 8On Demand Express  Route with  minimal  stops beginning at  WalMart to  downtown Beaumont, I ‐ 10 freeway to  Calimesa City Hall  and  repeat loop WalMart and 2nd Street Marketplace, Loma  Linda   University  Medical  Center, Beaumont Civic Center,  Calimesa  Civic Center and Library, Calimesa Stater  Bros. 9WalMart shopping center to  Seneca   Springs, north on Pennsylvania  to  Palm Ave. and continuing north on  Beaumont Ave. WalMart and 2nd Street Marketplace, Seneca   Springs  community, Four Seasons  Active  Retirement community, Loma  Linda  Medical  Center,  San Gorgonio  Middle School, Oak Valley Shopping  Center, Mt. View Middle School, and Beaumont  High School 10 Beaumont High School  south  through Sundance, west on 6th Street  to Three Rings  and then north on  Beaumont Ave through  downtown Beaumont High School, Sports  Park, Orchard Park  Apartments, Mt. View and San Gorgonio middle  schools, four elementary schools, Beaumont Civic   Center, banks, downtown Beaumont, Noble Creek   Park, restaurants and shopping, and Cherry Valley 11 Banning Midway west via  6th Street  to downtown and north to high  school Banning Midway, San Gorgonio Hospital, Noble  Creek  Apts., Civic Center, Three Rings  Ranch, Oak  Valley  Community, Cherry Valley, Beaumont High  School, Mt. View Middle School Fixed Route: Table  3A ‐ Individual Route  Descriptions 25 City of Beaumont FY 2011/12 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Project DescriptionCapital Project Number (1)Total Amount of FundsLTF STA Measure AProp 1B (PTMISEA)Prop 1B (Security)Fare Box Other (2)Operating Costs F/Y 11-12 $1,402,000 $1,260,000 $140,000 $2,000$1,402,000 $1,260,000 $0 $140,000 $2,000GPS System on Buses FY 12-1 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0Total: Operating & Capital $1,452,000 $1,260,000 $0 $0 $0 $140,000 $2,000Subtotal: OperatingSubtotal: CapitalTable 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12 26 SRTP FY 11-12 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY 12-01 PROJECT NAME GPS Tracking System PROJECT DESCRIPTION Installation of a GPS tracking system and software for all vehicles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION GPS tracking software will allow for better coordination of services and more efficient response time. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA Funds $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 None 27 City of Beaumont FY 2012/13 and FY 2013/14 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5.1 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2012/13Project DescriptionCapital Project Number (1)Total Amount of FundsLTF STAProp 1B (PTMISEA)Measure ACMAQ TUMFFare BoxOther (2)Operating Expenses $1,350,000 $1,215,000 $135,000$1,350,000 $1,215,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,000 $0Passenger Amenities F/Y 13-1 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total: Operating & Capital $1,385,000 $1,215,000 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $135,000 $0Table 5.2 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2013/14Project DescriptionCapital Project Number (1)Total Amount of FundsLTF STAProp 1B (PTMISEA)Measure ACMAQ TUMFFare BoxOther (2)Operating Expenses $1,417,500 $1,275,750 $0 $0 $0 $141,750$1,417,500 $1,275,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $141,750 $0Type 7 Bus F/Y 14-1 $175,000 $175,000$175,000 $0 $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total: Operating & Capital $1,592,500 $1,275,750 $175,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $141,750 $0Subtotal: OperatingSubtotal: CapitalSubtotal: OperatingSubtotal: Capital 28 SRTP FY 11-12 Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY 13-01 PROJECT NAME Passenger Amenities PROJECT DESCRIPTION This ongoing project will add passenger amenities to existing buses, bus benches, bus shelters and bus stops. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Passenger amenities are necessary to maintain and increase ridership. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA Funds $35,000 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 None 29 SRTP FY 11-12 Table 5.2A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY 14-01 PROJECT NAME Procure Type VII Bus. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A Type VI Bus is planned to be procured. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This type of bus is needed for utilizing on routes. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA Funds $175,000 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 None 30 CITY OF BEAUMONT TRANSIT SYSTEM SRTP 2011/12-2013/14 TABLE 6 – PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Audit Recommendations (Covering FY 2006/07 – FY 2008/09) Action(s) Taken And Results (1) 1. Need to ensure that the State Controller Reports are completed and submitted in a timely manner. Recommendation to implement policies and procedures to ensure that the State Controller Reports are prepared and submitted in a timely manner as required by PUC Section 99243. COMPLETED Procedures are in place to prevent further delays in completion of these important documents. (1) If no action take, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant. 31 32 33 Table 9 HIGHLIGHTS OF SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN • Perform ongoing system wide route re‐structure studies  • Implement minor route changes to existing routes to increase service and improve customer  service  • Purchase GPS system for all vehicles to track vehicle location  • Extend customer service hours to three facilities with extended service and weekend hours  • Consider adding a third Dial‐A‐Ride route the first week of every month  • Implement a scholarship program for high school students  • Increase bus service on current routes by adding additional buses at peak times  • Install more bus shelters and bus benches throughout service area to improve and enhance  service provided with the city of Beaumont  • Expand outreach efforts to senior citizen organizations, schools and major employers    • Install kiosks at all major bus stops  • Design and print a system‐wide map showing all Beaumont and Banning routes  • Continue to work with the City of Banning to improve coordination of routes, schedules,  passenger amenities, and fares to ensure that Pass Transit is seamless and simple to use by Pass  Area residents  Operating and Financial Data FY 07/08 Audited FY 08/09 Audited FY 09/10 Audited FY 10/11 Estimated FY 11/12 Planned Systemwide Ridership 120,883 98,039 141,629 163,574 181,418 Operating Costs per Revenue Hour $55.30 $85.32 $79.35 $78.42 $88.98 May 24, 2011 City of Corona Short Range Transit Plan Fiscal Years 2011/12—2013/14 Table of Contents Chapter 1 – System Overview Page 1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Description of service area.................................................................................................1 1.2 Population Profile and Demographic Projections...............................................................4 1.3 Fixed Route Transit Services and Paratransit Service.......................................................5 1.4 Current Fare Structure and Proposed Fare Structure........................................................6 1.5 Revenue Fleet ....................................................................................................................7 1.6 Existing Facility/Planned Facilities .....................................................................................8 Chapter 2 – Existing Service and Route Performance 2.1 Fixed Route Service – Route by Route Analysis ...............................................................8 2.2 Dial-A-Ride Service – System Performance ......................................................................8 2.3 Key Performance Indicators...............................................................................................8 2.4 Productivity Improvement Efforts .......................................................................................9 2.5 Major Trip Generators and Projected Growth ..................................................................10 2.6 Equipment, Passenger Amenities and Facility Needs .....................................................10 Chapter 3 – Planned Service Changes and Implementation 3.1 Recent Service Changes..................................................................................................11 3.2 Recommended Local & Express Route ...........................................................................11 3.3 Marketing Plans and Promotion .......................................................................................11 3.4 Budget Impact and Proposed Changes ...........................................................................11 Chapter 4 – Financial and Capital Plans 4.1 Operating and Capital Budget ..........................................................................................12 4.2 Funding Plans to Support Proposed Operating and Capital Program .............................13 4.3 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements......................................................................13 Table 1 – Fleet Inventory.........................................................................................................15 Table 2 – Service Summary....................................................................................................17 Table 3 – Route Statistics........................................................................................................20 Table 3A – Individual Route Descriptions and Area Served...................................................22 Table 4 – Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12.......................................................23 Table 5A – Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2012/13....................................................25 Table 5B – Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2013/14....................................................27 Table 6 – Progress Implementing Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations ..............29 Table 7 – Service Provider Performance Targets...................................................................30 Table 8 – Performance Report................................................................................................31 Table 9 – City of Corona Transit Service Highlights FY 2011/12 ............................................32 Chapter 1 – System Overview 1.0 Introduction The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) sets the objectives and strategies for FY 2011/12 for the City of Corona Transit Service (CCTS) by evaluating current transit system performance, projected demographic changes, operating and capital funding needs, anticipated funding from federal, state and local sources and other factors to create a reasonable projection of conditions over the next three years (FY 2011/12 – 2013/14). As with most sectors of the economy, the transit industry is facing an era where revenues may be unpredictable while operating costs continue to increase. Many transit operators have already seen these impacts and addressed this dual pressure of decreasing revenue and increasing costs by either increasing fares or reducing service. Several transit operators have done both. For the CCTS, the full impact of declining revenues and increased cost occurred this year. Balancing these opposing forces was not easy and did impact our patrons but balancing revenues and expenses was necessary. The CCTS looked at several options to achieve a balance budget; impacting the fewest number of passengers was the guiding principle throughout the process. To achieve a balanced budget, the CCTS implemented reduced service and increased fares. Similar efforts have been undertaken by neighboring transit agencies in Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties. The CCTS last increased fares in July 2005. Over the last ten years, the CCTS has continued to increase transit services for its patrons by implementing a two-route fixed route system, Corona Cruiser, and extending the hours of operation on the Corona Dial-A-Ride. As anticipated, the service reduction and fare increase has affected ridership. Based on nine months of experience, it is estimated that system-wide ridership will decline by nine percent. This is slightly better than the original forecast. Revenue from passenger fares have exceeded projections. Original projections predicted a seven percent increase; based on nine month performance, it appears that revenue from passenger fares will increase by 20 percent. Deflection from increasing fares does not appear to have been as sizable as the industry standard predicted. 1.1 Description of Service Area The CCTS operates a general public, demand response Dial-A-Ride (DAR) and fixed route dubbed the ‘Corona Cruiser.’ DAR service commenced in 1977 and provides curb-to-curb service throughout the city of Corona and neighboring county areas of Coronita, El Cerrito and Home Gardens as well as satellite locations in the city of Norco (Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Social Services and Norco College). Corona Cruiser fixed route began operations in 2001 and serves the city-center as well as commercial, retail and residential areas on the eastern and southern portion of the city. See service maps below: 1 2 3 1.2 Population Profile and Demographic Projections The CCTS serves an ethnically diverse population of over 152,000 residents. The city encompasses 39 square miles. That diversity is reflected in the table below. City Population and Diversity Population and Ethnicity Number Percent of Population Total Population 152,374 100% White 90,925 60% Some other race 28,003 18% Asian 15,048 10% Black or African American 8,934 6% Two or more races 7,759 5% American Indian and Alaska Native 1,153 1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 552 0.4% Race One race 144,615 95% Two or more races 7,759 5% Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino 85,927 56% Hispanic or Latino 66,447 44% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census The table below lists rider characteristic for the DAR and Cruiser service. This data was compiled over the first nine months of fiscal year (FY) 2010/11. Rider Characteristics Corona Dial-A-Ride Corona Cruiser Senior / Disabled 84% General Public 54% General Public 9% Senior / Disabled 23% Metrolink Transfer 4% Student 8% Attendant (no fare) 2% Child 7% Child 1% RTA Transfer 6% Metrolink Transfer 2% 4 1.3 Fixed Route Transit Services and Paratransit Service System-wide ridership last year totaled 229,820, nearly identical to the previous year. As anticipated, ridership has decreased following a service reduction and fare increase implemented July 5, 2010. During the first nine months of this year, ridership declined eight percent over the same period last year. While projections anticipate a slight year-over-year increase for next year (1.5 percent) it will be some time before ridership fully recovers. Corona Cruiser – Blue and Red Lines The Blue Line serves the McKinley Street retail area then travels on to Magnolia Avenue and Main Street to the 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 the unincorporated area of Home Gardens. The Red Line connects the residential areas of central Corona with commercial areas along Sixth Street and the Ontario Avenue/California Avenue retail area. The Red Line also covers South Corona along Ontario Avenue/Temescal Canyon Road to serve the county area of El Cerrito and The Crossings shopping complex at Cajalco Road/Temescal Canyon Road. Bus deviation of up to one-half mile is available on the Corona Cruiser with two hours advance notice and availability. Service hours were reduced on weekdays and Saturdays on July 5, 2010. The adjusted Cruiser schedule is: Blue Line Red Line Monday – Friday 6:42 a.m. – 7:09 p.m. 7:00 a.m. – 7:05 p.m. Saturday 8:52 a.m. – 3:50 p.m. 9:07 a.m. – 4:15 p.m. Sunday no service no service The Cruiser does not operate on the following holidays: January 1; Memorial Day; July 4; Labor Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day. Cruiser ridership totaled 165,131 last year. Ridership is projected to decrease by eight percent this year to 151,559. Ridership is estimated to increase 1.5% next year to 153,832. This year, the Cruiser began serving the Corona Transit Center, owned and operated by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The Corona Transit Center provides a safe and efficient transfer point between local and regional bus lines as well as regional commuter train lines serving Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties accessible via a pedestrian bridge to the adjacent North Main Street Metrolink commuter rail station. To incentivize multimodal transportation, valid Metrolink pass-holders ride at no charge on Cruiser Blue and Red Lines to and from the Corona Transit Center. The CCTS and RTA have a reciprocal agreement that allows valid pass-holders a no-cost, one- way transfer between the Cruiser and RTA routes 1 and 3 at selected transfer points. Transfers between bus purveyors are an effective way to promote public transit as a low cost, eco-friendly and stress-free alternative to automobile trips. 5 Corona Dial-A-Ride Dial-A-Ride provides service to the general public, seniors, persons with disabilities and individuals certified for complementary paratransit service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Reservations can be made from one to fourteen days in advance; however, same day service may be accommodated if space is available. Dial-A-Ride provides curb-to-curb service throughout the City of Corona and neighboring county areas of Coronita, El Cerrito and Home Gardens as well as satellite locations in the City of Norco (Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Social Services and Norco College). For individuals certified for ADA complementary service, service hours are expanded to match Cruiser hours. ADA complementary service also provides priority service for reservations made in advance (1 to 14 days). Trips are scheduled within 1 hour of the requested time. Voicemail message reservations are accepted for ADA clients on Sundays and Holidays for next day service. Service hours were reduced on weekdays and Saturdays on July 5, 2010. The adjusted Dial-A- Ride schedule is: ADA Complementary General Public Paratransit Monday – Friday 6:42 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. 6:42 a.m. – 7:09 p.m. Saturday 8:52 a.m. – 4:15 p.m. 8:52 a.m. – 4:15 p.m. Sunday no service no service Dial-A-Ride service does not operate on the following holidays: January 1; Memorial Day; July 4; Labor Day; Thanksgiving Day; and Christmas Day. Dial-A-Ride ridership totaled 64,689 last year. Ridership is projected to decrease by 11 percent this year to 57,512. Estimates place next year’s ridership at 58,375, an increase of 1.5 percent. 1.4 Current Fare Structure and Proposed Fare Structure To supplement a reduction in operating revenues and offset increasing operating costs, the CCTS implemented a fare increase July 5, 2010. The current fare structure is on the next page. 6 Fare Structure Fare Type Fare Price Multi-Day Pass Discounted Price Corona Cruiser Cash-General $1.50 Cash-Senior/Disabled $0.70 Cash-Child (46” tall or under) $0.25 Day pass-General $4.00 Day pass-Senior/Disabled $2.00 15 day pass-General $25.00 $17.50 15 day pass-Student $17.50 $12.25 15 day pass-Senior/Disabled $11.50 $8.05 31 day pass-General $50.00 $35.00 31 day pass-Student $35.00 $24.50 31 day pass-Senior/Disabled $23.00 $16.10 Dial-A-Ride General $4.00 Senior/Disabled $2.50 Child $0.50 Note: Current Fare Structure implemented July 5, 2010 To incentivize the use of public transit as a viable alternative to automobile trips, the CCTS is using Air Quality Management District (AQMD) funds to subsidize multi-day passes (15 day and 31 day passes) on the Cruiser. The use of these funds allows the CCTS to reduce the cost of multi-day passes for Cruiser riders but enables the CCTS to recovery an adequate fare. 1.5 Revenue Fleet The CCTS operates a fleet of 15 light and medium-duty transit buses. All CCTS buses are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement for accessibility and wheelchair securement. The Dial-A-Ride fleet consists of ten vehicles made up of six Goshen and four El Dorado National Type II gasoline-powered vehicles. CCTS staff anticipates replacement of these buses with nine new buses next fiscal year. Sufficient federal and state grant funds have been accumulated to purchase these buses in a single procurement. Five medium-size, medium-duty El Dorado National Type VII vehicles are used to operate Cruiser service. All five vehicles are powered with clean-burning compressed natural gas. During peak periods, all five vehicles are in service. Replacement of Cruiser buses is slated for spring 2012. 7 1.6 Existing Facility/Planned Facilities The CCTS operates from a newer facility at 735 Corporation Yard Way. Transportation Concepts, the vendor retained to operate transit service, provides administrative and dispatching service from this location as well as fueling and vehicle parking. Maintenance is performed by a third party at an off-site garage. Chapter 2 – Existing Service and Route Performance 2.1 Fixed Route Service – Route by Route Analysis The CCTS operates the Cruiser along two fixed routes – the Blue Line and Red Line. As anticipated, the service reduction and fare increase has negatively impacted ridership. As the immediate impact of a fare increase diminishes, ridership will recover; conversely, ridership lost to the reduction in operation hours may not. Work and school schedules that do not allow for a flexible start/finish time may preclude former patrons from using the Cruiser with a reduced operating day. These riders CCTS may not recover. Providing trips to and from area schools has softened the impact of a shorter operating day and fare increase. The state budget challenge has forced the Corona-Norco Unified School District to reduce their school bus program. Fortunately, the Cruiser is an alternative for some students. Students made up 4 percent of Cruiser riders last year. Students now make up eight percent of Cruiser riders. 2.2 Dial-A-Ride Service – System Performance As with the Cruiser, ridership on Dial-A-Ride has declined this year. Early morning and later evening hours were eliminated as a cost saving measure this year. As such, Dial-A-Ride buses are no longer able to meet the early morning/later evening train schedule. As a result trips to the city’s two Metrolink Stations have declined to less than half as compared to last year. Despite the reduction in ridership, Dial-A-Ride continues to provide Corona’s general public and senior and disabled residents with curb-to-curb service. Senior/Disabled riders make-up 84 percent of Dial- A-Ride riders, representing the largest group of riders on the system. General public and Metrolink riders make up 12 percent of DAR riders. Due to a higher fare ($4 instead of $2.50 for Senior/Disabled riders) the general public/Metrolink rider contributes 20 percent of fare revenue. 2.3 Key Performance Indicators The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) with fiduciary and administrative oversight of transit operators in Riverside County. Each year, the RCTC reviews and approves the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTPs) and allocates local, state and federal funding. To ensure a minimum level of productivity, the RCTC has developed and monitors eight performance indicators that measure productivity – some of these measures are operating cost, service hours and miles, passengers and revenues/subsides. There are eight performance indicators – one mandatory and seven discretionary. By statute, transit operators serving urban areas must recover a minimum of 20 percent of operating cost through fare revenue. Fare revenue include passenger fares, interest on investments, advertising revenue, local contributions and the proceeds from the sale of surplus vehicles. A farebox recovery ratio below 20 percent endangers the receipt of local funding. Maintaining an adequate farebox ratio is a mandatory performance indicator. 8 Transit operators must meet at least four of seven discretionary performance indicators to remain in good standing. Through the first nine months of this year, CCTS has met the farebox ratio and six of seven discretionary indicators. These indicators are shown below. Key Performance Indicators Performance Indicators Year-to-Date Performance Mandatory: Farebox Recovery Ratio 20.26% Discretionary: Operating cost per revenue hour $64.56 Subsidy per passenger $7.03 Subsidy per passenger mile $1.66 Subsidy per hour $51.48 Subsidy per mile $4.05 Passengers per revenue hour 7.3 Passengers per revenue mile 0.58 On a system-wide basis, the cost per revenue hour this year is estimated at $64.56. This exceeds the target set by RCTC of $58.32 per revenue hour. To lower operating costs, the CCTS reduced service this year. It seems counter-intuitive that lowering overall costs results in an increase in the operating cost per revenue hour. This can largely be attributed to spreading fixed costs over fewer revenue hours. Operating costs have a fixed and variable component. The cost of revenue hours and fuel are the largest components of variable costs. Fixed costs typically do not vary with service levels. Administrative, utilities, rent, insurance, advertising/marketing and legal fees are examples of fixed costs. When service increases, fixed costs are spread over more revenue hours which lower the cost per revenue hour for the fixed cost portion of the operating budget. Conversely, when revenue hours are decreased, as they were this year, fixed costs are spread over fewer hours which increase the cost per revenue hour. Of course there are break points when the magnitude of a service change requires a reciprocal change in fixed costs but no such change is occurring here. Simply put, the fixed cost portion of the operating budget is distributed over fewer revenue hours, thus contributing to the increase in operating costs per revenue hour. Table 7, Service Provider Performance Targets Report, in Chapter 4-Financial and Capital Plans, shows greater detail on performance targets and actual performance by indicator. Table 8, SRTP Performance Report, provides a similar comparison for next year’s performance. Also, a fuller discussion of the proposed budget appears in Chapter 4 as well. 2.4 Productivity Improvement Efforts The fare and schedule change has had a positive impact on productivity. The fare change has increased revenues and assisted the CCTS meet the mandatory farebox recovery ratio. Last 9 year, fares collected from passengers made up 14% of the farebox recovery ratio. This year fares from passengers are projected to contribute 17% towards the mandatory farebox return. (Interest on Investments, bus shelter advertising revenues and a contribution from the City’s General Fund make up the difference.) While reducing service impacted some riders by truncating operating hours (eliminating 13 of 64 weekday trips and 15 of 45 Saturday trips), the Cruiser trips eliminated were the least productive as measured by passengers per hour. Reducing less productive trips has increased productivity. Passengers per hour have increased 17 percent from 9 passengers per hour last year to 10.6 this year. DAR productivity remained stable at 4 passengers per hour. A continued effort to increase passengers per hour on Corona Cruiser and Dial-A-Ride service is an on-going goal. 2.5 Major Trip Generators and Projected Growth Major trip destinations within the city are the commercial/retail areas along McKinley Street and Sixth Street, The Crossing shopping area on Cajalco Road and Temescal Canyon, medical facilities along Magnolia Avenue, regional transit facilities along Sixth Street and Main Street, the Corona Public Library, Senior Center and civic center. Many Dial-A-Ride passengers use the service to get to daily work programs/care centers, doctor visits and Corona’s two Metrolink Stations. Cruiser patrons use the service for work, shopping trips, making stops at pharmacies and grocery stores, and accessing restaurants and movie theaters. Historically, ridership on the Cruiser is relatively stable while ridership on Dial-A-Ride continued to increase at a small yet steady pace. These trends have been interrupted by the fare and schedule change. Some riders may ride less frequently to compensate for increased fares while others may cease to ride at all. The CCTS does hope to gain back these riders over time. Likewise, the schedule change has impacted riders. The hope is that impacted riders are able to migrate from early morning and later evening trips eliminated on July 5, 2010, to mid-day service. 2.6 Equipment, Passenger Amenities and Facility Needs The CCTS has partnered with a local company to install an electricity-generating bus shelter. Solar powered lighting of bus shelters is not new but shelters generating electricity to sell back to power companies is. The shelter design incorporates five solar panels and is grid-tied. The CCTS and a private firm have partnered in the design and manufacture of a prototype shelter now in operation on Main Street along the Cruiser Blue Line. The shelter is currently in a one year test period to verify power generation, durability and maintenance requirements. The CCTS installed four additional stops on the Blue Line to accommodate existing riders and encourage more residents to utilize Cruiser services. Two bus stops were created on Main Street and Montoya Drive to encourage residents at an adjacent senior living complex and students at Lee Pollard High School ride the Cruiser. Two other stops near commercial areas are intended to increase mobility and access to nearby eateries, hotel and medical/dental facilities. New bus shelters will be installed next year for the convenience of Cruiser patrons. Improvements in bus stop amenities create a more inviting environment that may encourage and attract new riders to the Corona Cruiser system. New shelters will be installed throughout the Cruiser service area and along both the Blue and Red Lines. 10 Chapter 3 – Planned Service Changes and Implementation 3.1 Recent Service Changes The cost of providing transit service continues to increase while transit revenue is unpredictable as the result of an economy that continues to struggle. The CCTS staff is looking at areas where costs can be reduced as well as opportunities to increase fare revenue. By statute, the CCTS must recover at least 20 percent of operating costs in fare revenues to maintain state funding. Trimming the least productive hours is a reasonable starting place. Typically, early morning and later evening hours are less productive than mid-day hours. The fare and service change eliminated the least productive weekday and Saturday hours. However, some productive Saturday afternoon hours were eliminated to balance revenue and expenses. Aligning Dial-A- Ride service hours with Cruiser hours also helped reduce operating costs. 3.2 Recommended Local & Express Route Modifications Because of the service and fare changes implemented recently (July 5, 2010), no schedule or fare modifications are anticipated for next year. 3.3 Marketing Plans and Promotion Increasing ridership is another way to augment existing passenger fares. The CCTS staff is looking at strategies to increase Cruiser ridership. These marketing strategies include: o Poetry on the Bus Program – in cooperation with Centennial High, Corona High and Lee Pollard High, CCTS conducted its third successful poetry contest inviting students to submit original poetry to be displayed on the interior of Cruiser buses. Selected poems are rotated each month. The program works as an outreach effort and marketing campaign at high schools while providing a creative outlet for students. Cruiser patrons are rewarded with expressive, introspective and entertaining poems to read and ponder during their time on the bus. o Art on the Bus Program – replicates the Poetry on the Bus Program but broadens it to include student artwork. This program had a successful launch last year and incorporates artwork from high school-aged students. The success for the program to introduce students to public transit will ensure its success this year. o Distribute promotional items and route/schedule information at various community events – 4th of July Parade, County library sponsored Fire Fest, Earth Day celebrations, Cinco De Mayo Parade and Festival, Senior Health Fair and Day of the Child. o Distribute recently developed promotional flyers promoting Cruiser service by highlighting businesses and schools served along the Red and Blue Lines. 3.4 Budget Impact and Proposed Changes As mentioned, declining revenues and increasing costs forced the CCTS to implement a fare increase and reduced the span of service. While CCTS passengers have been impacted, the goal throughout the process was to align revenues and expenses to provide as much service as possible to the most passengers. The fare and schedule change brought in balance revenues and expenses. These measures were taken in addition to cost cutting on departmental expenses such as conferences, training and equipment maintenance. Efforts to reduce costs next year will not impact service hours nor increase fares. 11 Chapter 4 – Financial and Capital Plans 4.1 Operating and Capital Budget To continue to provide Corona Cruiser fixed route and Dial-A-Ride service, the CCTS is proposing a balanced budget of $1.9 million, representing a difference of one percent over the current year budget. Increases in retirement and health care costs contribute to the overall increase in salaries and benefits. The major driver here is largely a payroll treatment of home accounts versus program/project charge-backs. This year’s budget pre-supposed an estimated charge-back to non-transit related project/program accounts. Next year’s proposed budget does not compensate for charge-backs. Work performed by CCTS outside the Transit Services Fund will get booked at year-end and is not reflected in the proposed budget. Reductions in office supplies and equipment contribute to an overall reduction in the Materials, Marketing and Utilities category. Reductions are also realized in budgeted Contracted Services. This is not a reduction in service but a re-sizing of the hours of DAR service anticipated next year. Overall, next year’s budget is estimated to grow by one percent or less than $20,000. Budget by Item and Mode Budget Item Mode FY 2010/11 Budget FY 2011/12 Plan Variance $% Salaries & Benefits Dial-A-Ride 165,885 175,998 10,113 6% Cruiser 165,885 173,860 7,975 5% Subtotal 331,770 349,858 18,088 5% Materials, Marketing, Utilities Dial-A-Ride 35,150 32,568 (2,582) -7% Cruiser 40,240 38,518 (1,722) -4% Subtotal 75,390 71,086 (4,304) -6% Fuel Dial-A-Ride 107,936 110,300 2,364 2% Cruiser 81,622 82,000 378 0% Subtotal 189,558 192,300 2,742 1% Contracted Transit Service Dial-A-Ride 699,214 685,420 (13,794) -2% Cruiser 648,805 666,000 17,195 3% Subtotal 1,348,019 1,351,420 3,401 0% Total Dial-A-Ride 1,008,185 1,004,286 (3,899) 0% Cruiser 936,552 960,378 23,826 3% Total 1,944,737 1,964,664 19,927 1% 12 4.2 Funding Plans to Support Proposed Operating and Capital Program The CCTS is proposing a funding plan that includes state funding (Local Transportation Fund) to support 80 percent of operating costs. The remaining 20 percent will be generated by passenger fares, bus shelter advertising and local funds. Funding to cover the capital plan consists of State Transit Assistance funds, Proposition 1B Transit Security funds and a federal earmark to purchase replacement buses and on-board video surveillance equipment. 4.3 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements Half Fare During Non-Peak Hours According to federal statute, transit operators must allow 1) elderly persons, 2) persons with disabilities, and 3) Medicare cardholders to ride fixed route service during the off-peak hours for a fare that is not more than one-half the base fare charged other persons during peak hours. The base fare for Cruiser service is $1.50 during peak and non-peak hours. The fare for an elderly person (60+), a person with disabilities and Medicare cardholders is $0.70 throughout the service day. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) The ADA requires that complementary paratransit service be available to ADA certified persons during the same hours and days of operation available to Cruiser (fixed route) passengers. Complementary paratransit service must be provided within ¾ of a mile of a fixed route. The CCTS operates a general population Dial-A-Ride that extends beyond the ¾ mile corridor to the city limits, into the county areas of Coronita, El Cerritos and Home Gardens as well as satellite locations in the city of Norco (Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Social Services and Norco College). When demand exceeds capacity, requests for service from ADA certified passengers receive priority. As such, the CCTS maintains zero denials for ADA certified passengers. Provision of Service - ADA complementary paratransit must be provided to an ADA eligible individual, including those with temporary eligibility, a personal care attendant (PCA) if necessary, and one other individual accompanying the ADA-eligible individual, if requested. Additional companions may be provided service, if space is available. Service also must be provided to visitors. Any visitor who presents ADA eligibility documentation from another jurisdiction must be provided service. Type of Service – The ADA specifies “origin to destination” service. In certain instances, this might require service beyond strict curb-to-curb. Fares – The ADA complementary paratransit fare cannot exceed twice the fare for a trip of similar length, at a similar time of day, on the Cruiser (fixed route system). No fares maybe charged for PCAs. ADA certified individuals are charged $2.50 per trip which is less than twice the fare for a trip on the Cruiser ($1.50 x 2 = $3.00). Title VI In compliance with the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no person on the basis 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 CCTS. Notification to passengers of their right to file a complaint is included on the City of Corona website and service brochures. 13 Transportation Development Act Triennial Audit The CCTS underwent a Transportation Development Act (TDA) Triennial Performance Audit in March 2010 covering fiscal years 2006/07 through 2008/09. Audit results suggest a continuing efficient operation meeting the major goals and objectives of the TDA program. Room for improvement is always paramount with the audit suggesting more scrutiny of performance data and continuity between National Transit Database and TransTrack/performance-based reporting. Federal Transit Administration Triennial Review The last Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Triennial Review was closed-out in October 2008 for fiscal years 2004/05 through 2006/07. The next review will commence in August 2011. National Transit Database The CCTS submits performance and safety-related reports on a monthly basis and a comprehensive performance, safety and financial report annually. The CCTS anticipates a close- out of the FY 2009/10 annual report without issues. Alternative Fueled Vehicles (RCTC Policy) The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) encourages all Riverside County transit operators to transition from diesel-powered transit buses to alternative fuel buses. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) are recognized as preferred options. The CCTS currently runs a mixed fleet of gasoline and CNG-powered buses. Nine Dial-A-Ride buses are slated for replacement next year. As planned, four of these buses will be powered with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). While gasoline is a recognized alternative fuel for demand response/Dial-A-Ride buses, the CCTS will integrate CNG-powered Dial-A-Ride buses with funding through the federal government’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) program. The CCTS anticipates replacing its Cruiser buses next year. Each bus will remain CNG-powered. 14 Table 1 - Fleet InventoryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanCity of CoronaBus (Motorbus) / Purchased TransportationLift andRampEquippedVehicleLengthYearBuiltMfg.CodeSeatingCapacityModelCodeFuelTypeCodeLife to DateVehicle MilesPrior Year EndFY 2009/10Life to DateVehicle MilesthroughMarchFY 2010/11Average LifetimeMiles Per ActiveVehicle As OfYear-To-Date(e.g., March)FY 2010/11# ofActiveVehiclesFY2010/11# ofContingencyVehiclesFY 2010/112006 EDN 30AeroElite 5 33 CN 5 0 578,842 687,005 137,401505Totals:30578,842 687,005 137,4015/5/2011TransTrack Manager™Page 1 of 115 Table 1 - Fleet InventoryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanCity of CoronaDemand Response / Purchased TransportationLift andRampEquippedVehicleLengthYearBuiltMfg.CodeSeatingCapacityModelCodeFuelTypeCodeLife to DateVehicle MilesPrior Year EndFY 2009/10Life to DateVehicle MilesthroughMarchFY 2010/11Average LifetimeMiles Per ActiveVehicle As OfYear-To-Date(e.g., March)FY 2010/11# ofActiveVehiclesFY2010/11# ofContingencyVehiclesFY 2010/112007 EDN 18AeroTech 2 26 GA 2 0 215,507 255,525 127,7632005 EDN 18E-450 2 26 GA 2 0 334,374 377,560 188,7802004 GCC 20E-450 6 26 GA 6 0 1,188,215 1,299,737 216,62310 010Totals:561,738,096 1,932,822 193,2825/5/2011TransTrack Manager™Page 1 of 116 Table 2 -- City of Corona -- SRTP Service SummaryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanAll RoutesFY 2008/09AuditedFY 2009/10AuditedFY 2010/11PlanFY 2010/113rd Qtr ActualFY 2011/12PlanFleet CharacteristicsPeak-Hour Fleet1111Financial DataTotal Operating Expenses$1,964,664$1,382,708$1,944,737$2,031,211$1,971,504Total Passenger Fare Revenue$392,933$280,233$388,948$422,981$413,973Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)$1,571,731$1,102,475$1,555,789$1,608,230$1,557,531Operating CharacteristicsUnlinked Passenger Trips212,207156,803208,140229,820229,866Passenger Miles959,718664,544876,411976,002974,475Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a)29,571.021,416.630,274.034,372.834,218.5Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b)375,552.0272,325.0385,121.0442,700.0433,299.0Total Actual Vehicle Miles397,630.0299,808.0408,437.0475,072.0462,612.0Performance CharacteristicsOperating Cost per Revenue Hour$66.44$64.56$64.24$59.09$57.62Farebox Recovery Ratio20.00%20.26%20.00%20.82%20.99%Subsidy per Passenger$7.41$7.03$7.47$7.00$6.78Subsidy per Passenger Mile$1.64$1.66$1.78$1.65$1.60Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a)$53.15$51.48$51.39$46.79$45.52Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b)$4.19$4.05$4.04$3.63$3.59Passenger per Revenue Hour (a)7.27.36.96.76.7Passenger per Revenue Mile (b)0.570.580.540.520.53(a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes.TransTrack Manager™5/4/2011Page 1 of 117 Table 2 -- Corona-BUS -- SRTP Service SummaryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanAll RoutesFY 2008/09AuditedFY 2009/10AuditedFY 2010/11PlanFY 2010/113rd Qtr ActualFY 2011/12PlanFleet CharacteristicsPeak-Hour Fleet44Financial DataTotal Operating Expenses$960,378$682,168$936,552$1,004,386$981,913Total Passenger Fare Revenue$192,076$140,125$187,311$217,613$219,701Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)$768,302$542,043$749,241$786,773$762,212Operating CharacteristicsUnlinked Passenger Trips153,832113,669155,918165,131166,744Passenger Miles666,093447,580613,514650,616656,971Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a)14,571.010,689.914,571.018,285.618,178.7Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b)170,623.0126,323.0170,623.0215,553.0216,381.0Total Actual Vehicle Miles179,708.0134,910.0179,708.0226,485.0228,151.0Performance CharacteristicsOperating Cost per Revenue Hour$65.91$63.81$64.28$54.93$54.01Farebox Recovery Ratio20.00%20.54%20.00%21.66%22.37%Subsidy per Passenger$4.99$4.77$4.81$4.76$4.57Subsidy per Passenger Mile$1.15$1.21$1.22$1.21$1.16Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a)$52.73$50.71$51.42$43.03$41.93Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b)$4.50$4.29$4.39$3.65$3.52Passenger per Revenue Hour (a)10.610.610.79.09.2Passenger per Revenue Mile (b)0.900.900.910.770.77(a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes.TransTrack Manager™5/4/2011Page 1 of 118 Table 2 -- Corona-DAR -- SRTP Service SummaryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanAll RoutesFY 2008/09AuditedFY 2009/10AuditedFY 2010/11PlanFY 2010/113rd Qtr ActualFY 2011/12PlanFleet CharacteristicsPeak-Hour Fleet77Financial DataTotal Operating Expenses$1,004,286$700,540$1,008,185$1,026,825$989,591Total Passenger Fare Revenue$200,857$140,108$201,637$205,368$194,272Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)$803,429$560,432$806,548$821,457$795,319Operating CharacteristicsUnlinked Passenger Trips58,37543,13452,22264,68963,122Passenger Miles293,625216,964262,897325,386317,504Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a)15,000.010,726.715,703.016,087.216,039.9Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b)204,929.0146,002.0214,498.0227,147.0216,918.0Total Actual Vehicle Miles217,922.0164,898.0228,729.0248,587.0234,461.0Performance CharacteristicsOperating Cost per Revenue Hour$66.95$65.31$64.20$63.83$61.70Farebox Recovery Ratio19.99%19.99%20.00%20.00%19.63%Subsidy per Passenger$13.76$12.99$15.44$12.70$12.60Subsidy per Passenger Mile$2.74$2.58$3.07$2.52$2.50Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a)$53.56$52.25$51.36$51.06$49.58Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b)$3.92$3.84$3.76$3.62$3.67Passenger per Revenue Hour (a)3.94.03.34.03.9Passenger per Revenue Mile (b)0.280.300.240.280.29(a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes.TransTrack Manager™5/4/2011Page 1 of 119 Table 3 - SRTP Route StatisticsCity of Corona -- 3Data ElementsRoute # Day TypePeakVehicles PassengersPassengerMilesRevenueHoursTotalHoursRevenueMilesTotalMilesOperatingCostPassengerRevenueNetSubsidyFY 2011/12All RoutesCOR-BLUE Total 73,639 318,85727,696.0 86,513.0 90,526.0 $480,691 $96,138 $384,5537,293.0COR-DAR Total 58,375 293,625715,738.0 204,929.0 217,922.0 $1,004,286 $200,857 $803,42915,000.0COR-RED Total 80,193 347,23627,779.0 84,110.0 89,182.0 $479,687 $95,938 $383,7497,278.0Service Provider Totals$1,571,731$392,933$1,964,664397,630.0375,552.031,213.029,571.0959,718212,20711TransTrack Manager™5/4/2011Page 1 of 220 Table 3 - SRTP Route StatisticsCity of Corona -- 3Performance IndicatorsRoute # Day TypeOperatingCost PerRevenue HourOperatingCost PerRevenue MileCost PerPassengerFareboxRecoveryRatioSubsidy PerPassengerSubsidy PerPassengerMileSubsidy PerRevenueHourSubsidy PerRevenueMilePassengersPer HourPassengersPer MileFY 2011/12All RoutesCOR-BLUE Total $5.56 $6.53$65.91$5.22 $1.21 $52.73 $4.45 10.1 0.8519.99%COR-DAR Total $4.90 $17.20$66.95$13.76 $2.74 $53.56 $3.92 3.9 0.2819.99%COR-RED Total $5.70 $5.98$65.91$4.79 $1.11 $52.73 $4.56 11.0 0.9520.00%Service Provider Totals0.577.2$4.19$53.15$1.64$7.4120.00%$9.26$5.23$66.44TransTrack Manager™5/4/2011Page 2 of 221 Table 3A – Individual Route Descriptions and Area Serviced Line Route Description Area / Site Served Cruiser Red Line The Crossings shopping area at Cajalco Road and Temescal Canyon to the El Tapatio at West Sixth Street via downtown / Civic Center The Crossings shopping area, Taber Park and Ride, California Avenue Post Office, Centennial High, Corona Transit Center/North Main Corona Metrolink Station, City Library, Senior Center, Civic Center, Corona High and El Tapatio on west Sixth Street Blue Line Wal-Mart at McKinley Street west to River Run Apartments via Mountain Gate Park and downtown / Civic Center McKinley Street shopping areas, Magnolia Avenue, Centennial High, medical facilities, Senior Center, City Library, Corona Transit Center/North Main Corona Metrolink Station, Fender museum, north Main Street shopping area and restaurants Dial-A-Ride City-wide Demand response / reservation based service City-wide, neighboring county areas of Coronita, El Cerrito and Home Gardens as well as satellite locations in the city of Norco - Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Social Services and Riverside Community College/Norco Campus 22 Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12City of CoronaProject Description Total Funds LTF STAProp 1B (PTMISEA) Security FY 2009/10Prop 1B (PTMISEA)Section 5309 Federal EarmarkSection 5307 - Riverside/San Bernardino UZAFare Box* Other **FY 12 - Operating Revenues 1,964,663 1,571,730 - - - - - 315,659 77,274 Subtotal: Operating $1,964,663 $1,571,730 - - - - - $315,659 $77,274FY 12 - Replacement Dial-A-Ride Buses FY 12 - 1 260,000 - 52,000 - - 208,000 - - - FY 12 - Replacement Cruiser Buses FY 12 - 2 700,000 - 700,000 - - - - - - FY 12 - Purchase On-Board Video Surveillance EquipmentFY 12 - 3 38,448 - - 38,448 - - - - - Subtotal: Capital $998,448 - $752,000 $38,448 - $208,000 - - - Total: Operating & Capital $2,963,111 $1,571,730 $752,000 $38,448 $208,000 - $315,659 $77,274* Includes $8,000 in AB 2766 congestion and emission reduction funds to incentivize Cruiser multi-day passes** Other revenues include bus shelter advertising ($10,000) and General Fund contribution ($73,690).23 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification Number: FY 12-1 Title: Purchase replacement buses Description: This project provides funds for: • Replace three Dial-A-Ride buses that have exceeded their useful life. Justification: The CCTS received a federal earmark for replacement buses. The federal earmark and local match is being programmed in the FY 2011/12 SRTP as step toward appropriating these funds for a future bus purchase. Funding Source(s): Federal Section 5309 Earmark - $ 208,000 State Transit Assistance - $ 52,000 Total $ 260,000 Number: FY 12-2 Title: Purchase replacement buses Description: This project provides funds for: • Replace four Corona Cruiser buses. Justification: Four or five Corona Cruiser buses will exceed their service life next year and require replacement. These buses have a useful life of seven years or 200,000 miles. Funding Source(s): State Transit Assistance Fund - $ 700,000 Number: FY 12-3 Title: Purchase on-board video surveillance equipment Description: This project provides funds for: • Purchase and install video equipment on-board CCTS buses Justification: Video equipment provides a level of security and an unbiased record of occurrences on or near buses. Funding Source(s): Proposition 1B Transit Security (FY 2009/10) Program - $ 38,448 24 Table 5A - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2012/13City of CoronaProject Description Total Funds LTF STAProp 1B (PTMISEA) FY 2009/10Prop 1B Security FTA Section 5309 ARRA Fare Box Other *FY 13 - Operating Revenues 2,082,543 1,666,034 - - - - - 334,599 81,910 Subtotal: Operating $2,082,543 $1,666,034 - - - - - $334,599 $81,910FY 13 - Purchase Dispatching and Scheduling Software and HardwareFY 13 - 1 600,000 - 382,503 217,497 - - - - - Subtotal: Capital $600,000 - $382,503 $217,497 - - - - - Total: Operating & Capital $2,682,543 $1,666,034 $382,503 $217,497 - - - $334,599 $81,910* Other revenues include bus shelter advertising and General Fund contribution.25 Table 5A – Capital Project Justification Number: FY 13 - 1 Title: Dispatching and Scheduling Software and Equipment Description: This project provides funds for: • Replace existing dispatching software and equipment. Justification: Upgrading the existing system is not feasible so replacement is required. Funding Source(s): Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement & Service Enhancement Program - $ 217,497 State Transit Assistance - $ 382,503 Total $ 600,000 26 Table 5B - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2013/14City of CoronaProject Description Total Funds LTF STA Prop 1B (PTMISEA) Prop 1B SecuritySection 5307 - Riverside/San Bernardino UZAARRA Fare Box Other *FY 14 - Operating Revenues 2,207,495 1,765,996 - - - - - 354,674 86,825 Subtotal: Operating $2,207,495 $1,765,996 - - - - - $354,674 $86,825FY 14 - Purchase Land Based and Mobile Radio SystemFY 14 - 1 600,000 - 300,000 300,000 - - - - - Subtotal: Capital $600,000 - $300,000 $300,000 - - - - - Total: Operating & Capital $2,807,495 $1,765,996 $300,000 $300,000 - - - $354,674 $86,825* Other revenues include bus shelter advertising and General Fund contribution.27 Table 5B – Capital Project Justification Number: FY 14 - 1 Title: Land Based and Mobile Radio System Description: This project provides funds for: • Replace the existing land based dispatch radio equipment and mobile radio system on- board buses. Justification: Communication between dispatch/management staff and buses/drivers in route promotes the efficient use of available transit service, is important for safety and security and extends the reach of supervision/management into the field. The existing system and equipment is in need of upgrading and replacement. Funding Source(s): Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement & Service Enhancement Program - $ 300,000 State Transit Assistance - $ 300,000 Total $ 600,000 28 Table 6 – Progress Implementing Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations Audit Recommendation Action / Remedy Explore developing a monthly pass outlet program (carry-over FY 2003/04-2005/06 audit) Not feasible at this time – staff reductions in the Finance Department limit the resources available to administer an expanded pass outlet program at this time. Work with the contract operator to electronically submit the monthly performance report that is compatible with the City computer system (carry-over FY 2003/04-2005/06 audit). Change in contract operator is the next best opportunity to define and implement electronic submission of transit performance data. Contract renewal will occur in the fall 2012. Closer monitoring of performance reporting by contractor (FY 2006/07-2008/09 audit). On-going. Ensure National Transit Database and TransTrack performance data ties (FY 2006/07-2008/09 audit). On-going. 29 Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets ReportFY 2010/11 Short Range Transit Plan ReviewCity of CoronaFY 2010/11 Plan FY 2010/11 TargetFY 2010/11Year to DateThrough 3rd QuarterYear to DatePerformanceScorecardData Elements208,140Unlinked Passenger Trips876,411Passenger Miles30,274.0Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours385,121.0Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles408,437.0Total Actual Vehicle Miles$1,944,737Total Operating Expenses$388,948Total Passenger Fare Revenue$1,555,789Net Operating ExpensesPerformance IndicatorsMandatory:1. Farebox Recovery RatioMeets Target>= 20.00% 20.00% 20.26%Discretionary:1. Operating Cost Per Revenue HourFails to Meet Target<= $58.32 $64.24 $64.562. Subsidy Per PassengerMeets Target>= $5.92 and <= $8.00 $7.47 $7.033. Subsidy Per Passenger MileMeets Target>= $1.39 and <= $1.89 $1.78 $1.664. Subsidy Per HourMeets Target>= $39.24 and <= $53.08 $51.39 $51.485. Subsidy Per MileMeets Target>= $3.06 and <= $4.14 $4.04 $4.056. Passengers Per Revenue HourMeets Target>= 5.61 and <= 7.59 6.90 7.307. Passengers Per Revenue MileMeets Target>= 0.44 and <= 0.60 0.54 0.58Note:Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance IndicatorsProductivity Performance Summary:Service Provider Comments:5/4/2011TransTrack Manager™Page 1 of 130 FY 2011/12 - Table 8 -- SRTP Performance ReportService Provider: City of CoronaAll RoutesPerformance IndicatorsFY 2011/12PlanPlan PerformanceScorecard (a)FY 2011/12 TargetFY 2010/113rd QuarterYear-to-DateFY 2009/10End of YearActualPassengersNone156,803 212,207229,820Passenger MilesNone664,544 959,718976,002Revenue HoursNone21,416.6 29,571.034,372.8Total HoursNone23,309.2 31,213.037,114.0Revenue MilesNone272,325.0 375,552.0442,700.0Total MilesNone299,808.0 397,630.0475,072.0Operating CostsNone$1,382,708 $1,964,664$2,031,211Passenger RevenueNone$280,233 $392,933$422,981Operating SubsidyNone$1,102,475 $1,571,731$1,608,230Operating Costs Per Revenue HourFails to Meet Target<= $64.91$64.56 $66.44$59.09Operating Cost Per Revenue MileNone$5.08 $5.23$4.59Operating Costs Per PassengerNone$8.82 $9.26$8.84Farebox Recovery RatioMeets Target>= 20.0%20.26% 20.00%20.82%Subsidy Per PassengerMeets Target>= $5.98 and <= $8.08$7.03 $7.41$7.00Subsidy Per Passenger MileMeets Target>= $1.41 and <= $1.91$1.66 $1.64$1.65Subsidy Per Revenue HourMeets Target>= $43.76 and <= $59.20$51.48 $53.15$46.79Subsidy Per Revenue MileMeets Target>= $3.44 and <= $4.66$4.05 $4.19$3.63Passengers Per Revenue HourMeets Target>= 6.21 and <= 8.407.30 7.206.70Passengers Per Revenue MileMeets Target>= 0.49 and <= 0.670.58 0.570.52a) The Plan Performance Scorecard column is the result of comparing the FY 2011/12 Plan to the FY 2011/12 Primary Target.TransTrack Manager™5/4/2011Page 1 of 131 Table 9 – CCTS Highlights FY 2011/12 Operations o A new fare structure and service reduction was implemented on July 5, 2010. These were major changes for Corona Cruiser and Dial-A-Ride patrons as well as bus drivers (e.g., work hour reduction). While necessary, these changes did impact riders. As such, no operational changes are planned. o Promote alternative modes of transportation by improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Identify new sidewalk and in-fill needs as well as expanding the bicycle route network. Pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements make these modes of transportation a viable option to automobiles and improves access to public transportation. All local and regional buses as well as commuter trains serving Corona accommodate bicycles. Likewise, the Corona Transit Center, with its bicycle lockers and pedestrian bridge to the North Main Metrolink Station promote alternative modes of transportation. This will be an on-going effort with focus on east Sixth Street sidewalks and expanding bicycle routes in fiscal year 2011/12. o Conduct a rider survey to ascertain service needs, identify areas for improvement and rider demographics. o Survey Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility at bus stops. o Make Google Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) for the Corona Cruiser available to potential application developers. The GTFS contains schedules, stops, and fare information. Developers have written applications that list restaurants, services and entertainment venues along bus routes. Applications expand access to transit information to smart phones and tend to promote public transit and highlight local businesses. Capital Projects o Purchase and take delivery of nine replacement Dial-A-Ride buses and one replacement Corona Cruiser bus during summer 2011. o Purchase and take delivery of four replacement Corona Cruiser buses in spring 2012. o Commence manufacturing and installing bus stop shelters, benches and solar powered lighting at up to 25 bus stops. o Complete the design and procure construction services for a bus turn-out on eastbound Magnolia Avenue between Temescal Street and Neece Street. Fiscal Year Performance Measure 2005/06 Actual 2006/07 Actual 2007/08 Actual 2008/09 Actual 2009/10 Actual 2010/11 Year End Estimate 2011/12 Plan System-wide Ridership 205,875 208,392 227,053 229,866 229,820 209,071 212,207 Cost per Revenue Hour $48.31 $51.64 $54.43 $57.62 $59.09 $64.56 $66.44 32 City of Riverside 2010/11‐2012/13 Short Range Transit Plan         TABLE OF CONTENTS System Overview 1 Existing Service and Route Performance 3 Planned Service Changes and Implementation 4 Financial and Capital Plans 5 Table 1 – Fleet Inventory 6 Table 2 – SRTP Service Summary 7 Table 3 – SRTP Route Statistics 8 Table 4 – Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12 9 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification, Project No. 12-1 10 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification, Project No. 12-2 11 Table 5.1 – Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2012/13 12 Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification, Project No. 13-1 13 Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification, Project No.13-2 14 Table 5.2 – Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2013/14 15 Table 5.2A – Capital Project Justification, Project No. 14-1 16 Table 6 – Progress to Implement Triennial Performance Audit 17 Table 7 – Service Provider Performance Targets Report 18 Table 8 – SRTP Performance Report 19 Table 9 – Highlights of 2011/12 – 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan 20 City of Riverside 2011/12‐2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan        ‐ 1 ‐    I. SYSTEM OVERVIEW Special Transportation, a section within the City of Riverside Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, has been offering Paratransit services to the Riverside community since 1975. This dial-a-ride transportation service is provided within the 87.4 square mile incorporated city limits of the City of Riverside. Owned and operated by the City of Riverside, Special Transportation is an origin-to-destination (curb-to-curb) rideshare transportation service. The service is limited to senior citizens (60 years and older) and persons with a disability (disabilities require a physician’s documentation). According to the United States Census Bureau, the City of Riverside population totals 306,779 residents in 2011. Since the year 2000, the population has increased by over 17% and population trends in Riverside continue to show steady growth. There are over 33,000 seniors living in Riverside, as shown in Figure I-1. City of Riverside 2011/12‐2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan        ‐ 2 ‐    The senior population in Riverside has grown by an estimated 10% since the year 2000. Staff anticipates an increase in the senior population and in ridership due to the age demographics shown in Figure I-2. Residents may schedule a ride Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am - 5:30 pm, and Saturday, Sunday and holidays, from 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. In order to make a reservation for a ride, passengers must call Special Transportation’s reservation phone number during the office hours of 8:00 am – 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday, and 9:00 am - 3:00 pm on Saturday, Sunday and holidays; a message machine is available after business hours for cancellations. Fare for a one-way trip is $2.00 per passenger. Clients may pay their fare in cash at boarding time, or purchase tickets or a punch card in advance of their scheduled ride. A ticket may be purchased for $2.00 and is worth one ride; a punch card may be purchased for $40 and is worth 20 rides. Purchasing subscription service is also an option to passengers, particularly for those who use Special Transportation services frequently. Subscription service allows for unlimited rides and costs $90.00 per month per passenger. There are no proposals for an increase in fares during fiscal year 2011/12. The City of Riverside Special Transportation operates a fleet of 30 Paratransit compressed natural gas (CNG), alternative fuel, Type III vehicles. Twenty-four Paratransit vehicles and twenty-four routes typically meet daily ridership demands. Although not assigned to a route and typically used as an alternative vehicle, Special Transportation also owns one Paratransit van equipped to hold 6 passengers and one wheelchair. City of Riverside 2011/12‐2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan        ‐ 3 ‐    Special Transportation continues to replace vehicles that have accrued 150,000 miles in order to remain compliant with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines. Staff ordered and received four 16-passenger vehicles during the 2010/11 fiscal year and anticipates ordering eight vehicles during the 2011/12 fiscal year. All vehicles are accordant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) vehicle specifications and are equipped with video surveillance cameras in order to enhance safety. Special Transportation facilities are located at the City of Riverside corporation yard. Included in the facilities are administrative office space, dispatch room, training and conference room, maintenance facility, and parking space for transit vehicles. Special Transportation awarded the construction of the CNG Vehicle Maintenance Facility to Conengr Corporation of Upland, California in May 2011. Staff anticipates beginning construction of the building in July 2011; construction completion is slated for December 2011. The construction of a CNG vehicle maintenance facility, complete with all required safety equipment such as gas detection equipment, alarms, warning lights and exhaust fans, will improve the productivity in maintaining Special Transportation’s vehicles and enhance maintenance staff safety. Following construction completion of the CNG Vehicle Maintenance Facility, Special Transportation will begin to make progress on Special Transportation’s Slow Fill Station Expansion project. In order to meet fueling demands, Special Transportation staff anticipates installing five slow fill stations. The project will be funded by federal and local funds. II. EXISTING SERVICE AND ROUTE PERFORMANCE Special Transportation transported approximately 158,000 passengers during the 2010/11 fiscal year, representing a 4.6% increase from the previous fiscal year. The number of passengers served represents the highest number served within the past five years. Ridership levels are expected to increase into the 2011/12 fiscal year. Special Transportation continues to meet its performance targets in eight critical areas. During fiscal year 2010/11, Special Transportation met its mandatory farebox recovery ratio target and met all targets in the seven discretionary performance areas, as shown in Figure II-1. City of Riverside 2011/12‐2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan        ‐ 4 ‐    Figure II-1 Performance Indicators Performance Scorecard Mandatory: 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio Meets Target Discretionary: 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Meets Target 2. Subsidy Per Passenger Meets Target 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile Meets Target 4. Subsidy Per Hour Meets Target 5. Subsidy Per Mile Meets Target 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour Meets Target 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile Meets Target Special Transportation strives to maintain an efficient and effective service. In order to meet and exceed its performance targets, Special Transportation continuously seeks to maintain or reduce operating expenses while increasing ridership. In order to moderate outlays associated with operations, Special Transportation staff develops and implements efficient routes and staff schedules, monitors and regulates overtime, and adheres to stringent procurement guidelines. Special Transportation continues to market its services in order to maintain ridership levels and generate an increase in trips. Marketing activities include representation at special events (wellness fairs, grand openings, concerts, etc.), advertisements on City flyers and in the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Activity Guide, and brochure and flyer distribution. Special Transportation continues to distribute its bilingual informational brochure, which contains text in English and Spanish. Special Transportation staff distributed a Passenger Satisfaction Survey to its passengers during the fiscal year 2011 in order to obtain feedback regarding the transportation services it provides to the community. Survey categories included customer service, safety, ease of scheduling a reservation, and vehicle cleanliness. Those who returned a completed survey received a “free ride” ticket from Special Transportation in gratitude for their feedback. Staff will review and consider passenger feedback in making policy and operational changes. Results of the survey will be compiled by July 2011. III. PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES AND IMPLEMENTATION Special Transportation does not plan to modify service during fiscal year 2011/12. However, in order to generate ridership and market its services, Special Transportation anticipates installing advertisements of its services on the back windows of several minibuses. The advertisements will contain a slogan and information regarding the transportation service, such as cost per ride. City of Riverside 2011/12‐2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan        ‐ 5 ‐    Due to anticipated budget constraints in the 2011/12 fiscal year, Special Transportation staff continues to evaluate options in order to decrease operating expenses. In addition to adopting stringent procurement procedures, staff will curtail operating expenses by adjusting administrative activities and monitoring routing and scheduling in order to minimize overtime hours. Cross training among administrative staff was facilitated during the 2010/11 fiscal year in order to increase productivity within the operation. Minibus Drivers on industrial leave (workers compensation) were also cross trained to perform other duties in order to lessen the impact of their absences on route. Moreover, additional, part-time staff was hired in order decrease the occurrence of overtime or compensatory hours of benefited drivers. IV. FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS Special Transportation relies on Local Transportation Funds (LTF) to fund its operating budget with the exclusion of the preventive maintenance budget. Special Transportation utilizes 5307 federal funds to fund the preventive maintenance of its fleet. Special Transportation will continue to take advantage of available grant opportunities, such as the California Department of Transportation Proposition 1B Public Transportation Modernization, Improvements, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA), in order to support its capital programs. Special Transportation is applying for PTMISEA funds to purchase four replacement vehicles during the FY 2011/12. Special Transportation strives to remain compliant with all local, state and federal regulations. Staff stays abreast of legislative information and developments by attending workshops, trainings, and conferences which are frequently offered free of charge to transit operators. Special Transportation complies with FTA reporting requirements such as the submission of monthly and annual National Transit Database (NTD) reports. Special Transportation also received a satisfactory score on its 2010/11 California Highway Patrol Safety Compliance Terminal Inspection. In compliance with Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) requirements, Special Transportation purchases solely alternative fuel vehicles to sustain its revenue rolling stock fleet.   ‐ 6 ‐     ‐ 7 ‐     ‐ 8 ‐     ‐ 9 ‐  City of Riverside FY 2011/12 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12Project DescriptionCapital Project Number (1)Total Amount of FundsLTF STAProp 1B (PTMISEA)Section 5307 - Riv-San. BndoFare BoxOther (2)Local Transportation Funds $2,829,017 $2,493,017 $336,000Operating AssistanceCapitalized Preventive $350,000 $70,000 $280,000MaintenanceSubtotal: Operating$3,179,017 $2,563,017 $0 $0 $280,000 $336,000 $0Vehicle Replacement - Four VehicleFY 12 - 1 $475,000 $80,750 $394,250Vehicle Replacement - Four VehicleFY 12 - 2 $475,000 $475,000Subtotal: Capital $950,000 $0 $80,750 $475,000 $394,250 $0 $0Total: Operating & Capital $4,129,017 $2,563,017 $80,750 $475,000 $674,250 $336,000 $0    ‐ 10 ‐    Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 12-1 PROJECT NAME: Vehicle Replacement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To replace vehicles that have accrued 150,000 miles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Special Transportation replaces vehicles that have reached 150,000 miles, in accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $394,250 STA $80,750 Total $475,000 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A    ‐ 11 ‐    Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 12-2 PROJECT NAME: Vehicle Replacement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To replace vehicles that have accrued 150,000 miles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Special Transportation replaces vehicles that have reached 150,000 miles, in accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Prop 1B $475,000 STA $0 Total $475,000 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A   ‐ 12 ‐  City of Riverside FY 2012/13 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5.1 Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2012/13Project DescriptionCapital Project Number (1)Total Amount of FundsLTF STAProp 1B (PTMISEA)Section 5307 - Riv-San. BndoFare BoxLocal Transportation Funds $2,641,880 $2,301,880 $340,000Operating AssistanceCapitalized Preventive $300,000 $60,000 $240,000Maintenance$2,941,880 $2,361,880 $0 $0 $240,000 $340,000Paratransit Vehicles for FY 13 - 1 $600,000 $102,000 $498,000Replacement (5)Operation Facility FY 13 - 2 $1,500,000 $246,742 $266,289 $986,969Modernization and Expansion$2,100,000 $0 $348,742 $266,289 $1,484,969 $0Total: Operating & Capital $5,041,880$2,361,880 $348,742 $266,289 $1,724,969 $340,000Subtotal: OperatingSubtotal: Capital    ‐ 13 ‐    Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 13-1 PROJECT NAME: Vehicle Replacement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To replace vehicles that have accrued 150,000 miles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Special Transportation replaces vehicles that have reached 150,000 miles, in accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $498,000 STA $102,000 Total $600,000 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A    ‐ 14 ‐    Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 13-2 PROJECT NAME: Operation Facility Modernization and Expansion PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To modernize and expand operation facility at the City of Riverside Corporation Yard. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Special Transportation staff plans to expand and modernize its current operations facility in order to accommodate a larger dispatch center, separate conference room, wellness center, break room, and a reception area for clients. Expanding this operation facility will increase efficiency within the transit operation, promote employee wellness, and enhance passenger access. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): STA $246,742 Prop 1B $266,289 Total $1,500,000 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A   ‐ 15 ‐  City of Riverside FY 2013/14 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5.2 Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2013/14Project DescriptionCapital Project Number (1)Total Amount of FundsLTF STAProp 1B (PTMISEA)Section 5307 - Riv-San. BndoFare BoxLocal Transportation Funds $2,641,880 $2,301,880 $340,000Operating AssistanceCapitalized Preventive $300,000 $60,000 $240,000Maintenance$2,941,880 $2,361,880 $0 $0 $240,000 $340,000Paratransit Vehicles for FY 14 - 1 $600,000 $102,000 $498,000Replacement (5)$600,000 $0 $102,000 $0 $498,000 $0Total: Operating & Capital $3,541,880 $2,361,880 $102,000 $0 $738,000 $340,000Subtotal: OperatingSubtotal: Capital    ‐ 16 ‐    Table 5.2A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 14-1 PROJECT NAME: Vehicle Replacement PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To replace vehicles that have accrued 150,000 miles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Special Transportation replaces vehicles that have reached 150,000 miles, in accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Sec 5307 $498,000 STA $102,000 Total $600,000 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A    ‐ 17 ‐    TABLE 6 – PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Recent Audit Recommendation (Covering FY 2006/07 – FY 2008/091) Action(s) Taken And Results To Date2 1. Need to Conduct Surveys of Riders and Non-Riders on a More Frequent Basis Formal surveys of riders and non-riders have not been performed in the last few years. Although customer survey comment cards are available to all riders and are located in the Paratransit vehicles, the comment cards are strictly voluntary and do not necessarily capture key information that will assist STS in improving service. Surveys of both riders and non-riders may provide valuable input to the operator in order to address the needs of the community and to understand the rider’s perception of the dial-a-ride service. As such, a more formal survey performed at least annually is warranted. Special Transportation staff is in the process of distributing an annual survey to its passengers. Survey categories include safety, cleanliness, timeliness, and customer service. In progress. 2. Need to Publish Information Regarding the Availability of Premium Subscription Services Information regarding the availability of premium subscription services that provides unlimited rides for $90.00 per month is not disclosed in STS’ brochure or on the City’s webpage for Special Transportation. As an STS goal has been to offer a subscription service to riders that is both affordable and cost effective, it would be prudent to actively publish and market this information wherever possible to reach out to both riders and the general public. Staff is currently reviewing options to promote subscription service. Possibilities include creating flyers, adding a section regarding subscription service in the current Special Transportation Brochure, and placing an advertisement on the rear windows of Special Transportation vehicles. In progress. 1 Triennial performance audit for FY 2006/07 through FY 2008/09 was conducted in FY 2009/10 and completed 6/30/10. 2 If no action taken, provide schedule for implementation or explanation of why the recommendation is no longer relevant.   ‐ 18 ‐     ‐ 19 ‐     ‐ 20 ‐    TABLE 9 – HIGHLIGHTS OF 2011/12 – 2013/14 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN ƒ Special Transportation Outreach – Special Transportation has been increasing its outreach efforts by attending additional fairs and workshops throughout the year. For the first time, staff participated in the Inland Empire Disability Resources Expo, the 5th Annual Very Special Art Fair, and the Blindness Support Transportation Fair. Staff also attends the Janet Goeske Senior Resource Fair every year. Special Transportation staff hopes to market its services and increase ridership in the 2011/12 fiscal year by continuing to increase its attendance at special events and workshops. ƒ Special Transportation Marketing and Advertisements - In order to generate ridership and market its services, Special Transportation anticipates installing advertisements of its services on the back windows of several minibuses. The advertisements will contain a slogan and information regarding the transportation service, such as cost per ride. ƒ Proposition 1B Security Grant - Special Transportation closed the FY 2007/08 Proposition 1B Security Grant during the 2010/11 fiscal year. Staff equipped the vehicles with emergency injury kits, and purchased upgraded radios, a dispatch system with an auxiliary battery, and generators to be used as an alternate power source in the event of emergency. ƒ 2010/11 Passenger Satisfaction Survey – In May of 2011, Special Transportation distributed a passenger satisfaction survey in order to obtain feedback regarding the transportation services it provides to the community. Survey categories included customer service, safety, ease of scheduling a reservation, and vehicle cleanliness. Those who returned a completed survey received a “free ride” ticket from Special Transportation in gratitude for their feedback. Special Transportation staff anticipates distributing a passenger satisfaction survey annually. ƒ CNG Vehicle Maintenance Facility Construction – Special Transportation awarded the construction project of a new Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Vehicle Maintenance Facility to Conengr Corporation of Highland, California in May 2011. Construction is anticipated to begin in July 2011. Staff anticipates the project to be complete by December 2011. ƒ Slow Fill Stations Installation – Following completion of the CNG Vehicle Maintenance Facility Construction Project, Special Transportation staff will be installing additional slow fill stations at the City of Riverside Corporation Yard in order to meet fueling demands. The project is funded with federal and local funds. Staff plans to install five slow fill stations during the 2011/12 fiscal year.   ‐ 21 ‐    ƒ Vehicle Procurement and Delivery – Special Transportation was able to purchase four vehicles with grant funds received through the Federal Transit Administration. The vehicles, delivered in February of 2011, are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. ƒ CHP Safety Compliance Inspection - Special Transportation completed its 2010 California Highway Patrol (CHP) Safety Compliance Inspection which is required annually. The inspection includes review of vehicle safety procedures, vehicle drivers’ inspection logs, and maintenance records. For a fourth consecutive year, Special Transportation received a satisfactory score. ƒ Performance Target Report – Special Transit plans to exceed the mandatory farebox recovery ratio target and meet the discretionary performance indicators in the FY 2011/12 (shown in Table 9-A below). Transit operators are required to meet four of the seven discretionary performance indicators. Table 9-A Status Performance Indicators Performance Scorecard Mandatory Farebox Recovery Ratio Meets Target Discretionary Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour Meets Target Subsidy Per Passenger Meets Target Subsidy Per Passenger Mile Meets Target Subsidy Per Hour Meets Target Subsidy Per Mile Meets Target Passengers Per Revenue Hour Meets Target Passengers Per Revenue Mile Meets Target Operating and Financial Data for the past 5 years and for the 2011/12 fiscal year are shown below. Table 9-B Operating & Financial Data FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 (Projected) FY 2011/12 (Plan) System wide Ridership 144,593 147,767 158,293 152,441 157,425 161,110 Operating Cost per Revenue Hours $71.66 $87.11 $71.17 $67.27 $66.43 $65.50 PALO VERDE VALLEY TRANSIT AGENCY BLYTHE, CALIFORNIA SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 – 2013/14 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – System Overview Page Service Area 4 Demographics 4 Service Profile 4 System Map 5 Fare Schedule 6 Fleet & Maintenance 7 Chapter 2 – Services & Performance Blue Route 1 Blythe City Circulator 9 Gold Route 2 Palo Verde College Crosstown 10 Red Route 3 CA Prisons Express 11 Green Route 4 Rural Rider 12 Silver Route 5 Saturday Service 13 Desert Road TRIP 14 Blythe Mobility Management 15 Performance 16 Realignment of Routes 17 Chapter 3 – Service Changes Changes and Modifications 19 Promotions 20 Chapter 4 – Finances & Capital Plans Operating Budget 22 Capital Budget 22 Requirements 22 Data Tables (Start) 23 2   Chapter 1 – System Overview 3   Service Area Geographically, the Palo Verde Valley is located approximately 170 miles east of Riverside along Interstate 10 at the Colorado River. The service area is primary based within the City of Blythe, Unincorporated Riverside County areas of Mesa Verde and Ripley. Also part of the greater area is the California State Prison facilities of Ironwood and Chuckawalla, approximately 20 miles west of the valley along Interstate 10. Demographics The valley’s population is approximately 25,000 residents. Population growth in the valley is increasing at an average of about 2% per year. The valley is agriculturally diverse providing many outdoor jobs and direct support to the local community. Major employers include the California State Prisons Ironwood and Chuckawalla. Service Profile The PVVTA provides many transit options to serve senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and the general public. PVVTA services are known to the general public under the marketing name “Desert Roadrunner”. PVVTA provides four deviated fixed routes in the Palo Verde Valley which serve Blythe, Ripley, Mesa Verde, Palo Verde College, California Department of Corrections facilities and limited service to Ehrenberg, Arizona. ADA Para-transit is also provided after hours on the Fixed Routes through route deviation requests. The routes can deviate up to ¾ of a mile away from the actual mapped routes. Hours of operation for the Fixed Route system are: Monday-Friday from 5:00 am to 6:10 pm and 8:00 am to 3:00 pm on Saturday and limited holidays. Finally, Desert RoadTRIP provides transportation reimbursement to individuals unable to access PVVTA Fixed Route services. 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 Independent Living Partnership to administer the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (Desert RoadTRIP) that has been in place since 1995. 4   5   Fare Schedule 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, 2010. In fiscal year 2012/13, staff may propose a base increase to the fare structure 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 on any change to the Fare Schedule. PVVTA Current Fare & Pass Schedule Fixed Route Cash Fare – Route 1, 2, 4 General Public (ages 5-59 years old) $1.65 Seniors (ages 60 years or older) $0.80 Persons with Disabilities (with ADA or Medicare Card) $0.80 Children ages 5 and under* (first boarding with full fare adult) Free Children ages 5 and under* (second & third boarding with full fare adult) $0.80 * Free for the first (1) child, $0.80 for child 2 & 3 boarding with a fare paying adult; Full Fare for all other accompanying children Additional Zone Fare for travel to and from Ehrenberg AZ** $1.65 ** Does not include deviation fare, valid for all passengers traveling to & from Ehrenberg AZ excluding ride-alongs Fixed Route Cash Fare – Route 3 Express General Public, Seniors, & Persons with Disabilities $3.30 Route Deviations (one way to or from route) $0.80 Route Deviations – All Fixed Routes Route Deviations (one way to or from route) $0.80 DV8 Card (8 one way deviation fares)*** $6.40 ***Not valid for initial passenger fare, only for payment of route deviation fee Fixed Route Go Passes 10-Ride Punch Pass (Route 1, 2, 3 Local, 4 & 5) $16.50 S/D 10-Ride Punch Pass (Route 1, 2, 3 Local, 4 & 5) $ 8.00 General Public 31-Day Pass (Route 1, 2, 3 Local, 4 & 5) $43.00 Seniors 31-Day Pass (Route 1, 2, 3 Local, 4 & 5) $28.00 Persons with Disabilities (Route 1, 2, 3 Local, 4 & 5) $28.00 10-Ride Punch Pass **** (Ehrenberg AZ) $33.00 **** Does not include deviation fare, valid for all passengers traveling to & from Ehrenberg AZ excluding ride-alongs 10-Ride Punch Pass (Route 3 Express) $ 33.00 20-Ride Punch Pass (Route 3 Express) $ 66.00 General Public 31-Day Pass (Route 3 Express) $120.00 6   Fleet and Maintenance PVVTA operates vehicles using Compressed Natural Gas, gasoline and diesel. The fleet consists of 6 active transit vehicles and 3 active support vehicles. Most of the vehicles are interchangeable between routes. When vehicles are retired, they are declared surplus property and sold at a city auction. PVVTA adheres to all Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and California Highway Patrol (CHP) mandated Preventive Maintenance Inspection criteria and is very proactive in maintenance efforts. Vehicle maintenance is provided under contract with the City of Blythe Central Garage. New Bus Replacement With funds from 2010 Gas Tax Swap, the Agency will use State Transit Assistance (STA) funds to purchase a 16/2 passenger bus early in the fiscal year. Over the next three years PVVTA will continue to replace older conventional fueled vehicle with Alternative fueled CNG buses. The primary source of funding for these capital replacement vehicles is Proposition 1B (PTMSEA). Currently, staff has been working with the California Association of Coordinated Transportation (CalACT) to plan and spec these proposed vehicles through their MBTA Vehicle Procurement Bid. Also, PVVTA will be exploring a new color scheme and bus logo design. 7   Chapter 2 – Services & Performance 8   Blue Route 1 – Deviated Fixed Route City of Blythe Circulator 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, Rite 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 ¾ of mile with a 30 minute in advance reservation or upon boarding. Connections to all other deviated fixed routes can be made at various locations within Blythe and at two major transfer points, K-Mart Transfer Center and Social Security (SSA) Transfer Center. Blue Route 1 operates deviated service in a clockwise loop type of route providing a 60 minute frequency with one bus, five days a week. Blue Route 1 operates from 7:30 am to 6:00 pm Monday-Friday. Services are not provided on the following days: Weekends and all Agency observed holidays. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2012 Realign current time points and bus routing to meet up with all other routes. 2013 Analyze the feasibility of increasing frequency of headways, continue to monitor service. 2014 Implement an opposing bus on the same route in 30-minute headways during peak hours. 9   Gold Route 2 – Deviated Fixed Route Palo Verde College Crosstown Gold Route 2 provides riders access between the City of Blythe and Palo Verde College. Selected trips are provided to Ehrenberg, Arizona. This feeder route provides connections to many civic, educational and county sponsored public social service offices, Blythe City Hall, All Star Cinemas, Big Kmart, Albertsons, Rite Aid, Palo Verde Hospital, Colorado River Fair, Employment Development Department, Blythe Recreation Center, Palo Verde Valley District Library, Palo Verde College Spring Street Campus, Palo Verde College main campus and various other shopping locations within the community. The route can deviate for passengers up to ¾ of mile with a 30 minute in advance reservation or upon boarding. Connections to all other deviated fixed routes can be made at various locations within Blythe and at two major transfer points, K-Mart Transfer Center and Social Security (SSA) Transfer Center. Gold Route 2 operates on a two way route providing a 60 minute frequency with one bus, five days a week. Gold Route 2 operates from 7:00 am to 6:10 pm Monday-Friday. Services are not provided on the following days: Weekends and all Agency observed holidays. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2012 Realign current time points and bus routing to meet up with all other routes. Separate outlaying service from this route and streamline headways to Palo Verde College. 2013 Analyze the feasibility of adding a subscription only augmented service to address late night trip issues from the Palo Verde College. 2014 No proposed changes this fiscal year; staff will continue to monitor service. 10    11 Red Route 3 – Deviated Fixed Route CA Prisons Express The Red Route 3 provides premium commuter service between Blythe and Chuckawalla Valley & Ironwood State Prisons, Monday through Friday with three AM and three PM trips. This route serves four Park-N-Ride lots, travels down Hobsonway to Mesa Drive then travels via Interstate 10 to the prisons. The Red Route 3 operates from 5:00 am to 7:30 am and again from 2:00 pm to 5:30 pm, Monday-Friday. Services are not provided on the following days: Weekends and all Agency or State observed holidays. Connections to all other deviated fixed routes can be made at various locations within Blythe and at two major transfer points, K-Mart Transfer Center and Social Security (SSA) Transfer Center Special fares are charged on this route. All passengers pay $3.30 one way. There is 10 and 20 ride GoPasses available as well as a $120.00, 31-Day GoPass which gives unlimited rides on all Desert Roadrunner buses for the month. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2012 Add two one-way trips to meet current demand. 2013 No proposed changes this fiscal year; staff will continue to monitor service. 2014 No proposed changes this fiscal year; staff will continue to monitor service. Green Route 4 – Deviated Fixed Route Rural Rider The Green Route 4 provides deviated fixed route service between Blythe, Ripley and Mesa Verde. This route serves four Park-N-Ride lots, travels down Hobsonway to State Route 78 then travels South to Ripley and West to Mesa Verde via Interstate 10. The Green Route 4 operates five round trips 7:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday – Friday. Services are not provided on the following days: Weekends and all Agency or State observed holidays. Connections to all other deviated fixed routes can be made at various locations within Blythe and at two major transfer points, K-Mart Transfer Center and Social Security (SSA) Transfer Center. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2012 Expand service hours and routing to include Mesa Verde and timed connection to Palo Verde College. 2013 No proposed changes; continue to monitor service. 2014 No proposed changes; continue to monitor service. 12   Silver Route 5 – Deviated Fixed Route Saturday Service The Silver Route 5 provides system-wide deviated fixed route service within the City of Blythe, Ripley, Mesa Verde and selected trips to Ehrenberg Az. This route serves all major trip generating areas within the system on 90-minute headways. The Silver Route 5 operates 8:00 am to 3:00 pm Saturday and Agency observed holiday operating days. Services are not provided on the following days: Monday – Friday and all Agency observed non-operating holidays. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2012 No proposed changes; continue to monitor service under exemption. 2013 No proposed changes; continue to monitor service under exemption. 2014 No proposed changes; continue to monitor service under exemption. 13   Desert Road TRIP Trip Reimbursement 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 Independent Living Partnership to seniors (age 60 years or older), persons with disabilities and truly needy persons who live outside the 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 $147.20 per month ($220.80 for a family per month). In Fiscal Year 2009/10, the TRIP program had 27 participants enrolled, of which 14 were new participants. Total miles traveled for the year were 38,499, with the average miles per trip being 92.1 miles. The amount of participant reimbursements totaled $9,491 and the average cost per one-way trip was $24.28 with a $0.26 per mile subsidy. Also in Fiscal Year 2009/10, PVVTA was forced to implement and collect a fare for the Desert RoadTrip service in order to maintain the Farebox Recovery Ratio. A minimal fare of $5 per trip was added to help maintain and meet the Farebox requirement of 10%. 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: 2012 No proposed changes this fiscal year; staff will continue to monitor service. 2013 Bring the service in house utilizing grant funding opportunities. 2014 No proposed changes this fiscal year; staff will continue to monitor service. 14   Blythe Mobility Management JARC / New Freedom PVVTA Mobility Management is an innovative approach for managing and delivering coordinated transportation services to customers, including older adults, people with disabilities, and individuals with lower incomes. In 2008, the Agency received funding from the FTA New Freedom and Job Access Reverse Commute grants as a direct result of needs identified in the RCTC Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan. Mobility Management in essence is a one-stop shop to coordinate transportation service and information with human services needs. Together, Caltrans and PVVTA are working on extending the ongoing one-year agreement to the projected three-year plan first identified by the Agency through the RCTC Public Transit Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan completed in 2008. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2012 No proposed changes this fiscal year. 2013 No proposed changes this fiscal year; look for outside funding to sustain mobility management program beyond Federal funding cycles. 2014 Sustain program after JARC / New Freedom Funding Cycle is complete. 15    16 Performance Over the past fiscal years, PVVTA has had many challenges as a direct result of the economic downturn in the Nation. Starting in summer of 2009, a steady growth in ridership dominated the system. The domino effect from State budget cuts translated into furloughs, layoffs and reduction in social assistance and these impacts started to become a factor in FY 2010. Trends have continued to move in a downward plunge for the better half of FY 2010/11. Midway through the third quarter of FY 2010/11 ridership trends started to increase as a direct impact from the rise in fuel prices. The Agency Board of Directors took staff’s recommendation and added additional service to the commuter service Red Route 3 after overwhelming demand by California prison staff. These new attempts to meet the current need are monitored daily in hopes of spotting better ridership trends and to prevent a negative impact on service if ridership falls from reduced fuel prices. At every level, staff continues to modify and review data trends and seeks help from all stakeholders of public transit in the Palo Verde Valley. Staff is confident that with the proposed realignment and ongoing analysis in fiscal year 2011/12, PVVTA will meet both mandatory and discretionary performance goals which are reasonably set from this SRTP process. Realignment of Routes Through the planning process for the current SRTP and in line with long term and projected growth planning, the Agency is now in a phase of realigning outlying routes to maximize travel times and reduce unproductive revenue miles. This method in bringing more efficient service to the street by only using the routes in place is tightening the “hub and spoke” system already in place. More timed connections and moving of key transfer points will make the system run smoother and seamless. With the ever growing need to service seniors and persons with disabilities through the same universal deviated fixed route system, a minor routing change will be made on the Blue Route 1. It was identified that taking the bus to the Baldwin Senior Apartments would serve a large majority of the Agency’s most transit dependant riders and provide a better sense of independence for them. Trips that were once made by deviation can now be made as regular boarding on a set schedule. The Gold Route 2 serving Palo Verde College (PVC) will be consolidated by removing routing in the west and shortening headways to PVC. The refocus on serving the specific need of PVC will open the door to increased student trips and possibly a funding partnership with PVC. The Green Route 4 which has been developing during the initial three year farebox grace period will now expand and take over routing shed by the Gold Route 2 in the west. The Green Route will service all of the Unincorporated Riverside County areas of both Mesa Verde and Ripley providing timed transfers to PVC and local Blythe routes. Over the years the Agency has struggled with providing an adequate level of service on the weekends and non-major holidays. Most of the issues have been with meeting a 20% ridership performance standard set by the Board of Directors of the weekday service set by the Board of Directors. The Silver Route 5 will now take on its own service and provide better routing to key trip generation areas which could not be achieved through augmenting other routes. It is hopeful that weekend/holiday service will be able to expand once the Silver Route is in place and marketed to the community. 17   Chapter 3 – Service Changes 18   Changes and Modifications Blue Route 1 will be routed by the Baldwin Senior Apartments and will have a new starting terminal at the K-Mart Transfer Center for timed transfers to and from all routes. Gold Route 2 will be routed specifically between Blythe and the Palo Verde College with additional service to Riviera Drive. Timed transfers to and from all routes will occur at the K- Mart Transfer Center. Red Route 3 will add an additional roundtrip to the California State Prisons on a trial basis based on demand and performance. Green Route 4 will be routed permanently to Mesa Verde via Ripley with additional 3 roundtrips added through the operating day. Timed transfers to and from all routes will occur at the K-Mart Transfer Center. Silver Route 5 will replace existing weekend/holiday service and have routing to all major weekend trip generators system-wide. 19   Promotions The following marketing efforts will be utilized to promote ridership growth in FY 2011/12. 1. Continuation of the marketing program which includes brochures, flyers, advertisements in local newspapers, community transit fairs, participation in community events, and 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 that 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. Foster new partnerships with businesses through the Shop, Save and Get Home Free Program. 20   Chapter 4 – Financial & Capital Plans 21   Operating Budget The Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency’s operating budget for fiscal year 2011/12 is $960,322 which is 15.8% more than last year’s operating budget. Due to an increase of funding for Fiscal Year 2011/12, PVVTA is proposing to add a new route and restructure two existing routes in order to provide a more efficient fixed route service to the public. The Agency’s budget includes only those expenses for the day to day operations of the Transit Agency and nothing more. The budget will be monitored very closely to make sure that the Agency continues to operate within its budget and is compliant with the mandatory 10% farebox recovery ratio. Included in the FY 2011/12 budget again this year, are grant revenue funds and expenditures for the Mobility Management Program. Capital Budget The Agency’s capital budget for FY 2011/12 is $665,297 which includes funding for bulk purchases of bus tires and filters for the Agency’s fleet which will allow quicker repair of the buses with the supplies already on hand. PVVTA will also continue the purchase and placement of much needed bus stop amenities throughout the City in order to accommodate the public. Other capital acquisitions include the purchase of a 16 passenger 2 wheelchair equipped bus to be purchased early in the fiscal year. Also, over the next three years PVVTA plans to replace older conventional fueled buses with Alternative fueled CNG buses, with the first of the three buses being purchased in FY 2011/12. The funding source for the three CNG buses will be from Proposition 1B. Regulatory and Compliance Requirements PVVTA adheres to all regulatory and compliance requirements as mandated by Riverside County Transportation Commission and or other regulatory agencies, as it pertains to ADA, DBE, EEO, etc. A Triennial Audit was performed for the period of July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2009 in which there were no recommendations for improvement made by the auditor. Pursuant to the audit performed, PVVTA disclosed that the Agency was operating in an efficient and effective manner and therefore, there were no specific issues identified that needed improvement. 22   Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 i Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1: SYSTEM OVERVIEW ...................................................................... 2 1.1 SERVICE AREA ......................................................................................2 1.2 POPULATION PROFILE AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS ..........3 Population Profile – Rider Characteristics ...............................................3 Demographic Projections ........................................................................4 1.3 FIXED ROUTE AND PARATRANSIT SERVICES ..................................5 Fixed Route Services ..............................................................................5 Paratransit Services ................................................................................6 Consolidated Transportation Services Agency ........................................6 1.4 CURRENT FARE STRUCTURE .............................................................7 Cooperative Fare and Subsidy Programs ...............................................7 1.5 REVENUE FLEET ...................................................................................9 1.6 EXISTING AND PLANNED FACILITIES .................................................9 Operational Facilities ...............................................................................9 Facility Modernization ........................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2: ROUTE PERFORMANCE & EXISTING SERVICE .........................11 2.1 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ................................................... 11 Service Standards and Warrants .......................................................... 11 Productivity vs. Coverage Target .......................................................... 12 New Service Warrants .......................................................................... 13 Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) .............................................. 13 2.2 EXISTING FIXED ROUTE & DIAL-A-RIDE SERVICE .......................... 15 2.3 PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS ...................................... 19 2.4 TRIP GENERATORS AND PROJECTED GROWTH MARKETS ......... 19 2.5 TRANSIT CENTERS, EQUIPMENT AND PASSENGER AMENITIES . 19 Transit Centers ...................................................................................... 20 Equipment and Passenger Amenities ................................................... 22 CHAPTER 3: PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES ....................................................25 3.1 RECENT SERVICE CHANGES ............................................................ 25 3.2 PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES .......................................................... 26 3.3 MODIFICATIONS TO PARATRANSIT SERVICE .................................. 28 3.4 MARKETING PLANS AND PROMOTION............................................. 29 3.5 BUDGET IMPACT ON PROPOSED CHANGES .................................. 31 CHAPTER 4: FINANCIAL & CAPITAL PLANS .....................................................32 4.1 OPERATING & CAPITAL BUDGET ...................................................... 32 4.2 FUNDING SOURCES FOR OPERATING & CAPITAL PROGRAMS ... 35 4.3 REGULATORY & COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ............................ 36 Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 ii Tables: System Map Comparative Statistics Table 1 Fleet Inventory a. Motor Bus b. Demand Response Table 2 SRTP Service Summary a. Routes: All Routes (System-wide Totals) b. Routes: Non-Excluded Routes c. Routes: Excluded Routes d. Program: Directly Operated Fixed Routes e. Program: Contracted Fixed Routes f. Program: Dial-A-Ride g. Program: Taxi Table 2A Excluded Routes for FY 2011/12 Table 3 SRTP Route Statistics Table 3A Individual Route Descriptions Table 4 Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12 Table 4A Capital Project Justification Table 5.1 Summary of Funds Requested in FY 2012/13 Table 5.1A Capital Project Justification for FY 2012/13 Table 5.2 Summary of Funds Requested in FY 2013/14 Table 5.2A Capital Project Justification for FY 2013/14 Table 6 FY 2010 State Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations Table 7 Service Provider Performance Target Report Table 8 FY 2011/12 SRTP Performance Report Table 9 Highlights of Short Range Transit Plan Appendix A: RTA Fixed Route Maps Appendix B: Service Standards and Warrants Appendix C: Title VI Policy Appendix D: Limited English Proficiency Policy Appendix E: Public Hearing Policy Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 iii GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 5307 Federal funds in urban areas with a population of 200,000 or more 5309 Federal funds for capital investments 5311 Federal funds in areas with a population of 50,000 or less 5316 Federal funds for the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 5317 Federal funds for the New Freedom Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ATIS Advanced Traveler Information System BRT Bus Rapid Transit CNG Compressed Natural Gas COA Comprehensive Operational Analysis CTSA Consolidated Transportation Services Agency DAR Dial-A-Ride DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise EEO Equal Employment Opportunity FTA Federal Transportation Administration FY Fiscal Year ITS Intelligent Transportation System JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute, also known as FTA Section 5316 LTF Local Transportation Fund MSJC Mount San Jacinto College NF New Freedom Program, also known as FTA Section 5317 OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority PIP Productivity Improvement Program RCC Riverside City College RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission RTA Riverside Transit Agency SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SRTP Short Range Transit Plan STA State Transit Assistance TDA Transportation Development Act TNOW Transportation NOW TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees UCR University of California, Riverside UPASS University PASS WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The SRTP is created to inform RTA stakeholders of transit developments in western Riverside County. The plan is an overview of the status of the existing local and regional transit network and sets the framework for enhancements for the next three years. Upon approval by the RTA Board of Directors, the SRTP is submitted to RCTC for funding of operational expenses and capital projects. As the regional transportation planning agency, RCTC is responsible for coordinating the planning efforts in the county and submitting to SCAG, the metropolitan planning organization, a list of transportation projects in the region. This critical step is required for the inclusion of capital projects to receive state and federal funding; whereas, operational plans are primarily funded through local revenue sources. The slowdown in the economy at the state and national levels are just as visible at the local level for government agencies like RTA. After a year of record ridership growth in FY 2009 and declining revenue streams, FY 2010 and FY 2011 were periods of refinement to existing services and evaluation of underperforming services which led to several service reductions. As a result, improvements were made to scheduled connections and on-time performance with existing service. The demand for more transit service in the county has grown and is challenging to meet in light of financial constraints. This has committed RTA to making modifications that have the least impact on customers. Some of the most effective strategies have been reducing unproductive trips, streamlining routes, and utilizing technology such as automated passenger counters to improve service efficiency. These service efficiencies have, in turn, helped to reduce operational costs for the last three years. In FY 2012, these types of measures will continue and planning will focus on strategies that will improve service during the recovery of the economy. The coming year will also mark the celebration of RTA’s thirty-fifth anniversary and a system-wide comprehensive operational plan will be completed, providing in-depth strategic plans for the next five to ten years. Total RTA revenues for FY 2012 are budgeted at $79 million that includes $54 million in operating expenses and $25 million for capital improvements. The Operating Budget increased about $4 million over FY 2011 due to increased contractual rates for purchased transportation; the increased fuel costs; commencement of a Travel Training Program; completion of a COA study; and increased medical, pension, and workers’ compensation benefits. The Capital Budget is increasing $20 million over FY 2011 primarily due to significant funding being placed towards a multi-year vehicle replacement plan for the directly operated fleet. Other capital projects include critical facility maintenance and the replacement of both revenue and non-revenue vehicles. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 2 CHAPTER 1: SYSTEM OVERVIEW 1.1 SERVICE AREA RTA’s service area is the second largest in the nation, encompassing approximately 2,500 square miles of western Riverside County. Included in the service area are eighteen (18) incorporated cities including Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Eastvale, Hemet, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, Temecula, Wildomar, and four (4) unincorporated jurisdictions in the County of Riverside. Unlike other agencies of similar size, RTA is unique in that it provides service in both urban and rural areas. Urbanized and rural areas are defined by the Bureau of Census and are based on population size. The urbanized areas served by RTA are Riverside/San Bernardino, Hemet/San Jacinto, and Temecula/Murrieta. These defined areas will likely have some changes after the 2010 census is released. The map below illustrates RTA’s service area and its neighboring counties. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 3 1.2 POPULATION PROFILE AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS RTA is challenged by changing demographics in various communities and continues to be proactive by planning routes that will be customer oriented, viable, efficient, and cost effective. By studying the characteristics of the riders, a better understanding is gained to more appropriately plan for and meet the needs of the transit market. Rider characteristics, along with demographic and population changes, are used to shape and strategize how resources will be allocated for future years. Population Profile – Rider Characteristics Bus passenger characteristics were developed from on-board surveys conducted in accordance with FTA Title VI guidelines. A demographic summary of weekday RTA riders offered the following characteristics: Summary of Rider Characteristics General Demographics o Ethnicity: 39% Hispanic, 27% Caucasian/White, 23% African American/Black, 4% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2% Native American, 5% Other o Gender: 51% Female, 49% Male o Median Age: 34.5 Income Level o Under $10,000: 29% o $10,000-$30,000: 28% o $31,000-$50,000: 12% o Over $50,000: 11% o Not Working: 20% Bus Fare Categories o General: 69% o Youth: 10% o Disabled: 11% o Senior: 10% Number of Buses Used for Trip 72% of those surveyed used one bus to their end destination; 25% transferred 3 or more times; and remaining 3% transferred 1 or 2 times. Frequency of Use per Week o 5 or more days: 56% o 3-4 days: 24% o 1-2 days: 12% o Less than 1/week: 8% Customer Origins and Destinations o Home-Work Trips: 42% o Home-Social Trips: 11% o Home-Retail Trips: 9% o Home-School Trips: 8% o Home-Medical Trips: 6% Primary Language o English: 83% o Spanish: 16% o Other: 1% Automobile Ownership o No: 75% o Yes: 25% Source: RTA Title VI Report (2007, 2010) Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 4 Demographic Projections Demographic projections directly correlate to the allocation of future transit services. Demographic data such as population, employment, urban density, income levels, age distributions, and even legislative policies are the pinnacle variables that shape public transit in a community. Growth projections for the region are compiled by SCAG and WRCOG in collaboration with local jurisdictions. At the local level, jurisdictions have the ability to plan and revise land use and transportation characteristics to target a desired level of intensity for employment, housing, and commercial areas. The COA study completed in 2007 included a market analysis of existing and future demographic patterns from 2005 to 2015. The analysis considered population and employment growth projections, projected changes in urban density, job-to-worker balance, income levels, age distributions, and vehicle ownership. Findings from that study included: The largest population growth areas are expected in the eastern markets in the areas of Hemet-San Jacinto, Perris-Sun City, and Banning-Beaumont. The highest employment growths are anticipated in the Hemet-San Jacinto and Banning-Beaumont areas. The job-worker balance is expected to improve as more employment opportunities are fostered resulting in a higher proportion of trips within western Riverside. Commute patterns to neighboring counties are still expected to grow. Urban intensification is projected to be the most noticeable in the Corona- Riverside corridor with minimum density levels of 15 jobs per acre. Income levels, age distributions, and vehicle ownership were also profiled to provide an indication of transit needs. o Communities with higher retirement populations (Sun City, Hemet-San Jacinto, and Banning-Beaumont) and higher proportion of families with children (Moreno Valley, Perris, and Lake Elsinore) are projected to develop larger employment bases and population growth as a result of younger families taking advantage of the lower housing costs. o Communities that are more diverse and established with mixed age groups and household types such as Riverside and Corona present more possibilities for increasing choice riders. These projections were not reflective of the recent slowdown in the economy and its impact on transit. However, they will be reevaluated in FY 2012 with the update of the COA and the release of the Census 2010 data. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 5 1.3 FIXED ROUTE AND PARATRANSIT SERVICES RTA operates 36 regional, local, rural, and trolley service routes and 8 express routes. Depending on the level of ridership in an area, a fixed route will either be directly operated or contract operated. A directly operated route is generally designed for higher density urban areas and is managed and operated in-house. A contract operated route is generally found in suburban and rural areas and is operated by a third party. Refer to Table 3A for a complete listing of both directly operated and contract operated routes. Fixed Route Services A fixed route is a bus line that provides regularly scheduled service. RTA fixed routes may be categorized into five basic types: Regional Routes: These routes comprise the backbone of the network between metropolitan areas along primary corridors. They may utilize the freeway system to travel between communities and it is not uncommon for regional service to travel through non-urban areas to link two urban areas. Local Routes: These supplement regional routes by circulating through various neighborhoods and serving secondary corridors. Local routes also serve as feeders to regional and express routes by transporting customers within a community on shorter trips. Bus stop spacing is on average ¼ mile apart, where curb and gutter improvements permit. Rural Routes: These provide lifeline service that feeds regional routes. Rural routes are generally limited in operation and serve secondary corridors within non-urbanized areas. Given the growth of western Riverside County, rural route service is limited primarily to segments of Regional route service and less- populated areas between cities. Trolley Routes and Special Service: These are intended to meet the needs of a specific market or community and often are designed as a circulator to serve targeted affinity groups with common travel patterns. Regional Express Routes: These routes provide limited-stop service designed primarily to transport commuters to and from employment sites and provide connectivity to transit operations heading outside of western Riverside County such as Metrolink. Labeled as CommuterLink, these buses employ the freeway system to provide faster service. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 6 Paratransit Services RTA offers paratransit services known as “Dial-A-Ride” to seniors and persons with disabilities. DAR is a curb-to-curb advanced reservation transportation service that travels to areas within three-quarters of a mile of an RTA fixed route, excluding express services. These areas are referred to as the “Dial-A-Ride service area” and trips must begin and end in the service area. If the trip starts or ends outside the service area, passengers must find a safe place within the service area to be picked up and dropped off to be eligible for service. Dial-a-Ride service is provided at times equivalent to local fixed route bus service in the area. RTA has two types of Dial-A-Ride service: ADA Priority Dial-A-Ride Service RTA gives priority service to individuals who are certified under the ADA law. Persons who are ADA certified are eligible for trips throughout the RTA service area that are within three-quarters of a mile of a fixed route bus service, excluding express routes, and during the hours of bus service operation. Senior/Disabled Dial-A-Ride Service Seniors age 65 and above and persons with disabilities are eligible for local Dial- A-Ride service within a single city and within three-quarters of a mile during the hours of fixed route bus service operation, excluding express service. Transportation is provided only within the city in which the trip begins. Consolidated Transportation Services Agency RTA is one of two designated CTSAs in Riverside County, the other being SunLine Transit Agency in the Coachella Valley. RTA’s role as a CTSA is to assist RCTC in coordinating public transit throughout the approximate 2,500-square-mile service area; provide driver training and technical workshops; and assist with preparing grant applications. In the cities of Corona, Beaumont and Banning, RTA coo rdinates regional services with the Corona Cruiser and Pass Transit. In the City of Riverside, RTA coordinates with Riverside Special Transportation, which provides ADA compliant service complementing RTA's fixed routes. Additionally, RTA staff periodically meets with social service providers, bus riders, and other advocates through forums such as RCTC’s Citizens Advisory Committee, RTA’s quarterly ADA Meetings, TNOW committees and surrounding regional transit operators. As the CTSA and federal grantee, RTA receives FTA funds directly and is responsible for the provision and compliance of sub-recipients adhering to federal regulations and policies. RTA is assisting sub-recipients throughout western Riverside County with federal funds through the FTA Sections 5316 JARC and 5317 New Freedom Programs. The sub-recipients will continue to be assisted in FY 2012 as awarded through RCTC ’s Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 7 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects or until previous funds are expended. The following is a list of the sub-recipients and approved projects: o Care-A-Van Transit, Inc. (“HOPE Bus”) – Job Training/Employment Transport o Care Connexxus, Inc. – Driver Sensitivity Training o Riverside County Regional Medical Center – Medical Transport The FTA funds will be jointly administered by RTA, with RCTC providing the local Measure A match funds. These programs include specialized public transportation initiatives that are targeted to assist low income individuals, seniors, and persons with disabilities who require support beyond conventional public transit services to maintain their independence and mobility. 1.4 CURRENT FARE STRUCTURE In March 2009, a fare study was completed, resulting in the following fare structure approved and adopted by the Board of Directors which took effect June 28, 2009. FIXED-ROUTE FARES Fare Categories Base Fares Day Pass* 7-Day Pass*30-Day Pass* General $1.50 $4 $16 $50 Youth (grades 1-12)** $1.50 $4 $16 $35 Senior/Disabled**70¢ $2 $16 $23 Medicare Card Holder 70¢ $2 $16 $23 Child (46” tall or under)25¢N/A N/A N/A COMMUTERLINK FARES COMMUTERLINK + LOCAL Fare Categories Base Fares Day Passes 30-Day Pass General $3 $7 $75 Youth (grades 1-12)**$3 $7 $75 Senior/Disabled**$2 $5 $50 Medicare Card Holder $2 $5 $50 Child (46” tall or under)$2 N/A N/A DIAL-A-RIDE FARES | Not accepted on fixed-route buses Fare Categories Base Fares 10-Ticket Books Senior/Disabled $3 $30 Medicare Card Holder $3 $30 Child (46” tall or under)50¢N/A * Accepted as base fare. CommuterLink trips require an additional $1.30 (senior/disabled) or $1.50 (general) per trip. ** Proper identification is required at time of boarding. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 8 Cooperative Fare and Subsidy Programs RTA makes every effort to create partnerships that will improve service for customers by simplifying transfer agreements and developing fare programs that promote the use of public transit. RTA has transfer agreements with the following agencies: Metrolink, Omnitrans, OCTA, Corona Cruiser, and Pass Transit. Metrolink passes are accepted on RTA fixed routes that serve Metrolink stations during the period from one hour before to one hour after Metrolink’s service hours and are valid on the day of travel. Fare media from Omnitrans, Corona Cruiser, and Pass Transit are accepted at transfer locations at the equivalent base fare rate, excluding CommuterLink service, on the day of travel. OCTA fare media is accepted for base fare only on CommuterLink Route 216 at transfer locations in Orange County. Current and retired employees as well as dependents of Omnitrans and OCTA are eligible to ride any local fixed route or CommuterLink in the RTA service area. RTA currently operates various cooperative fare and subsidy programs including: University of California, Riverside - U-Pass Program, Route 51 Crest Cruiser, Route 53 Bear Runner Riverside City College - Go-Pass Program Moreno Valley College - Go-Pass Program La Sierra University - U-Pass Program California Baptist University - U-Pass Program Mount San Jacinto College - Go-Pass Program City of Riverside - City Pass for Employees City of Temecula - Route 55 Harveston Shuttle County of Riverside - Route 50 Jury Trolley College and university programs allow students with a valid identification card from these campuses to receive access to any of RTA’s fixed routes. These programs are funded by the institution or students. The City of Riverside subsidizes a fare program (City Pass) for its employees to ride the bus for free and serves as a pass outlet (Riverside Go Transit) for its residents by discounting up to 20 to 30 percent off on 7-day and 30-day passes, respectively. Other subsidized transit services include the trolley routes which are funded by the university or local jurisdictions. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 9 1.5 REVENUE FLEET RTA’s March 2011 fleet totals 178 vehicles for its fixed route services. The bus types consist of 94 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)-powered 40-ft. buses currently used for directly operated fixed routes; 84 smaller buses for contracted fixed routes which consist of 13 CNG 32-ft. buses; 61 Type II and VII vehicles; and 10 trolleys. RTA also has an additional 89 vehicles for operation of paratransit services, for a total of 267 revenue service vehicles. Refer to Table 1 for detailed inventory of the RTA fleet. The CNG 40-ft. buses used on directly operated routes generally cover more densely populated areas such as Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley, and Perris while the 32-ft. CNG buses and 22-ft. gasoline powered buses are typically used as local and express vehicles on contract operated fixed routes in less dense communities. All RTA vehicles comply with clean fuel policies and come fully equipped with ADA accessible wheelchair lifts, including the paratransit vans. In addition, all fixed route vehicles will be equipped with bicycle racks. In FY 2011, the directly operated service peak requirement was 71 in the afternoon timeframe while the contract operated peak requirement was 63 during the morning period. In FY 2012, the peak requirements are expected to remain constant as will the fleet size for 40-ft. buses, but the fleet for smaller contracted buses will be reduced to 79. 1.6 EXISTING AND PLANNED FACILITIES Operational Facilities RTA’s primary facility is located in the City of Riverside and houses the Administration, Operations, and Maintenance departments with approximately 293 active employees on site. RTA’s secondary facility opened in June 2000 and is located in Hemet. It now has approximately 60 Maintenance and Operations employees assigned to the division. The Hemet facility is utilized for routes in the southern portion of the service area and maintains a portion of the CNG vehicle fleet. In FY 2012, RTA’s contracted fixed route service will be provided by Empire Transportation and DAR service will be provided by Southland Transit. Both companies will have operating facilities located in Perris. Each contractor is responsible for housing, operating, and maintaining RTA vehicles. The DAR facility also houses the DAR reservation call center. RTA offers taxi overflow through Network Paratransit. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 10 Facility Modernization RTA is a recipient of Proposition 1B funds, known as “The Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006.” Proposition 1B sets aside funds for two transportation improvement purposes: (1) The Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) to fund capital projects that relate to infrastructure improvement and (2) The California Transit Security Grant Program-California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) for transit system safety, security and disaster response capital projects. Approved projects include enhancements to the safety and security of operational and maintenance facilities, such as: Security Lighting Upgrades Walls and Fencing Security Signage Fire Alarm Enhancements Facility Video Surveillance Emergency Supplies Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 11 CHAPTER 2: ROUTE PERFORMANCE & EXISTING SERVICE 2.1 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS RTA evaluates and plans for its services using RTA adopted Service Standards and Warrants metrics and those set by RCTC’s Productivity Improvement Program (PIP), which are both updated annually. Service Standards and Warrants Service Standards and Warrants were adopted in 2007 to set the requirements for a minimum level of service that respects quality design characteristics such as route structure, service area coverage, operating hours, and on-time performance. Since then, economic conditions have changed requiring that the standards be revised to maintain service stability and are revised as necessary. The same standards for considering service enhancements also provides an objective way to evaluate how fair and balanced service changes can be made. There are several factors that are typically considered when objectively measuring service performance. These factors used in conjunction with the PIP measurements help in determining whether service is cost effective. Summary of Service Standards and Warrants Population Density Density is determined by the number of people housed per square mile or the number of employees per square mile. RTA aims to serve at least 85% of all residences, places of work, high schools, colleges, and shopping centers with access to bus service. Route Classifications RTA service can be classified into five fixed route categories – regional, local, rural, trolley/special, and express. Complementary to the fixed route service is Dial-A-Ride. See Table 3A for the route classification of each route. Span of Service The span of service, the hours of operation, refers to the start and end time of a route. Depending on the route structure (i.e., regional, local, rural, express), the span of service will vary based on the demand in the community. Route Classification Start Range End Range Start Range End Range Start Range End Range Local - Direct 4:30 AM - 6:30 AM 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM 5:30 AM - 7:30 AM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Local - Contract 5:30 AM - 7:30 AM 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM 5:30 PM - 7:30 PM Regional - Direct 4:00 AM - 6:00 AM 8:30 PM - 10:30 PM 5:00 AM - 7:00 AM 7:30 PM - 9:30 PM 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM Regional - Contract 5:00 AM - 7:00 AM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Rural 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Express Trolley or Special BRT 4:00 AM 10:00 PM 5:00 AM 9:00 PM 5:00 AM 9:00 PM Dial-A-Ride Not Applicable Varies based on targeted market or community Based on hours of fixed-routes, excluding Express and BRT Not ApplicablePeak Hours Weekday Saturday Sunday Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 12 Bus Stop Spacing Depending on the population density, bus stop spacing in urban areas usually averages about 1,500 ft. (.28 miles) to 2,500 ft. (.47 miles). As service approaches more suburban and rural areas, bus stop spacing may be limited to locations with accessible curb and gutters and sidewalks suitable for ADA compliance. On-Time Performance RTA requires that no bus shall leave a time point early, and should arrive at a time point no later than 6 minutes after the scheduled arrival time. This 6 minute window is appropriate for RTA’s service area due to the average distance traveled by each route and the combined rural and urban areas. Headways (Frequency) Headways are the maximum interval between each scheduled fixed route bus (e.g., the bus runs every 30 minutes). Headways range anywhere from every 20 minutes to every 120 minutes, depending on the density, and are aimed at operating in 20 minute increments for local, regional, and rural routes. Express and trolley routes may vary depending on demand. Transfer Wait Time In more urbanized areas such as downtown Riverside, transfer wait times will not be longer than approximately 20 minutes. In smaller urbanized and even in rural areas, the transfer wait time can reach up to 30 to 45 minutes depending on the frequencies of the routes in the area. Load Factor (Maximum Vehicle Loads) Depending on the bus, the maximum number of passengers should not exceed 150% of the seating capacity or the legal weight limit of the bus. Dial-A-Ride vehicles should not exceed 100% of the seated capacity. Source: RTA Service Standards and Warrants (2011) Productivity vs. Coverage Target To help improve effectiveness and efficiency, RTA sets a target for the productivity level of service to operate. In order to meet productivity requirements while continuing to provide coverage to areas that would not be served if performance were the only factor, RTA has adopted standards requiring 60 percent of their fixed route service to perform up to productivity standards while the remaining 40 percent of fixed routes operate to maintain coverage. This means that service that exceeds performance standards enable a minimal level of operations in areas of need that do not meet performance standards. Given RTA’s diverse and wide spread service area, there are places that are being served based on the need to provide coverage. The 60/40 split establishes a benchmark for productive service to meet mandatory farebox recovery. However, it also allows for new service to be implemented following TDA guidelines for exemption based on performance standards within the year t he service was implemented and the following two fiscal years. This objective also enables RTA to maintain highly productive service and still meet the requirements of the Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is the policy of RTA to ensure compliance with Title VI so that no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin under any program or activity. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 13 New Service Warrants The Service Standards and Warrants are used as a measurement for the implementation of new service. PIP targets are updated annually and new service can be exempted from meeting the required criteria for up to two years plus the year of commencement. The performance of new service is evaluated during this initial period using the PIP and service standards. The objective is to give a route time to perform up to standards, or it may be discontinued. Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) Service productivity is measured against the PIP metrics implemented by RCTC in September 2005. Using the PIP as a guide, transit operators in Riverside County develop their SRTP and corresponding budgets using the following performance indicators: Farebox Recovery Ratio Cost Per Revenue Hour Subsidy Per Passenger Subsidy Per Passenger Mile Subsidy Per Revenue Hour Subsidy Per Revenue Mile Passengers Per Revenue Hour Passengers Per Revenue Mile The majority of PIP targets are established based on actual current fiscal year performance through the third quarter, with minor adjustments. The Cost Per Revenue Hour target is set by taking current year performance through the third quarter and multiplying it by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the end of the previous fiscal year. The Farebox Recovery Ratio target is set based on the projected budget for the succeeding fiscal year and consideration of the urban/rural service offering. All remaining targets are set on a plus or minus 15% of the current fiscal year actual performance through the third quarter. PIP implementation policies require mandatory compliance for the Farebox Recovery Ratio target plus attainment of at least four of the seven remaining discretionary indicators. For FY 2012, RTA is budgeted to meet or exceed the mandatory Farebox Recovery Ratio target, and four of the seven discretionary performance indicators at the system- wide level. The indicators not expected to be met, based on the proposed budget are: Cost Per Revenue Hour, Subsidy Per Passenger, and Subsidy Per Passenger Mile. The Cost Per Revenue Hour target is based on CPI of 0.54%. However, total operating costs are budgeted to increase 8.3% over FY 2011 budget while revenue hours remain flat. The PIP metrics that consider subsidy allow for a 15% increase over current fiscal Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 14 year third quarter performance. The FY 2012 budgeted subsidy is planned at a 9.5% increase over FY 2011 while Passengers and Passenger Miles are increasing 8%. The increase in salaries and benefits over FY11 budget is due to the addition of thirteen positions and increased medical, pension and worker’s compensation expenses. Purchased transportation growth is attributed to contract rate increases and higher fuel costs. Other growth includes, but is not limited to, increased CNG fuel rates, the commencement of the Travel Training program and the Comprehensive Operational Analysis study which includes consideration for Bus Rapid Transit. Systemwide Systemwide FY11 FY12 PIP Indicators YTD March Proposed Low End High End Farebox Recovery Ratio 26.27% 22.73%17.04% Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $80.30 $86.86 $80.73 Subsidy Per Passenger $4.43 $5.18 $3.77 $5.09 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.66 $0.77 $0.57 $0.77 Subsidy Per Revenue Hour $59.21 $67.12 $50.33 $68.09 Subsidy Per Revenue Mile $3.49 $3.99 $2.97 $4.01 Passengers Per Revenue Hour 13.37 12.97 11.39 15.41 Passengers Per Revenue Mile 0.79 0.77 0.67 0.91 Target FY2011 Budget 49,966,377$ Budget Changes from FY2011 Salaries & Benefits 1,323,015 Worker's Compensation 204,356 Purchased Transportation (rates, fuel)1,313,903 Comprehensive Operational Analysis 400,000 Travel Training 214,297 Fuel / Parts 197,147 Travel / Training / Per Diem 69,328 Transit Centers Maintenance / Security 130,943 Other Expenses 284,717 Total Increases 4,137,706$ FY2012 Proposed Budget 54,104,083$ Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 15 2.2 EXISTING FIXED ROUTE & DIAL-A-RIDE SERVICE In FY 2011, RTA budgeted over 622,000 revenue hours for the operation of 10.6 million revenue miles. It is projected that the FY 2012 revenue hours will only increase slightly, a change of 0.1%. Compared to FY 2011, fixed route revenue hours will increase 0.6% and DAR service (including DAR Taxi) is estimated to decline by 1%. However, the change in revenue hours is anticipated to be operated over slightly less miles. Revenue miles are budgeted to decrease by 2%. Passengers are anticipated to grow based on past commute patterns and changes in the economy may continue to influence ridership. System-wide passengers are budgeted to increase in FY 2012 by 8% over FY 2011. The FY 2012 budgeted unlink passenger boardings is estimated to total over 8 million, an increase of 8% for fixed route and 3% for DAR service (including DAR Taxi). PIP Performance SummaryShaded area indicates PIP target NOT met.FY2011 Year to DateMarch 201180.31$ 17.09%5.45$ 0.81$ 69.15$ 4.05$ 10.79 0.63 RouteCost Per RSHFareboxRecovery RatioSubsidy PerPassengerSubsidy PerPassenger MileSubsidy PerRSHSubsidy PerRSMPassengers PerRSHPassengers PerRSMDO Fixed Route1101.47$ *2.41$ 0.39$ 72.74$ 6.61$ 30.17 2.74 10101.46$ *5.01$ 0.82$ 84.79$ 7.01$ 16.93 1.40 11101.43$ *4.98$ 0.81$ 84.56$ 6.26$ 16.97 1.26 12101.43$ *4.66$ 0.76$ 84.31$ 7.12$ 18.10 1.53 13101.43$ *4.77$ 0.78$ 85.11$ 7.19$ 17.86 1.51 14102.06$ *5.61$ 0.91$ 87.23$ 6.68$ 15.55 1.19 15101.45$ *3.39$ 0.55$ 79.37$ 6.31$ 23.44 1.86 16101.44$ *3.44$ 0.56$ 80.07$ 6.93$ 23.26 2.01 18101.43$ *4.10$ 0.67$ 83.32$ 6.03$ 20.30 1.47 19101.45$ *2.33$ 0.38$ 71.39$ 5.41$ 30.61 2.32 20101.46$ *4.43$ 0.72$ 84.29$ 5.28$ 19.03 1.19 21101.44$ *6.12$ 1.00$ 86.75$ 5.41$ 14.17 0.88 22101.46$ *4.20$ 0.68$ 82.13$ 4.61$ 19.56 1.10 2597.29$ *3.47$ 0.57$ 76.26$ 6.03$ 21.95 1.74 27101.43$ *4.84$ 0.79$ 83.65$ 3.85$ 17.28 0.80 29101.49$ *6.01$ 0.98$ 87.58$ 5.05$ 14.58 0.84 49101.70$ *3.00$ 0.49$ 76.83$ 5.53$ 25.58 1.84 206101.34$ *5.76$ 0.93$ 69.19$ 2.26$ 12.02 0.39 216101.56$ *4.54$ 0.74$ 55.45$ 1.96$ 12.22 0.43 DOFR Subtotal101.46$ *3.70$ 0.60$ 79.75$ 5.49$ 21.57 1.48 PIP Target PIP Performance SummaryShaded area indicates PIP target NOT met.FY2011 Year to DateMarch 201180.31$ 17.09%5.45$ 0.81$ 69.15$ 4.05$ 10.79 0.63 RouteCost Per RSHFareboxRecovery RatioSubsidy PerPassengerSubsidy PerPassenger MileSubsidy PerRSHSubsidy PerRSMPassengers PerRSHPassengers PerRSMPIP TargetContracted Fixed Route359.55$ *5.03$ 0.62$ 49.65$ 3.60$ 9.88 0.72 7 159.81$ *3.77$ 0.48$ 43.46$ 2.88$ 11.52 0.76 8 159.82$ *3.22$ 0.41$ 40.36$ 2.11$ 12.53 0.66 2359.59$ *7.03$ 0.90$ 51.50$ 3.48$ 7.33 0.50 2460.01$ *6.32$ 0.81$ 50.99$ 3.44$ 8.06 0.54 3059.89$ *4.73$ 0.60$ 50.16$ 4.12$ 10.60 0.87 3159.85$ *3.42$ 0.43$ 47.97$ 2.56$ 14.05 0.75 3259.79$ *3.15$ 0.40$ 48.43$ 3.81$ 15.38 1.21 3357.23$ *6.72$ 0.83$ 50.54$ 3.80$ 7.52 0.57 35 159.80$ *5.64$ 0.70$ 50.89$ 2.00$ 9.02 0.35 4059.56$ *7.95$ 0.98$ 52.85$ 2.24$ 6.65 0.28 41C 159.85$ *7.02$ 0.89$ 49.20$ 2.77$ 7.01 0.39 41D 1101.55$ *4.03$ 0.65$ 81.40$ 4.75$ 20.19 1.18 41 170.74$ *5.51$ 0.79$ 57.61$ 3.27$ 10.45 0.59 4261.64$ *6.30$ 0.79$ 53.95$ 3.55$ 8.56 0.56 5059.93$ *(0.45)$ (0.06)$ (3.60)$ (0.53)$ 8.02 1.17 5159.83$ *(0.44)$ (0.05)$ (7.02)$ (0.58)$ 15.88 1.32 53 158.84$ *(1.85)$ (0.23)$ (3.57)$ (0.25)$ 1.93 0.13 55 158.36$ *0.08$ 0.01$ 1.68$ 0.12$ 22.04 1.62 6159.75$ *6.88$ 0.85$ 54.39$ 2.84$ 7.90 0.41 74 159.86$ *3.58$ 0.44$ 38.34$ 2.03$ 10.71 0.57 79 159.84$ *5.99$ 0.74$ 42.46$ 2.15$ 7.09 0.36 20258.20$ *14.44$ 1.80$ 50.17$ 1.76$ 3.47 0.12 20459.26$ *5.48$ 0.68$ 44.30$ 1.77$ 8.08 0.32 20859.14$ *10.15$ 1.25$ 50.81$ 1.91$ 5.00 0.19 21070.32$ *7.44$ 0.92$ 52.02$ 2.26$ 6.99 0.30 212 158.97$ *5.19$ 0.64$ 18.72$ 0.73$ 3.61 0.14 217 158.59$ *10.85$ 1.34$ 29.19$ 0.95$ 2.69 0.09 794-$ *-$ -$ -$ -$ - - COFR Subtotal60.45$ *5.00$ 0.63$ 43.92$ 2.34$ 8.79 0.47 Total Fixed Route86.56$ *3.94$ 0.61$ 66.73$ 4.16$ 16.92 1.05 PIP Performance SummaryShaded area indicates PIP target NOT met.FY2011 Year to DateMarch 201180.31$ 17.09%5.45$ 0.81$ 69.15$ 4.05$ 10.79 0.63 RouteCost Per RSHFareboxRecovery RatioSubsidy PerPassengerSubsidy PerPassenger MileSubsidy PerRSHSubsidy PerRSMPassengers PerRSHPassengers PerRSMPIP TargetDial-A-Ride (w/o Taxi)Banning/Beaumont DAR60.16$ *39.09$ 3.17$ 54.73$ 2.12$ 1.40 0.05 Lake Elsinore DAR60.15$ *30.23$ 2.45$ 53.50$ 2.58$ 1.77 0.09 Grand Terrace DAR60.14$ *32.94$ 2.67$ 54.60$ 2.54$ 1.66 0.08 Hemet DAR60.15$ *18.01$ 1.46$ 49.91$ 2.82$ 2.77 0.16 Jurupa DAR60.15$ *27.56$ 2.24$ 53.58$ 2.83$ 1.94 0.10 Moreno Valley DAR60.16$ *21.43$ 1.74$ 52.09$ 2.80$ 2.43 0.13 Murrieta/Temecula DAR60.15$ *28.17$ 2.28$ 53.62$ 2.78$ 1.90 0.10 Norco DAR60.19$ *15.97$ 1.30$ 48.22$ 2.47$ 3.02 0.15 Perris DAR60.16$ *25.25$ 2.05$ 52.67$ 2.45$ 2.09 0.10 Riverside DAR60.15$ *25.23$ 2.05$ 52.58$ 2.58$ 2.08 0.10 Sun City DAR60.14$ *30.20$ 2.45$ 54.38$ 2.61$ 1.80 0.09 Subtotal60.15$ *23.25$ 1.89$ 52.18$ 2.66$ 2.24 0.11 TaxiBanning/Beaumont Taxi93.78$ *55.41$ 4.49$ 84.85$ 2.52$ 1.53 0.05 Lake Elsinore Taxi62.10$ *33.68$ 2.73$ 53.16$ 2.44$ 1.58 0.07 Grand Terrace Taxi84.12$ *49.27$ 4.00$ 74.80$ 2.53$ 1.52 0.05 Hemet Taxi78.66$ *49.56$ 4.02$ 72.47$ 2.59$ 1.46 0.05 Jurupa Taxi81.05$ *39.18$ 3.18$ 71.85$ 2.46$ 1.83 0.06 Moreno Valley Taxi81.19$ *51.17$ 4.15$ 73.59$ 2.53$ 1.44 0.05 Murrieta/Temecula Taxi80.90$ *50.01$ 4.06$ 73.37$ 2.53$ 1.47 0.05 Norco Taxi96.55$ *38.69$ 3.14$ 86.96$ 2.51$ 2.25 0.07 Perris Taxi74.61$ *44.57$ 3.61$ 67.92$ 2.56$ 1.52 0.06 Riverside Taxi83.83$ *42.09$ 3.41$ 76.43$ 2.56$ 1.82 0.06 Sun City Taxi79.85$ *47.51$ 3.85$ 72.13$ 2.52$ 1.52 0.05 Subtotal79.31$ *45.19$ 3.67$ 71.67$ 2.53$ 1.59 0.06 Total DAR/Taxi60.70$ *23.70$ 1.92$ 52.73$ 2.66$ 2.23 0.11 Systemwide (Full Up)80.30$ 26.27%4.43$ 0.66$ 59.21$ 3.49$ 13.37 0.79 * Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) allow for certain revenues to be both included and excluded from farebox recovery ratio calculation. TDA allows for certain expenses to be excluded from farebox recovery ratio calculation. These inclusions and exclusions make route level analysis misleading and thus are only meaningful at the systemwide level. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 19 2.3 PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS In the last three fiscal years as revenues have declined, RTA has been able to balance its budget by concentrating service reductions and modifications on routes that are not meeting PIP targets, namely farebox recovery and passengers per hour. These two targets are key factors in evaluating unproductive service. The PIP summary directs staff to research and analyze unproductive routes more closely to determine whether segments or trips can be eliminated due to low ridership. This process has proven to be beneficial because it streamlines services, reduces expenses, and has the least impact on customers. 2.4 TRIP GENERATORS AND PROJECTED GROWTH MARKETS While RTA services are expanding among the public in general, continued efforts are made to increase and expand its commuter services as a market segment. Many customers value the amenities of the CommuterLinks as an important facet of this service. Many of those vehicles include upholstered seating, wireless internet, and on- board satellite television service. To expand on this market base, RTA launched new express routes from San Jacinto/Hemet to Riverside and Escondido, in summer 2009. Additionally, the Route 149 became CommuterLink Route 216 in summer 2010. Another growth area is high school and college students. RTA is committed to working with school districts, colleges and universities to improve access to public transit. For high schools, RTA compiles and updates a database containing information on facility locations, bell schedules and district boundaries for routing and scheduling purposes. At the college level, RTA continues to develop and build relationships with college and university officials to improve transportation for their students. Community routes such as circulators have also proven to be successful in some areas where density levels are higher and connectivity is provided to key trip destinations as business and educational facilities and commercial/retail centers. Examples of these include Route 11 in Moreno Valley and Route 55 in Temecula, both of which are highly productive. As densities increase and communities are developed, RTA is committed to working with local jurisdictions to create viable transit options such as these. 2.5 TRANSIT CENTERS, EQUIPMENT AND PASSENGER AMENITIES RTA seeks and receives a variety of funds to finance capital projects that enhance services for passengers. Capital projects are typically funded with 20% coming from local sources such as TDA, Measure A, or TUMF while 80% is paid for with federal grants. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 20 Transit Centers Transit centers provide more than just a bus transfer stop. They can be large community-centered, multi-modal facilities where bus and rail passengers benefit from a selection of mobility choices. These modes of travel can include single-occupancy vehicles, carpools, vanpools, bicycles, pedestrian walkways, local and commuter express buses, light rail, and regional rail networks. Transit centers are generally owned by various public agencies and are well-situated for advancement of public-private investment partnerships leading to “transit -oriented” commercial and residential development. The following is a summary of the existing and planned transit facilities in the RTA service area: Perris Station Transit Center: Completed in January 2010, this transit center is located in the City of Perris at C St and 4 th St. (State Route 74) and has eight (8) bus bays for bus service and is served by 7 RTA routes. The facility will ultimately facilitate multi-modal transfers between Metrolink, RTA local and express routes, and park-and-ride patrons for the southwest region. Corona Transit Center: The transit center was opened in September 2010 and is located off Grand Blvd. and North Main St. and includes eight (8) bus bays and a pedestrian bridge across the railroad tracks for direct access to Metrolink. Total project cost came under $8.0 million including the final engineering and design and extension of the pedestrian bridge. Downtown Riverside Transit Center: The current transit center is located between Fairmont Blvd. and Market St. off of University Ave. and Mission Inn Ave. RTA is working with the City of Riverside to evaluate other locations, such as a site off of Vine St., near the Riverside-Downtown Metrolink Station, to remain in close proximity to employment and education centers. The transit center currently has eight (8) bus bays, but a relocation is expected to feature about twelve (12) to fourteen (14) bus bays to serve as a primary connecting point for RTA’s regional and local routes and future BRT service. The total project is estimated to cost $7.5 million and will be funded by TUMF, TDA, and federal dollars. Temecula Transit Center: This center is proposed to be located near the city boundary of Murrieta at Jefferson Ave across from Sanborn St (near the future French Valley Parkway interchange) and will feature ten (10) to fourteen (14) bus bays. The transit center will be a robust marshaling site for vanpools and regional express and local routes. BRT service is envisioned for those destined for San Diego County employment centers. Total cost for the project is estimated at $8.0 million and is expected to be completed in 2014. Hemet Transit Center: The proposed site of the transit center was recently changed from its original location along East Menlo Avenue near State St to the Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 21 north side of Wentworth Drive near the terminus of Scaramella Circle. A total of $1.4 million has been set aside for the project. Additional transit centers or smaller transfer nodes are being considered by RTA as needed to accommodate additional Metrolink stations along the Perris Valley rail commuter line. RTA is working with RCTC on creating multi-modal stations that will create transportation hubs and meet the capacity for transit service. Other locations along the Perris Valley Line that have been identified include the Highgrove Station, Moreno Valley-March Station, and South Perris Station. The California High Speed Rail Authority (HSR) has recently approached RTA to coordinate early design concepts for potential bus connectivity. The HSR route will either travel through Riverside and Murrieta via I-215 or through Corona and Murrieta via I-15. Depending on the final design, passenger stations are contemplated for undetermined locations in Riverside, Corona, Moreno Valley or the March JPA area and also near the Murrieta-Temecula interface. RTA will serve in an advisory capacity with HSR engineers to ensure that safe and convenient across-the-platform access between the rail line and the bus lines is provided. Station funding sources have not yet been identified. Other local transit centers and transfer nodes around the RTA service area are possible as community-centered residential and employment densities increase and the need for centralized bus marshaling and transfer facilities become evident. RTA will partner with state, regional, county and local planning agencies and with the private sector to coordinate the design, funding and construction of these sites. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 22 Equipment and Passenger Amenities Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) In 2008, RTA launched the beginning of ITS project on its directly operated buses, which makes up about 60% of the Agency’s fleet. The ITS network brings functionalities that improves the workflow operation, both internally and externally. Sophisticated Automatic Vehicle Locator programs allow the bus Dispatch Center to track the location of every 40-ft. bus for schedule adherence. This feature greatly enhances schedule performance and monitoring of ridership patterns. Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) - SmartStops RTA has also introduced the ATIS technology with SmartStops that relay real-time arrival information to kiosks on display at major transfer points. Currently, SmartStops are installed at heavily used bus stops in the cities of Riverside, Perris, Moreno Valley, and Corona. The SmartStop technology is coupled with additional plans to continue an aggressive program to enhance transit amenities. Existing shelters are continuously refurbished and new benches, trash receptacles and kiosks have also been placed at many existing bus stops. Newer bus benches are designed to be graffiti resistant and discourage loitering. Furthermore, over 450 new bus turnouts have been installed since 2003 as a result of staff coordination with local developers. Signal Priority Future bus schedules will further benefit from enhanced signal priority technology planned for BRT service and other major routes on the RTA system. A transmitter from the vehicle will allow the traffic signals along major streets to remain in “green” mode at busy intersections for several seconds longer, therefore allowing a late running bus to advance more quickly along its route to maintain on-time performance. RTA is working Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 23 with the City of Riverside to deploy a demonstration program on the University Ave and Magnolia Ave corridors. This project is expected to commence in 2012. I-Stops In FY 2011, RTA purchased materials and supplies to expand and upgrade the bus stop system with additional security-enhancing I-Stops employing an illuminated bus stop and security downlighting. These features are push-button activated by the customer and allows drivers to recognize when a person is waiting at a bus stop at night. The downlighting safety feature and illuminated schedule provides bus scheduling information for easy visibility in a night time environment. Funding for the I-Stops was approved through Section 5311 ARRA funds. Over 30 bus stops in the system will receive these devices. On-Board Security Cameras RTA received $60,000 from Proposition 1B funds to add exterior side video cameras on all full-sized buses to enhance the Agency's ability to monitor and record activities occurring around the vehicles. These additional cameras have enhanced RTA’s ability to investigate crimes and suspicious activities occurring at bus stops, transit centers and during travel on the road. The cameras provide a view of the street and all activities near the bus. When reports of crime or suspicious activities are received, RTA is able to aid law enforcement authorities by downloading the video which can be invaluable to the investigation and any subsequent prosecution. Revenue Collection Devices RTA recently installed electronic registering fareboxes on contracted fixed route vehicles which previously had old manual fareboxes. The upgraded fareboxes will increase revenue collection processing, decrease staff time in reconciling revenue, enhance ridership category counts and provide greater passenger convenience by issuing day passes automatically. The project cost $800,000 and was funded with Proposition 1B. Bus Replacement Program The directly operated fleet has a Bus Replacement Program that includes the purchase of 85 new 40-ft CNG replacement buses for directly operated fixed routes. RTA’s CNG buses purchased in 2000 and 2001 will shortly reach the end of their useful lives as determined by the FTA. Replacing aging buses is critical in assuring the reliability of service and decreasing maintenance costs by reducing breakdowns and frequent repairs. The replacement buses will be powered by CNG and have state-of-the-art technologies to provide enhanced passenger safety, better fuel efficiency and decreased emissions. The total estimated cost for replacement of these vehicles is Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 24 $49 million which will be funded through LTF, STA, Proposition 1B, and federal appropriations and grants. The contract-operated fleet was expanded in 2008 with the purchase of 19 Type VII vehicles which seats about 24 passengers compared to the previous Type II vehicles being used which seats about 12 passengers. Continued replacement of the Type II will occur over the next two years. Bus Stop Amenities and Upgrades Bus stop amenities such as shelters, bus stop signs, benches, and trash receptacles will continue to be placed at the nearly 4,000 bus stops in the service area as is feasible. A priority list is based on ridership and safety criteria. RTA works with local jurisdictions to convert as many bus stops as possible to ADA- compliant status. Funds for a Bus Stop Upgrade Program are being sought from TUMF, STA, and federal appropriations. The project will include the installation of cement pads to make stops accessible for riders with disabilities, shelters for security and protection from the elements, and benches for passenger comfort. These upgrades will not only benefit current riders but will also serve as strong incentives for discretionary riders to adopt public transit as a mode of travel. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 25 CHAPTER 3: PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES 3.1 RECENT SERVICE CHANGES Since FY 2009, a series of service modifications and reductions were made to enhance service efficiency and cost effectiveness. Each of RTA’s seven main geographic areas underwent service changes that were impacted by scheduling and routing modifications. Summary of Recent Service Changes Service Area Recent Service Changes Corona- Norco – Riverside - Mira Loma and Vicinity The Corona - Norco - Riverside area comprises the majority of the urban population and since 2009, various schedules on local and regional routes have been improved for on-time performance and connectivity. Growing communities such as Eastvale led to the restructuring of Route 3 which was incorporated with portions of the former Route 38 to create a route connecting Eastvale, Norco, and Corona. Other changes included the elimination of Third St. on Route 14, the interlining of Routes 29 and 49, and the merge of Routes 14 and 25. Moreno Valley The Moreno Valley area has the second highest ridership in the system, next to the Riverside area. The transit network was restructured in 2009 to eliminate duplicated areas on Eucalyptus, Frederick, Cotttonwood, an d Perris Blvd and improve connections to neighboring communities in Riverside and Perris. The restructuring involved Routes 11, 16, 18, 19, 35, and eliminated the Route 17. The overall design of the area network utilizes the Moreno Valley Mall as an anchor point for connections and has timed transfers between Routes 11, 16, 18, and 19. Perris - Menifee In the Perris - Menifee area, the Perris Transit Center was opened in January 2010 and seven local, regional, and express routes were realigned to serve the new transfer location. During the same time, RTA also implemented weekend service on Route 41, which travels through Mead Valley, Perris, and Moreno Valley, with a grant from the federal JARC Program. Ridership in the Perris area has grown significantly as seen on the Route 19, which has one of the highest passengers per hour in the system, and the Route 22, which experiences maximum loads at local schools. Hemet - San Jacinto In the Hemet - San Jacinto area, funds received by JARC were used to add two new CommuterLinks, Routes 212 and 217 which originate in San Jacinto and travels to Riverside and Escondido, respectively. Both routes were started in 2009. Other JARC funds were used to increase the frequency on Routes 74 and 79 with the addition of another vehicle. The frequencies on each route reached 90 to 100 minutes and were improved to 60 to 70 minutes. JARC funding was selected for these routes due to the increasing demand for service from students and commuters traveling to and from the Hemet - San Jacinto area to Perris and Temecula. Service frequency was reduced on Route 42 on Saturdays beginning May 2010 due to low productivity. Lake Elsinore - Wildomar The Lake Elsinore - Wildomar area is primarily served by Routes 7 and 8 which have among the highest ridership for the contract operated fixed routes. Routes 7 and 8 were restructured to improve the staggered headways between the two local routes. Route 7 previously operated every 35 to 40 minutes and Route 8 operated every 90 minutes. Ridership statistics showed that Route 8 was more heavily used than Route 7 and the increasing traffic and overcrowding impacted Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 26 the on-time performance of the route. For the two routes to be more aligned with one another for transfers and connections, they were modified such that the Inland Valley Hospital segment was added on the Route 7 and eliminated on Route 8. This balanced the frequency on both routes to every 60 minutes and improved the connections between the two at the Lake Elsinore Outlet Center and with Route 22. Murrieta - Temecula In the Temecula - Murrieta area, RTA modified existing Routes 23, 24, and 79 and realignments were made to maintain service along the highest frequented corridors in May 2011. At that time frequencies were streamlined at 70 minutes for timed connections between the routes at County Center Drive. RTA also worked closely with the City of Temecula to integrate the Route 55 into the regular transit system as a result of excelling ridership performance. Banning - Beaumont In the Banning - Beaumont area, RTA has been working with Pass Transit to coordinate and improve service connections with other RTA routes in Moreno Valley and trip generators such as MSJC in San Jacinto. Service on Route 35 was enhanced with the addition of another vehicle to improve the frequency from 100 minutes to 60 minutes. Customers responded well to this change and growth on Route 35 has more than doubled since then. System-wide Beginning May 2010, service on four major holidays (New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day) were designated as non-service days. 3.2 PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES Service planning for the next three years is modeled after recommended strategies by local service area as highlighted in the last COA study. The COA findings called for an increased emphasis on the local transit corridors, the existing and proposed transit centers, and primary connections to regional and intracounty services to employment centers, schools, and other areas with increasing density. The service strategies, as depicted on the following page, address the market and demographic needs of each community and the types of improvements that could be made. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 27 Summary of Service Strategy by Service Area Service Area General Service Strategy Corona – Norco – Riverside - Mira Loma and Vicinity Focus on commuters with direct services connecting major residential and employment areas as well as improved services connecting to transit centers and Metrolink stations where regional and intracounty services are available Provide services to cover major schools including universities and co lleges as well as high and middle schools Provide frequent services and transit priority measures on primary corridors Moreno Valley Establish a base transit network serving major activity centers including schools, shopping centers, medical centers and the proposed Metrolink station Connect Moreno Valley to UCR and Downtown Riverside as well as Perris with direct and frequent transit services Provide transit service to the future major development at the March Air Reserve Base site Perris - Menifee Connect all services at the proposed transit center, the future Metrolink station Provide local service in the major residential areas connecting to major activity centers Connect the local services to the regional and intracounty services at the transit center Hemet - San Jacinto Focus on internal transit connections between residential areas and major activity centers Provide continuous service on transit corridors connecting to major schools, shopping areas and medical facilities Provide services to the new development area north Hemet Lake Elsinore - Wildomar Focus on the intracounty connections to Perris and Murrieta/Temecula Interline the local circulator and intracounty routes to reduce transfer requirement Murrieta - Temecula Focus on services to commuters, students and shoppers Provide transfer connections between local circulators and express routes to better serve commuters Provide service to high and middle schools Local circulators and intracounty routes should provide combined frequent service on the major commercial corridors Banning - Beaumont The local service within Banning/Beaumont service area will continue to be provided by Pass Transit Intracounty services operated by RTA will connect to Pass Transit local routes Source: RTA Comprehensive Operation Analysis (2007) Addressing these strategies will still be made despite financial constraints. An emphasis will be placed on improving the existing service through improved scheduling and streamlining of routes. Schedule improvements will utilize ITS technology to improve clock-faced headways, frequencies, and timed connections to other routes. Streamlining, or route restructuring, will enhance service along major corridors and Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 28 arterials and reduce circuitous routing and duplicated service. These core objectives will in turn address the community demands for service to schools and employment centers. In FY 2012, another COA study will be conducted which will evaluate existing service and will guide the next five to ten years of service improvements and enhancements. 3.3 MODIFICATIONS TO PARATRANSIT SERVICE The provision of ADA services remains a challenge as service requests continue to increase and the number of ADA-eligible riders continues to grow. From FY 2006 to FY 2009, DAR ridership grew 66%. In comparison, during the same period fixed route ridership grew 21%. This disparity is due in part to the maturing of the “baby-boomer” generation requiring paratransit services. Paratransit, or DAR service is provided exclusively for seniors, persons with disabilities and ADA-certified riders. A DAR Study was completed in 2009 and determined that, “If no change is made to RTA’s existing policies and level of service, it is expected that DAR’s ridership and associated operating cost will more than double over the next four fiscal years to reach 730 thousand passengers and $22.7 million, respectively, in FY 2013.” Given these findings, in September 2009, the Board of Directors authorized the implementation of the following policy changes that took effect January 2010. Raise the senior age for DAR eligibility from 60 to 65 Implement trip-by-trip eligibility enforcement Shorten the reservations window from 7 days to 3 days Enforce a strict ¾ mile boundary policy for all passengers Implement a new fare system model that would be based on the comparable fixed route model Since then, ridership growth slowed and in FY 2011 shifted downward by more than 3% over FY 2010 as a result of the policy changes. In FY 2011, efficiency in the number of Passengers Per Hour improved, resulting in an 8% reduction in revenue hours over FY 2010. As forecasted in the 2009 DAR Study, passenger counts are expected to level off about a year following the policy changes and are anticipated to continue to rise but at a slower rate than the previous years. This projection is becoming visible as shown in ridership trends for the third-quarter of FY 2011 that are projected to carry over into FY 2012, increasing ridership by about 3%. In FY 2012, efforts to mitigate the growth in DAR service will continue with the launch of a Senior/Disabled Travel Training Program. The program is designed to cover all aspects of public transit from training on how to use a bus schedule and map to overcoming social barriers that may prevent customers from using a fixed route bus. In turn, participants will benefit from having a greater sense of independence, thus increasing their mobility; and will ultimately bring a significant financial savings to the customer and RTA. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 29 3.4 MARKETING PLANS AND PROMOTION A marketing and communications plan is developed to support the annual goals of RTA, while advancing the mission and vision of the organization. The plan seeks to address the following focus areas: Increasing ridership Increasing awareness of RTA services Improving the image of RTA Educating the public on the benefits of public transportation Providing excellent customer service Coordinating media and public relations Assisting with employee communications Developing marketing tactics to address these areas is accomplished by executing marketing and communications programs/campaigns targeted at existing and potential riders, commuters, the general public, elected officials, students, the business community, the media, non-profit organizations and employees. These marketing programs/campaigns will employ a mix of different media to reach the target audiences. Most residents of western Riverside County know RTA has a transit system, but for many that is all they know. Marketing efforts aim to build on the existing base of awareness by educating the general public about what transit services are available, how to get more information and how to access services. Service Adjustments RTA generally adjusts its service three times per year (January, May, and September) in conjunction with the proposed service changes. Timely and broad-based notification of these changes is important to our riders. Marketing promotes service adjustments through a variety of advertising methods to reach customers including press releases, website promotions, brochures distributed throughout the service area, newspaper ads, on-bus information and rider alerts. Customer Information Materials RTA’s goal is to make the transit system easier to understand and use through enhanced passenger information and signage. To the novice rider, using transit can be a confusing prospect. To be effective, RTA passenger information materials are easy to understand, accurate and up-to-date, readily available, attractive and inviting. Materials that are easy to read, readily available and attractive result in a much higher potential in someone new trying the system, while at the same time maintaining existing ridership. Public Speaking Opportunities Personal presentations are useful in reaching a variety of segments with customized, highly credible messages. Presentations to business and community leaders are used Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 30 to educate these groups about the benefits that transit provides to the RTA community. Presentations at staff meetings for social service agencies or other gatekeeper organizations educate these individuals about what transit offers their clients and how they can help to encourage transit usage among their constituents. Presentations at senior centers or apartment complexes, college or school orientation programs, or to other groups of potential riders are used to show them how they can use the bus to gain or maintain independence or access job training opportunities. Community Relations Many of RTA’s strategies rely on working through local organizations and businesses to direct very specific promotional messages to constituencies with realistic potential for using some or all of RTA’s transit services. Community-based marketing and partnerships with local businesses and public agencies of this kind can be both low-cost and highly effective. RTA often participates in community events and parades. In addition to its potential to attract new users, it also provides the opportunity to build on- going relationships with various constituencies. Website and Social Marketing The website provides an opportunity for RTA to publish information about our services and become accessible to anybody and anywhere, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. RTA also utilizes social media including Facebook, Twitter and eAlerts. Social media provides an outlet for displaying who we are in new, free advertising format. Talking about RTA and providing the public information in an intelligent way via Twitter and eAlerts and a regularly updated Facebook raises RTA’s profile and brand. There is no other low-cost promotional method available that can easily give RTA large numbers of visitors, some of whom may come back to our website or social media pages again and again. Customer Information Center The Customer Information Center provides phone information to our customers seven days per week. As call volumes continue to rise, RTA maintains staffing levels to adequately meet our customers’ needs. With tools like Transtar and Google Transit trip planners, Transit Master bus tracking, agents are able to quickly and accurately answer all customer inquiries. Transportation NOW TNOW was formed in 1992 as grassroots advocacy group comprised of enthusiastic public transit advocates. Members of TNOW range from elected officials to community activists to everyday transit users who are committed not only to addressing regional Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 31 transportation issues but meeting the needs of individual communities. There are five TNOW chapters throughout the service area that include Corona/Norco/District 2, Greater Riverside, Moreno Valley/Perris, San Gorgonio Pass Area, and Southwest Riverside. Each chapter meets monthly and sets goals and objectives relevant to their communities. 3.5 BUDGET IMPACT ON PROPOSED CHANGES Economic forecasts play a pivotal role in the service planning process. Since FY 2009, RTA has adjusted its service levels to adhere to budgetary constraints. Between FY 2009 and FY 2011, RTA has reduced 87,000 annual revenue service hours in fixed route and DAR service to save $5.3 million annually. Planned service changes in FY 2012 and beyond are contingent upon improved economic conditions and available revenue. Therefore, should funding be unavailable for larger planned projects, the implementation and service improvements in conjunction with it will be delayed until sufficient revenue is available. Any new service should also adhere to RTA’s Sustainable Funding Source Policy that was approved in September 2010. The enactment of the policy provides a framework that assures that funding sources, particularly temporary financial assistance or “seed” money are utilized only on service that has a significant potential to be productive and financially sustainable when funding expires or is depleted. This encourages the use of new or expanded service to demonstrate that it is warranted by meeting productivity standards over an established period of time. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 32 CHAPTER 4: FINANCIAL & CAPITAL PLANS The FY 2012 budget reflects a strategy to sustain current levels of safe, reliable and effective public bus transportation service while considering the continued economic pressures that demand efficiency to the greatest extent possible and challenge compliance with the PIP. To that end, RTA plans for a service level that balances forecasted fiscal constraints with the varied profile of the service area. Staff remains fully committed to exploring all service and financial alternatives necessary to meeting the public transit needs of the citizens who live and work in western Riverside County. 4.1 OPERATING & CAPITAL BUDGET Due to the prudence exercised over the past few years and the mildly improving economy, RTA is expecting an overall revenue increase over FY 2011 levels. As currently budgeted, total RTA revenues for FY 2012 are $78,819,940, with $54,104,083 projected for Operating expenses and $24,715,857 projected for Capital projects. The Operating Budget is planned to increase $4,137,706 over FY 2011. The Capital Budget will increase $20,063,793 over FY 2011 levels. Operating Budget Profile The proposed Operating Budget totals $54 million. The Operations Department, at 66%, constitutes the largest component of the proposed budget while Maintenance makes up 17% of the total. Thus, combined Operations and Maintenance equate to 83% of the budget. Planning and Administration combined make up the remaining 17% of the budget. The operating budget contains five (5) major cost elements. The elements are: Salaries and Benefits (47%), which are made up of wages and fringe benefits including Worker’s Compensation $35,712,939 $9,176,655 $1,050,204 $8,164,285 Operations Maintenance Planning Administration Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 33 Purchased Transportation (36%), which represents the resources required for contracted transportation services for DAR/Taxi Overflow and certain fixed-route services Materials and Supplies (7%), made up primarily of operating supplies including tires, fuel, oil, and parts for the operation, repair & maintenance of Agency vehicles Services (5%), such as external auditing, legal, marketing, outside maintenance, custodial, armored truck, actuarial services, consulting, trustee fees, and towing Other Expenses (5%), which provide for property and liability insurance, utilities, printing and publications, advertising and promotion, dues and subscriptions, and other miscellaneous expenses. A profile of proposed expenditures by cost element is shown below: $25,613,501 $2,704,747 $3,707,980 $19,420,940 $2,656,915 Salaries & Benefits Services Materials & Supplies Purchased Transportation Other Expenses Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 34 Capital Budget Profile The proposed FY 2012 Capital Budget totals $25 million. Capital funding will be used for the purchase of critical items to maintain existing operations and service levels. The Capital Budget is a component of the comprehensive five-year Capital Improvement Plan including equipment and upgrade of agency infrastructure. A Capital Budget profile by project element is shown below: Notable capital projects included in the proposed FY 2012 budget include: Significant funding toward the multi-year replacement plan of the directly operated heavy duty fleet Purchase of spare parts for vehicle operation and maintenance including tire lease Critical facility maintenance Revenue vehicle replacement (9 non-heavy duty fixed route and 17 DAR) Non-revenue vehicle replacement (9 driver relief cars), (3 Stops and Zones trucks), and (2 Travel Training vehicles) $1,921,406 $21,554,559 $337,416 $902,476 Maintenance Revenue Vehicles Non-Revenue Vehicles Buildings, Land & Facilities Upgrades Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 35 4.2 FUNDING SOURCES FOR OPERATING & CAPITAL PROGRAMS Funding for the Operating and Capital Budgets are generated from state, federal and local revenue sources. The chart shown below summarizes the allocation of each revenue source. FTA Section 5307 $4,848,628 JARC (5316) / New Freedom (5317) $36,160 FTA Section 5307 $13,450,000 FTA Section 5311 $426,208 FTA Section 5309 $240,000 JARC (5316) / New Freedom (5317) $882,195 Measure A Measure A FET Credit Transportation Uniform Other Local Revenues $518,000 Federal Operating Assistance $14,998,403 $10,229,520 $9,284,413 $4,884,788 LTF Operating Assistance $26,647,298 $54,104,083 $24,715,857 Passenger Fares (Regular)Federal Total Operating & Capital Revenues $78,819,940 Operating Revenues Capital Revenues $2,495,969 $160,000 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) $4,520 $2,000,000 STA $7,597,029 Mitigation Fee (TUMF) The amounts depicted above do not include the “pass -through” funding for the social service programs that RTA will oversee on behalf of RCTC. Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 36 4.2 REGULATORY & COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS As a recipient of state and federal funding, RTA is required to comply with regulatory policies and procedures that are reviewed and audited regularly. Summary of Regulatory & Compliance Requirements Transportation Development Act (TDA) Triennial Audit: Under the State of California, TDA provides two major sources of funding for public transportation: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance Fund (STA). These funds are for the development and support of public transportation needs that exist in California and are allocated to areas of each county based on population, taxable sales and transit performance. The last TDA Triennial Audit was completed in June 2010 at which time RTA had no findings. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Triennial Review: The triennial review is a comprehensive review of compliance with FTA requirements that is conducted of Section 5307 grantees at least every three years. Even though the review is conducted of Section 5307 grantees, it addresses all FTA programs for which the grantee is the direct recipient of funds, including Sections 5307, 5309, 5310, 5316, and 5317 and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). It addresses the grantee’s implementation of Federal requirements in 24 areas and its oversight of sub recipients, operations contractors, or lessees funded by these programs. The last FTA Triennial Review was completed in June 2010 at which time RTA had no deficiencies. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): The federal ADA Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity and access with persons with disability. Under the ADA Act, public transit operators are required to provide complementary paratransit service to persons who are ADA cert ified and are within three-quarters of a mile of a local fixed route bus during the hours of bus service operation. RTA remains fully compliant with all Federal ADA regulations and has had no ADA customers denied service on DAR. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program: The federal DBE Program seeks to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of FTA’s Department of Transportation -assisted contracts in the Department’s highway, transit, and airport financial assistance programs and to create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for Department of Transportation -assisted contracts. As of March 2010, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a new rule which established a three - year DBE goal. RTA’s DBE Program was last submitted in August 2009 and will remain in effect through September 2012. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO): The Federal Transit Laws, 49 U.S.C. 5332(b), provide that "no person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or age be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any project, program or activity funded in whole or in part through financial assistance under this Act." This applies to employment and business opportunities and is considered to be in addition to the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The federal EEO Program is submitted to FTA every three years. The last submission and approval was in March 2010. Drug and Alcohol Testing: Per the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 49, Part 40 & 655), RTA established a Drug & Alcohol testing policy in an effort to deter drug and alcohol use in the workplace. The policy establishes the circumstances in which app licants and employees are tested for Short Range Transit Plan • FY 2012 -2014 37 drugs and alcohol in the workplace and the consequences when they test positive. The purpose of the policy is to prevent accidents, injuries, and fatalities resulting from the misuse of alcohol and prohibited drugs by employees who perform safety-sensitive functions. In compliance with FTA, a drug and alcohol report is submitted every year. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. Specifically, Title VI provides that "no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." (42 U.S.C. Section 2000d). RTA’s last Title VI report to the FTA was submitted and approved in December 2010. See Appe ndix C for RTA’s Title VI Complaint Investigation Procedures. Limited English Proficiency (LEP): FTA issued regulations based on the Executive Order 13166 to all transit operators to establish LEP policies and procedures that ensures that RTA publications are issued in English and any other languages used by a significant number of the general population in the service area as determined by periodic demographic assessments. RTA’s LEP policy and procedures were adopted in April 2009. See Appendix D. Public Hearing Policy: U.S. Code Title 49 § 5307 requires that transit systems maintain a process to solicit and consider public comments before raising fares or implementing major reductions in service. RTA’s Public Hearing Policy was last revised in April 2009. See Appendix E. LakePerris LakeMathews CanyonLake LakeElsinoreSanta Ana RiverSanta Ana RiverSanta Ana R i v e r Riverside Trolley Routes Temecula Trolley RIVERSIDE RiversideCommunityHospital Physical Therapy& Sports Clinic CalvaryPresbyterianChurchParkingLot (nearest stop 14th & Magnolia) ROUTE 50 Jury Trolley | Red Line 14TH STREET 12TH ST. 10TH ST. 11TH ST. RICE TEQUESQUITE TERRACINA RAMONABROCKTONBROCKTON MAGNOLIAMARKETMAINMAINRCC City Hall Eden Lutheran Church Parking Lot United Methodist Church 1 13 15 50 Market & 14th 1 13 15 50 14th & Magnolia 1 13 15 50 Magnolia & Terracina 208 210 212 10th & Main Riverside CountyCourt House CountyAdministrativeCenter Hall ofJustice Transfer Point and Information Medical Facility Trolley Stops Legend | Map not to scale 215 UCR Canyon Crest Towne Centre Village Towers Apartments UCR UniversityVillage Post Oce 60 MLK Blvd . MLK Blvd. University A v . University A v . Blaine Monte Vist a Vassar Spruce S t . Wa t k i n s D r . Central A v .Iowa Av.Chicago Av.Chicago Av.El CerritoCanyon Crest Dr.CanyonCrest Dr.W CampusCanyon Crest Dr.16 51 208 210 212 Canyon Crest & MLK (Lot 30) Highlander Shuttle University Village & Village Towers Apts 1 16 25 51 53 10 25 51 Iowa & Blaine 1 13 22 25 51 53 16 Chicago & University 22 51 Chicago & Central 16 51 53 Canyon Crest & Central RIVERSIDE 1 53 Highlander Shuttle 204 16 51 UCR ROUTE 51 Crest Cruiser Trolley Stops Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 215 UCR Canyon Crest Towne Centre Grand Marc Life Science Lot 6 Stonehaven Apts. ScienceLibrary Riverside SportsCenter UniversityVillage Lot 24 Post Oce 60 MLK Blvd MLK Blvd . University A v University A v Linden St Blaine St Central A v Iowa AvChicago AvEucalyptus Big SpringsChicago AvEl CerritoCanyon Crest DrCanyonCrest Dr.Canyon Crest DrAberdeen DrE. Campus DrRustin Av16 51 53 208 210 212 Canyon Crest & MLK (Lot 30) Highlander Shuttle Grand Marc 25 51 53 16 51 53 Canyon Crest & Central RIVERSIDE 1 53 Highlander Shuttle 204 16 51 UCR ROUTE 53 Bear Runner Trolley Stops Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale Vassar WINCHESTER RDYNE Z R D OVERLAN D DR M A R G A R I T A R D 15 ChaparralH.S. YsabelBarnettE.S. Abbott Extended StayAmerica BestWestern HARVESTON Palm PlazaShopping Center TEMECULA MOTORCARPKWY Promenade Mall @ P.F. Chang’s 55 202 208 21779 County Center 23 24 61 79 55 The Promenadeat Temecula OVERLAND DR WINCHESTER RDDATE STCOUNTY CENTER D R EQUITY DR YN E Z R D NICO L A S R D YNEZ RDY N E Z R D HARVESTON DRHARVESTONSCHOOL RDRUSTIC GLEN DR HARVESTON D RVILLAGE RDLA K E V I E W R D MA R G A R I T A R DMARGARITA RD« TOWNSHIP RD Trolley Stops Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale ROUTE 55 Temecula Trolley | Green Line 23 24 55 79 217 61 Equity Dr & Ynez Rd Service to LomaLinda MedicalCenter spring2011 Rt 202 continues to Oceanside Rt 204 continues toMontclair Transit Center. < Rt 216 to Villageat Orange Rt 217 continues to Escondido Transit Center < Rt 794 to SouthCoast Metro MEAD VALLEY CANYON LAKE QUAIL VALLEY SUN CITY MENIFEE WINCHESTER PERRIS MORENO VALLEY LOMA LINDAGRAND TERRACE HIGHGROVE CANYON CREST MARCH JPARIVERSIDE WOODCREST CORONA HOME GARDENS TEMESCAL CANYON NORCO JURUPA ONTARIO MIRA LOMA EASTVALE MEADOWBROOK BEAUMONT BANNING CALIMESA YUCAIPA SAN JACINTO HEMET EASTHEMET VALLE VISTA LAKE ELSINORE MURRIETA WILDOMARTEMECULA OLD TOWN REDHAWK FRENCH VALLEY 15 15 15 91 91 74 74 74 74 91 91 60 60 60 60 215 215 10 215 215 60 79 10 10 74 74 79 79 79 76 79 15 15 15 15 15 15 215 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 16 16 16 16 13 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 1212 15 21 21 49 49 49 49 21 21 21 15 15 15 15 15 15 12 12 12 11 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 42 42 42 42 42 74 74 74 74 74 74 7474 74 74 74 33 33 33 31 31 31 31 35 35 35 41 41 4141 41 41 35 35 35 27 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 40 40 40 40 40 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 22 22 29 29 29 29 29 20 11 11 11 10 14 14 14 14 14 14 23 23 23 23 55 50 51 51 51 55 23 23 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 79 24 24 24 24 24 24 216 794 794 794 794 216 216 216 202 206 206 206 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 208 210 210 210 210 210 210 210 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 212 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 217 208 208 206 206 206 206 206 206 206 206 206 202 202 204 204 204 204 204 RCC STAGECOACHPLAZA The PedleyMetrolinkStation La SierraMetrolinkStationCoronaTransitCenter SocialSecurityOce RTA Swan LakeMHP CountryVillage CoronaRegionalMedicalCenter KaiserHospital NorcoCollege Galleriaat Tyler DowntownTerminal CountyMentalHealth Cal Baptist Univ.La SierraUniversity Brockton Arcade MorenoValleyMall MorenoValleyCollege Star-crest Mead ValleyCommunityCenter Mt San JacintoCollege-Menifee SouthwestJusticeCenter FrenchValleyAirport FireStation RCRMedicalCenter MorenoValleyCommunityHospital Walmart Loma Linda Medical Center Pettis Memorial VAMedical Center Loma LindaMedical Bldg MenifeeCity Hall Walmart CoronaCity Hall NorcoCity Hall NorcoSenior Center Vintage TerraceSenior Community Canyon CommunityChurch Park and Ride Kmart Walmart CityHall Mt. SanJacinto College SobobaCasino HemetValleyMall Walmart CityHall Canyon LakeCity Hall OutletCenter SeniorCenter MissionTrailLibrary Walmart LEUSD Inland ValleyMedical Center WildomarCity Hall MurrietaCity Hall& SeniorCenter Walmart PechangaResort Temecula Walmart Vista MurrietaHS Great Oak HS Promenade Mall Rancho SpringsMedical Center TemeculaCityHall CommunityCenter CityHall MarchARB CityHall 1 Magnolia & Elizabeth 12 13 14 15 20 27 Hemet Valley Mall 31 32 74 79 212 217 33 42 68TH ST CITRUS PATS RANCH RDMISSI O N B L V D PACIFIC42ND TILTON LINCOLNINDIANAINDIANAHOLEPIERCE STERLINGM E R C E D »RIVERWALKPI E R C E PI E R C E MAGNOLIAT Y L E R T Y L E R CALIFORNIACALIFORNIACOLORADOMAGNOLIAOLIVEWOODVICTORIALEMONMARKETORANGE»MAGNOLIA6TH ST COMMERCE « BUSINESS CNTR6TH ST ARLINGTON ARLINGTON GOULD » V A N B U R E N V A N B U R E N MISS I O N B L V D VAN BUREN VAN BURE N ARLINGTONARLINGTON ARL I N G T O N L A S I E R R A LA S I E RRA S I E R R A V I S T A » « L A S I E R R A LA SIERRAMAIN ST« WASHBURNN MAIN STBELLEHAMNERHAMNERSUMNERSMITHAUTO CENTERPOMONA JURUPA CR E S T M O N R O E » CENTRALMIS S I O N I N N » CENTRAL CHICAGOCHICAGOBROCKTONBROCKTONSTREETERPHOENIXHARRISON 14TH ML KING MLK H O R A C E MARLAY JURUPA PHILADELPHIA MISSION BLVD GRANITE HILLS LIMONITELIMONITE 10TH 8TH HIDDEN VALLEY RIVERVIEWLIMONITEMULBERRYCOUNTRYVILLAGECABERNETFELSPARPEDLEYPEDLEY CLAYETIWANDAJURUPA RUBIDOUXMAIN« MARLBOROUGH SPRUCE « MASS. CENTER BARTON PROSPECT BENTONCENTRAL EUCALYPTUS FREDERICKCACTUS CACTUS MEYER COTTONWOOD TOWNGATE IRONWOOD OLD LAKE RD HEMLOCK MANZANITA HEACOCKRIVERSIDEKITCHINGHEACOCKPIGEON PASSINDIANINDIANLASSELLELASSELLEMORENO BEACHMORENO BEACHKITCHINGNASONNASON« EUCALYPTUS EUCALYPTUS FIR JFK JFK RAMONA EXPWY RA M O N A E X P W YIRIS IRIS IRIS KRAMERIA SUNNYMEADSUNNYMEA D R A NC H ALESSANDRO ORANGE TERRACE ALE S S A N D R O TRAUTWEINALESSANDRO « CENTERPOINT UNIVERSITY UNIVERS I T Y » LOCHMOOR SY C A M O R E C Y N « FAIR ISLE BOX SPRINGSRUSTINCANYON CRESTMT VERNONIOWAKANSASMICHIGANANDERSONWOODOLEANDER RIDER OAKLAND CAJALCO CAJALCO CAJALCO ALEXANDERCLARKBROWN STHAINESTHEDAMA R K H A M OLD E L S INOR EDAY« MISSION GROVEELSWORTHBLAINE RUSS E L L » CENTE R COLUM B I A OAKLE Y 1ST 3RD 5TH LA CADENAORANGEORANGEPERRIS BLVDPERRIS BLVDP E R R I S B L V D PERRIS BLVDPERRIS BLVDPERRIS»PERRIS BLVDEVANS RDGENTIAN MORGAN SAN JACINTO » METZ ORANGEBARRETT BROWN »RICHARDSSAN JACINTO ELLIS NA V A J O NUEVO NUEVO WILKERSON»REDLANDS AVRIDER ST 4TH ST 11TH ELLIS GOETZA STC ST»D ST»«G STWESTON LA MOREMCCALL ETHANAC RD SHADEL SUN CITYENCANTOBRADLEYDOMENIGONI PKWY MURRIETANEWPORT RD LAPIEDRA« ANTELOPEROHRABACHER »MENIFEENEWPORT RD RAILROAD CYN RD GO E T Z« WEBSTER« NAVADAINDIANMA R K E T 24THHALL LINDEN BIG SPRINGSWATKINS LAMB CANYONHIGHLAND SPRINGS »SUNSET1ST 2ND FRUITVALE COTTONWOOD MENLO FLORIDA FLORIDA MAIN RA M O N A E X P W Y RA M O N A E X P W Y RA M O N A E X P W Y W 7TH E 7TH EVANS SO B O B A DE A N Z A ESPLANADE ESPLANADE MENLO COMMONWEALTH LAKE PARK DRLYONLYONSANDERSONSANDERSONGILBERT« GILMOREPALMPALMSTATESTATEBUENAVISTA »STATESAN JACINTOSAN JACINTODARTMOUTHSTANFORDWARRENHEWITTMISTLETOEENTERPRISE VILLINESSANTAFEDEVONSHIRE » STETSON MUSTANG ACACIA OAKLAND OAKLAND SIMPSON LATHAM LATHAM MAYBERRY MAYBERRY THORNTON STETSON THORNTON THORNTONCAWSTONIDYL L W I L D KIRBYKIRBYGRANDDEVONSHIRE »RIVERSIDE DRRIVERSIDE DR GR A N D A V E PAL O M A R Hid d e n Spr i n g s PRIELIPP W A S H I N G T O N MA D I S O N HA Y E S JA C K S O N KALMIAJUNIPERNIGHTHAWKNUTMEGCLINTON KEITH SCOTT RD BUNDY CANY O N CLIN T O N KEIT HCLINTONKEITHCATT VINEYARDCALIF. OAKSCENTRALSTMISSION TRAILLAKESHORE DR MALAGA LA K E S H O R E RAILROAD CYN RD« RAILROADCYN RDCOL L I E R COL L I E R LIN C O L N » GRAHAM SUMMER MAINSU M M E R H I L L CA N Y O N ES T A T E SCHANEYNICHOLSCENTRAL MACHADOORTEGAHWYRAILROADCYN RDMURRIETA HOT SPRI N G S MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS YNEZSOLANA P U J O L F R O N T F R O N T PEC H A N G A P K W Y MARGARIT A R D MA R G A R I T A R D MAR G A R I T A R D DEER HOLLOWRE D H A W K PK W Y RANCHO VIS T A CAMPANU L A « TEMECULA B L V D OVERLANDRANCHO CALIF.RANCHO CALIF.OVERLANDPAUBA 6TH »MAIN 1STY N E Z R D Y N E Z R DCOUNTY CNTREQUITY D RLOS ALAMOSALTAMURRIETA H A N C O C K » WHITE W O O D W H I T E W O O D MARGARITA WINCHESTER3RD 6th 4TH LAMPTONCLARK COUNTY FARM MARIPOSA PARSONSPALM LINCOLNGRANTCOMMERCE WAY »DIAMONDMIS S I O N T R A I L » 3RD WINCHESTERWINCHESTERBENTON THOMPSON » AULD TECHNOLOGY SKY CANYONTEMEKUPOURROYLOURDESMAGDAS COLORADAS BRIGGSGRAND » « LINNEL MCELWAINANTELOPEANTELOPEKELLER P O I N S E T T I AMENIFEE PEPPERCORN »ME R C E D E S 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans 1 Galleria at Tyler 10 12 13 14 15 21 27 149 794 3 Corona Transit Center 206 216 Corona Cruiser 11 Moreno Valley Mall 16 1918 35 208 210 19 Perris Station Transit Center 22 27 30 74 208 212 23 79 County Center Drive 24 55 61 Promenade Mall @ P.F. Chang’s 55 202 208 21779 Route Number Route Path Transfer Point Metrolink Station Legend Point of Interest Medical Facility Commuter Routing Alternate Routing 41 Main Road Interstate State Highway Water Welcome aboard the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), your community transportation provider. The RTA operates 45 bus routes to provide you with safe, cost-eective and reliable service in western Riverside County. We hope that this System Map is useful to you in planning your trip. Should you need additional information, please call the Customer Information Center at 1-800-800-7821 or (951) 565-5002. (951) 565-5002www.RiversideTransit.com MAP NOT TO SCALE © 2011 Riverside Transit Agency. Eective Date: May 8, 2011System_Map_11-05_v01.indd 2 3/24/11 3:37 PM FY2011 FY2012 FY2011 FY2012 FY2011 FY2012 FY2011 FY2012 FY2011 FY2012 D/O Routes: 1 1,556,531 1,691,121 54,885 56,654 625,953 619,953 1,437,150$ 1,594,558$ 5,703,814$ 6,170,419$ 10 210,938 227,326 13,877 13,662 183,237 166,009 202,585$ 221,734$ 1,442,207$ 1,487,958$ 11 154,285 161,789 9,649 9,596 134,611 126,907 150,459$ 159,297$ 1,002,713$ 1,045,113$ 12 236,966 261,054 14,664 14,543 169,141 175,184 218,696$ 244,451$ 1,523,795$ 1,583,914$ 13 286,053 264,283 15,039 15,016 177,566 177,832 248,694$ 239,176$ 1,562,853$ 1,635,405$ 14 69,094 227,724 6,374 14,542 73,069 186,852 64,776$ 214,971$ 662,271$ 1,583,757$ 15 398,300 422,609 18,121 18,240 220,008 222,105 364,843$ 394,041$ 1,883,315$ 1,986,581$ 16 486,934 531,488 23,298 23,018 266,939 267,233 430,742$ 483,388$ 2,421,208$ 2,506,960$ 18 169,672 189,388 9,674 9,460 133,198 130,828 144,934$ 167,286$ 1,005,196$ 1,030,310$ 19 444,376 455,156 15,028 15,027 195,829 199,703 433,667$ 442,503$ 1,561,768$ 1,636,612$ 20 281,743 302,179 15,679 15,936 260,889 250,446 253,484$ 269,876$ 1,629,289$ 1,735,494$ 21 114,331 131,335 9,103 9,321 145,860 148,294 118,721$ 134,776$ 945,986$ 1,015,146$ 22 403,318 406,953 20,525 20,798 374,958 371,566 400,616$ 398,285$ 2,133,026$ 2,265,096$ 25 180,860 - 9,631 - 110,424 - 169,990$ -$ 1,000,800$ -$ 27 387,247 426,715 25,064 24,852 558,645 515,507 406,183$ 434,567$ 2,604,664$ 2,706,669$ 29 107,004 130,085 8,088 9,002 141,268 150,092 98,519$ 122,787$ 840,440$ 980,442$ 41D 37,458 48,656 2,223 2,416 40,665 40,506 35,398$ 48,072$ 231,083$ 263,135$ 49 157,959 233,257 7,638 9,006 104,003 111,783 155,242$ 224,580$ 793,722$ 980,865$ 216 79,656 74,359 6,486 6,065 152,360 163,190 293,119$ 291,369$ 674,081$ 660,530$ 206D 59,942 60,160 5,461 5,122 170,062 158,857 160,860$ 159,322$ 567,652$ 557,902$ 5,822,667 6,245,637 290,509 292,275 4,238,685 4,182,847 5,788,677$ 6,245,039$ 30,189,884$ 31,832,305$ % Change-FY12 vs. FY11 7.26%0.61%-1.3%7.9%5.4% Contracted Fixed Routes 3 97,939 92,504 9,649 9,517 138,600 130,453 60,125$ 90,857$ 586,642$ 662,086$ 7 112,141 112,060 9,760 9,804 153,399 147,396 157,534$ 145,638$ 593,393$ 682,047$ 8 95,947 121,207 9,801 9,807 191,570 188,242 151,902$ 172,915$ 595,885$ 682,228$ 23 87,099 72,574 13,297 10,025 199,114 144,028 98,692$ 78,590$ 808,408$ 697,426$ 24 52,977 69,959 8,586 8,856 125,951 119,783 60,653$ 76,773$ 522,030$ 616,068$ 30 94,717 79,084 7,400 7,440 89,386 89,987 87,215$ 71,176$ 449,876$ 517,572$ 31 76,941 107,446 7,536 7,803 143,160 143,608 78,649$ 88,998$ 458,193$ 542,850$ 32 70,002 147,864 5,898 9,721 74,499 128,619 67,650$ 107,054$ 358,571$ 677,605$ 33 34,540 33,801 4,674 4,580 67,906 63,821 33,442$ 29,447$ 284,171$ 318,618$ 35 49,794 59,379 6,639 6,613 168,455 169,623 46,244$ 57,437$ 403,643$ 460,047$ 40 16,966 20,853 3,019 3,174 69,974 71,292 20,524$ 20,624$ 183,522$ 220,815$ 41C 56,429 45,891 7,010 6,652 132,354 116,650 120,920$ 62,012$ 426,177$ 462,777$ 42 47,982 46,569 5,983 5,434 92,741 81,480 44,158$ 40,962$ 363,711$ 378,040$ 50 39,925 19,727 2,454 2,429 15,900 16,786 155,177$ 154,497$ 149,209$ 169,004$ 51 27,409 31,787 1,947 1,935 20,992 23,309 118,834$ 122,174$ 118,799$ 135,285$ 53 1,128 1,385 710 710 10,563 10,563 43,316$ 43,163$ 43,301$ 49,633$ 55 13,135 30,000 715 1,221 9,328 15,785 45,000$ 16,362$ 42,966$ 85,034$ 57 - - - - - - -$ -$ -$ -$ 61 31,949 47,071 6,192 6,137 123,708 115,694 34,856$ 31,283$ 376,455$ 426,969$ 74 91,096 105,311 10,544 10,254 201,144 185,045 196,667$ 166,746$ 641,019$ 713,403$ 79 79,307 75,360 10,703 10,781 212,596 187,250 182,025$ 148,732$ 650,691$ 750,057$ 202 20,647 19,412 5,295 5,574 158,084 148,410 47,659$ 44,011$ 321,585$ 387,076$ 204 33,606 41,460 5,268 5,248 138,950 144,151 52,489$ 75,200$ 320,248$ 365,105$ 208 33,776 35,799 6,893 7,427 176,831 187,453 59,662$ 58,413$ 419,067$ 516,726$ 210 16,761 17,393 2,632 2,513 45,763 50,372 43,302$ 44,594$ 159,993$ 174,864$ 212 12,355 20,608 5,667 5,757 156,897 149,764 185,866$ 192,863$ 344,561$ 400,507$ 217 10,896 18,113 6,725 6,733 219,992 219,391 210,138$ 211,565$ 408,871$ 468,450$ 794 (2)122,000$ 129,100$ 122,000$ 129,100$ 1,305,464 1,472,617 164,995 166,146 3,137,857 3,048,954 2,524,699$ 2,481,187$ 10,152,986$ 11,689,394$ % Change-FY12 vs. FY11 12.80%0.70%-2.8%-1.7%15.1% TOTAL FIXED ROUTES 7,128,131 7,718,254 455,504 458,421 7,376,541 7,231,801 8,313,377$ 8,726,226$ 40,342,870$ 43,521,699$ % Change-FY12 vs. FY11 8.3%0.6%-2.0%5.0%7.9% Unlinked Passengers Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Fare Revenue (1)Operating Expenses Riverside Transit Agency FY 2011/12 - FY 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan Summary Comparative Statistics: FY2011 Budget vs. Proposed FY2012 Total D/O Routes Total Contracted Fixed Routes 9:49 AM 5/3/2011 FY2011 FY2012 FY2011 FY2012 FY2011 FY2012 FY2011 FY2012 FY2011 FY2012 Unlinked Passengers Revenue Hours Revenue Miles Fare Revenue (1)Operating Expenses Riverside Transit Agency FY 2011/12 - FY 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan Summary Comparative Statistics: FY2011 Budget vs. Proposed FY2012 Dial-a-ride Routes: Banning/Beaumont 405 1,033 328 753 6,390 19,376 1,387$ 3,931$ 18,688$ 47,752$ Lake Elsinore 10,070 9,162 6,426 5,280 125,310 108,832 30,864$ 33,730$ 366,461$ 334,911$ Grand Terrace 6,707 5,235 4,190 3,222 81,711 68,832 18,146$ 17,141$ 238,329$ 204,370$ Hemet & Homeland 69,406 73,832 25,014 27,173 487,775 479,224 219,969$ 267,442$ 1,426,467$ 1,723,585$ Jurupa 10,286 11,089 5,680 5,819 110,763 109,747 31,230$ 36,756$ 323,919$ 369,077$ Moreno Valley 57,119 69,985 25,189 29,377 491,181 544,968 171,533$ 227,592$ 1,436,426$ 1,863,373$ Murrieta 34,645 35,604 19,476 19,083 379,787 366,451 108,886$ 119,699$ 1,110,662$ 1,210,424$ Norco 29,529 21,725 12,245 7,342 238,769 142,798 94,708$ 84,434$ 698,265$ 465,697$ Perris 32,517 33,507 16,603 16,389 323,754 351,174 101,165$ 118,003$ 946,798$ 1,039,559$ Riverside 77,042 76,453 39,022 37,417 760,928 759,529 243,682$ 271,896$ 2,225,914$ 2,373,344$ Sun City 13,361 14,379 8,250 8,146 160,871 169,089 40,663$ 45,045$ 470,458$ 516,680$ 341,087 352,004 162,423 160,001 3,167,240 3,120,019 1,062,233$ 1,225,671$ 9,262,387$ 10,148,772$ % Change-FY12 vs. FY11 3.20%-1.49%-1.5%15.4%9.6% Taxi Program: Banning/Beaumont 247 218 140 169 4,129 5,945 945$ 1,246$ 11,721$ 18,921$ Lake Elsinore 829 796 637 528 18,748 12,197 2,782$ 4,416$ 53,226$ 41,549$ Grand Terrace 91 133 55 89 1,623 2,757 254$ 799$ 4,600$ 8,930$ Hemet & Homeland 1,039 983 692 668 20,368 19,214 3,440$ 4,083$ 57,826$ 62,972$ Jurupa 165 190 90 100 2,644 3,335 508$ 933$ 7,505$ 10,695$ Moreno Valley 607 1,103 336 798 9,908 25,150 1,999$ 5,718$ 28,128$ 81,281$ Murrieta 705 591 644 471 18,954 14,486 2,390$ 2,972$ 53,811$ 46,989$ Norco 444 574 333 234 9,790 8,800 1,492$ 2,402$ 27,795$ 27,749$ Perris 1,195 787 759 587 22,335 16,257 4,000$ 3,384$ 63,407$ 53,608$ Riverside 915 908 473 536 13,918 17,269 3,318$ 3,622$ 39,521$ 55,626$ Sun City 363 377 162 259 4,783 7,768 1,218$ 1,875$ 13,580$ 25,292$ 6,600 6,659 4,320 4,439 127,200 133,179 22,347$ 31,449$ 361,120$ 433,612$ 0.9%2.8%4.7%40.7%20.1% TOTAL DAR 347,687 358,663 166,742 164,440 3,294,441 3,253,198 1,084,580$ 1,257,120$ 9,623,507$ 10,582,384$ 3.16% -1.38% -1.3% 15.9% 10.0% GRAND TOTAL * 7,475,818 8,076,917 622,246 622,862 10,670,982 10,485,000 9,397,957$ 9,983,346$ 49,966,377$ 54,104,083$ 8.04% 0.10% -1.7% 6.2% 8.3% (1)Total Passenger Fare Revenue consists of cash fares, tickets, passes, subsidy agreements and Measure A. It does not include other local revenues. (2)RTA does not report passengers, hours and miles. % Change-FY12 vs. FY11 Total Dial-a-ride Routes Total Taxi Routes % Change-FY12 vs. FY11 % Change-FY12 vs. FY11 9:49 AM 5/3/2011 Table 1 - Fleet InventoryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanRiverside Transit AgencyBus (Motorbus) / Directly OperatedLift andRampEquippedVehicleLengthYearBuiltMfg.CodeSeatingCapacityModelCodeFuelTypeCodeLife to DateVehicle MilesPrior Year EndFY 2009/10Life to DateVehicle MilesthroughMarchFY 2010/11Average LifetimeMiles Per ActiveVehicle As OfYear-To-Date(e.g., March)FY 2010/11# ofActiveVehiclesFY2010/11# ofContingencyVehiclesFY 2010/111997 FIL 38C40LF 3 40 CN 0 3 1,146,314 1,146,3142001 NAB 4040LFW15 47 40 CN 47 0 20,692,039 22,516,393 479,0722002 NAB 4040LFW15 47 40 CN 47 0 19,838,170 21,758,512 462,94794 397Totals:11841,676,523 45,421,219 483,2044/20/2011TransTrack Manager™Page 1 of 1 Table 1 - Fleet InventoryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanRiverside Transit AgencyBus (Motorbus) / Purchased TransportationLift andRampEquippedVehicleLengthYearBuiltMfg.CodeSeatingCapacityModelCodeFuelTypeCodeLife to DateVehicle MilesPrior Year EndFY 2009/10Life to DateVehicle MilesthroughMarchFY 2010/11Average LifetimeMiles Per ActiveVehicle As OfYear-To-Date(e.g., March)FY 2010/11# ofActiveVehiclesFY2010/11# ofContingencyVehiclesFY 2010/111994 CCI 27AH28 4 29 CN 4 0 700,084 731,438 182,8601996 CCI 27AH28 1 29 CN 1 0 204,124 214,028 214,0282008 EBC 12Aerotech 16 24 GA 16 0 1,741,919 2,356,057 147,2542005 EDN 12Aerotech 2 24 GA 2 0 564,462 635,332 317,6662006 EDN 12Aerotech 12 24 GA 12 0 3,117,159 3,553,406 296,1172008 EDN 24EnAeroElit 4 29 GA 4 0 490,139 623,545 155,8862009 EDN 24EnAeroElit 21 29 GA 210 1,260,932 2,123,625 101,1252007 STR 12Allstar 6 24 GA 6 0 1,181,837 1,391,962 231,9942003 SVM 24ClassAmSer 3 27 CN 3 0 439,160 448,762 149,5872008 SVM 26ClassAmSer 2 29 CN 2 0 81,171 97,177 48,5892003 TBB 27SLF232G 10 33 CN 10 0 3,670,353 3,988,730 398,8732004 TBB 27SLF232G 3 33 CN 3 0 933,919 1,075,352 358,45184 084Totals:25414,385,259 17,239,414 205,2314/20/2011TransTrack Manager™Page 1 of 1 Table 1 - Fleet InventoryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanRiverside Transit AgencyDemand Response / Purchased TransportationLift andRampEquippedVehicleLengthYearBuiltMfg.CodeSeatingCapacityModelCodeFuelTypeCodeLife to DateVehicle MilesPrior Year EndFY 2009/10Life to DateVehicle MilesthroughMarchFY 2010/11Average LifetimeMiles Per ActiveVehicle As OfYear-To-Date(e.g., March)FY 2010/11# ofActiveVehiclesFY2010/11# ofContingencyVehiclesFY 2010/112008 EBC 12Aerotech 5 24 GA 5 0 420,596 575,860 115,1722009 EBC 12Aerotech 54 24 GA 54 0 2,833,877 4,315,296 79,9132006 EDN 4Amerivan 14 17 GA 14 0 2,308,023 2,405,067 171,7912007 STR 12Allstar 24 24 GA 24 0 3,663,479 4,440,790 185,03397 097Totals:409,225,975 11,737,013 121,0005/25/2011TransTrack Manager™Page 1 of 1 Table 2 -- Riverside Transit Agency -- SRTP Service SummaryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanAll RoutesFY 2008/09AuditedFY 2009/10AuditedFY 2010/11PlanFY 2010/113rd Qtr ActualFY 2011/12PlanFleet CharacteristicsPeak-Hour Fleet134130Financial DataTotal Operating Expenses$54,104,083$36,088,324$49,966,377$48,518,318$52,874,821Total Passenger Fare Revenue$12,298,382$9,479,541$11,745,671$11,834,236$11,344,572Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)$41,805,701$26,608,783$38,220,706$36,684,082$41,530,249Operating CharacteristicsUnlinked Passenger Trips8,076,9186,007,5817,475,8187,934,0798,326,764Passenger Miles54,308,32739,880,07750,275,22552,656,49355,226,441Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a)622,861.0449,419.8622,246.0624,238.8685,316.5Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b)10,485,001.07,627,615.510,670,981.010,642,528.311,426,093.8Total Actual Vehicle Miles12,332,916.08,937,573.012,512,107.012,481,048.013,327,939.4Performance CharacteristicsOperating Cost per Revenue Hour$86.86$80.30$80.30$77.72$77.15Farebox Recovery Ratio22.73%26.26%23.50%24.39%21.45%Subsidy per Passenger$5.18$4.43$5.11$4.62$4.99Subsidy per Passenger Mile$0.77$0.67$0.76$0.70$0.75Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a)$67.12$59.21$61.42$58.77$60.60Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b)$3.99$3.49$3.58$3.45$3.63Passenger per Revenue Hour (a)13.013.412.012.712.2Passenger per Revenue Mile (b)0.770.790.700.750.73(a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes.TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 1 of 1 Table 2 -- Riverside Transit Agency -- SRTP Service SummaryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanNon-Excluded RoutesFY 2008/09AuditedFY 2009/10AuditedFY 2010/11PlanFY 2010/113rd Qtr ActualFY 2011/12PlanFleet CharacteristicsPeak-Hour Fleet119107Financial DataTotal Operating Expenses$50,500,803$32,825,247$45,806,813$44,202,388$49,852,321Total Passenger Fare Revenue$11,511,104$8,351,740$10,406,059$10,551,839$11,009,079Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)$38,989,699$24,473,507$35,400,754$33,650,549$38,843,242Operating CharacteristicsUnlinked Passenger Trips7,567,0485,519,2386,953,5907,340,9357,933,195Passenger Miles50,402,28036,221,90946,165,36348,544,68052,668,900Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a)572,437.0395,916.8553,973.0561,827.8646,732.2Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b)9,609,349.06,528,574.89,214,684.09,439,136.410,850,300.6Total Actual Vehicle Miles11,268,869.07,579,990.510,774,528.010,966,249.912,689,960.3Performance CharacteristicsOperating Cost per Revenue Hour$88.22$82.91$82.69$78.68$77.08Farebox Recovery Ratio22.79%25.44%22.71%23.87%22.08%Subsidy per Passenger$5.15$4.43$5.09$4.58$4.90Subsidy per Passenger Mile$0.77$0.68$0.77$0.69$0.74Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a)$68.11$61.81$63.90$59.89$60.06Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b)$4.06$3.75$3.84$3.57$3.58Passenger per Revenue Hour (a)13.213.912.613.112.3Passenger per Revenue Mile (b)0.790.850.750.780.73(a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes.TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 1 of 1 Table 2 -- Riverside Transit Agency -- SRTP Service SummaryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanExcluded RoutesFY 2008/09AuditedFY 2009/10AuditedFY 2010/11PlanFY 2010/113rd Qtr ActualFY 2011/12PlanFleet CharacteristicsPeak-Hour Fleet1523Financial DataTotal Operating Expenses$3,603,280$3,263,077$4,159,564$4,315,930$3,022,500Total Passenger Fare Revenue$787,278$1,127,801$1,339,612$1,282,397$335,493Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)$2,816,002$2,135,276$2,819,952$3,033,533$2,687,007Operating CharacteristicsUnlinked Passenger Trips509,870488,343522,228593,144393,569Passenger Miles3,906,0473,658,1684,109,8624,111,8122,557,541Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a)50,424.053,503.068,273.062,411.038,584.3Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b)875,652.01,099,040.71,456,297.01,203,391.9575,793.2Total Actual Vehicle Miles1,064,047.01,357,582.41,737,579.01,514,798.2637,979.1Performance CharacteristicsOperating Cost per Revenue Hour$71.46$60.99$60.93$69.15$78.33Farebox Recovery Ratio21.84%34.56%32.20%29.71%11.09%Subsidy per Passenger$5.52$4.37$5.40$5.11$6.83Subsidy per Passenger Mile$0.72$0.58$0.69$0.74$1.05Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a)$55.85$39.91$41.30$48.61$69.64Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b)$3.22$1.94$1.94$2.52$4.67Passenger per Revenue Hour (a)10.19.17.69.510.2Passenger per Revenue Mile (b)0.580.440.360.490.68(a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes.TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 1 of 1 Table 2 -- RTA-BUS -- SRTP Service SummaryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanAll RoutesFY 2008/09AuditedFY 2009/10AuditedFY 2010/11PlanFY 2010/113rd Qtr ActualFY 2011/12PlanFleet CharacteristicsPeak-Hour Fleet7171Financial DataTotal Operating Expenses$31,832,305$22,004,354$30,231,108$29,849,960$32,955,449Total Passenger Fare Revenue$8,560,076$6,567,486$8,136,392$8,041,449$8,481,810Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)$23,272,229$15,436,868$22,094,716$21,808,511$24,473,639Operating CharacteristicsUnlinked Passenger Trips6,245,6374,677,1935,822,6676,245,5506,597,514Passenger Miles38,289,92928,624,42135,695,59438,222,76640,376,786Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a)292,276.0216,882.9290,508.0299,737.7338,529.0Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b)4,182,847.03,150,271.34,238,685.04,370,136.34,741,076.4Total Actual Vehicle Miles4,800,459.03,630,856.54,895,083.05,043,553.75,469,812.8Performance CharacteristicsOperating Cost per Revenue Hour$108.91$101.46$104.06$99.59$97.35Farebox Recovery Ratio26.89%29.84%26.91%26.93%25.73%Subsidy per Passenger$3.73$3.30$3.79$3.49$3.71Subsidy per Passenger Mile$0.61$0.54$0.62$0.57$0.61Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a)$79.62$71.18$76.06$72.76$72.29Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b)$5.56$4.90$5.21$4.99$5.16Passenger per Revenue Hour (a)21.421.620.020.819.5Passenger per Revenue Mile (b)1.491.481.371.431.39(a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes.TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 1 of 1 Table 2 -- RTA Bus (Contract) -- SRTP Service SummaryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanAll RoutesFY 2008/09AuditedFY 2009/10AuditedFY 2010/11PlanFY 2010/113rd Qtr ActualFY 2011/12PlanFleet CharacteristicsPeak-Hour Fleet6359Financial DataTotal Operating Expenses$11,560,294$7,392,410$10,052,597$9,534,354$9,996,024Total Passenger Fare Revenue$2,352,086$1,940,562$2,402,699$2,561,631$1,755,043Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)$9,208,208$5,451,848$7,649,898$6,972,723$8,240,981Operating CharacteristicsUnlinked Passenger Trips1,472,6171,088,3781,305,4641,350,0711,368,287Passenger Miles11,596,0788,271,67310,292,64210,260,54010,398,981Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a)166,145.0123,791.6164,996.0164,214.7168,808.0Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b)3,048,955.02,320,439.03,137,856.03,109,354.33,033,203.0Total Actual Vehicle Miles3,650,614.02,740,942.03,663,927.03,644,105.73,520,624.3Performance CharacteristicsOperating Cost per Revenue Hour$69.58$59.72$60.93$58.06$59.22Farebox Recovery Ratio20.34%26.25%23.90%26.86%17.55%Subsidy per Passenger$6.25$5.01$5.86$5.16$6.02Subsidy per Passenger Mile$0.79$0.66$0.74$0.68$0.79Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a)$55.42$44.04$46.36$42.46$48.82Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b)$3.02$2.35$2.44$2.24$2.72Passenger per Revenue Hour (a)8.98.87.98.28.1Passenger per Revenue Mile (b)0.480.470.420.430.45(a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes.TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 1 of 1 Table 2 -- RTA-DAR -- SRTP Service SummaryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanAll RoutesFY 2008/09AuditedFY 2009/10AuditedFY 2010/11PlanFY 2010/113rd Qtr ActualFY 2011/12PlanFleet CharacteristicsPeak-Hour FleetFinancial DataTotal Operating Expenses$10,148,772$6,354,800$9,198,424$8,657,312$9,220,286Total Passenger Fare Revenue$1,225,670$842,406$1,062,245$1,077,849$924,809Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)$8,923,102$5,512,394$8,136,179$7,579,463$8,295,477Operating CharacteristicsUnlinked Passenger Trips352,004237,094341,087331,238347,897Passenger Miles4,340,2202,923,3694,205,6074,084,1654,289,570Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a)160,001.0105,645.6162,422.0155,669.2170,447.6Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b)3,120,020.02,069,244.43,167,240.03,028,273.33,442,945.9Total Actual Vehicle Miles3,748,664.02,478,113.93,825,897.03,658,624.34,128,633.7Performance CharacteristicsOperating Cost per Revenue Hour$63.43$60.15$56.63$55.61$54.09Farebox Recovery Ratio12.07%13.25%11.54%12.45%10.03%Subsidy per Passenger$25.35$23.25$23.85$22.88$23.84Subsidy per Passenger Mile$2.06$1.89$1.93$1.86$1.93Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a)$55.77$52.18$50.09$48.69$48.67Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b)$2.86$2.66$2.57$2.50$2.41Passenger per Revenue Hour (a)2.22.22.12.12.0Passenger per Revenue Mile (b)0.110.110.110.110.10(a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes.TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 1 of 1 Table 2 -- RTA Taxi -- SRTP Service SummaryFY 2011/12 Short Range Transit PlanAll RoutesFY 2008/09AuditedFY 2009/10AuditedFY 2010/11PlanFY 2010/113rd Qtr ActualFY 2011/12PlanFleet CharacteristicsPeak-Hour FleetFinancial DataTotal Operating Expenses$433,612$245,868$362,248$360,817$543,461Total Passenger Fare Revenue$31,450$23,692$22,335$26,309$40,912Net Operating Expenses (Subsidies)$402,162$222,176$339,913$334,508$502,549Operating CharacteristicsUnlinked Passenger Trips6,6604,9166,6007,22013,066Passenger Miles82,10060,61481,38289,023161,104Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours (a)4,439.03,099.84,320.04,617.27,532.0Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (b)133,179.087,660.8127,200.0134,764.4208,868.5Total Actual Vehicle Miles133,179.087,660.6127,200.0134,764.4208,868.5Performance CharacteristicsOperating Cost per Revenue Hour$97.68$79.32$83.85$78.15$72.15Farebox Recovery Ratio7.25%9.63%6.16%7.29%7.52%Subsidy per Passenger$60.38$45.19$51.50$46.33$38.46Subsidy per Passenger Mile$4.90$3.67$4.18$3.76$3.12Subsidy per Revenue Hour (a)$90.60$71.67$78.68$72.45$66.72Subsidy per Revenue Mile (b)$3.02$2.53$2.67$2.48$2.41Passenger per Revenue Hour (a)1.51.61.51.61.7Passenger per Revenue Mile (b)0.050.060.050.050.06(a) Train Hours for Rail Modes. (b) Car Miles for Rail Modes.TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 1 of 1 Table 3 - SRTP Route StatisticsRiverside Transit Agency -- 7Data ElementsRoute # Day TypePeakVehicles PassengersPassengerMilesRevenueHoursTotalHoursRevenueMilesTotalMilesOperatingCostPassengerRevenueNetSubsidyFY 2011/12All RoutesRTA-0 Total$2,315,036 ($2,315,036)RTA-1 Total 1,691,121 10,371,1441359,903.0 619,953.0 715,496.0$6,170,416 $1,594,559 $4,575,85756,654.0RTA-10 Total 227,326 1,394,854414,484.0 166,009.0 181,941.0$1,487,958 $221,734 $1,266,22413,662.0RTA-11 Total 161,789 991,12229,931.0 126,907.0 137,012.0 $1,045,113 $159,297 $885,8169,596.0RTA-12 Total 261,054 1,598,261315,146.0 175,184.0 191,344.0$1,583,914 $244,451 $1,339,46314,543.0RTA-13 Total 264,283 1,618,831315,497.0 177,832.0 189,755.0$1,635,405 $239,176 $1,396,22915,016.0RTA-14 Total 227,724 1,394,377315,062.0 186,852.0 197,844.0$1,583,757 $214,971 $1,368,78614,542.0RTA-15 Total 422,609 2,594,214418,679.0 222,105.0 228,402.0$1,986,581 $394,041 $1,592,54018,240.0RTA-16/16E Total 531,488 3,258,743523,626.0 267,233.0 280,996.0$2,506,960 $483,388 $2,023,57223,018.0RTA-18 Total 189,388 1,159,324210,024.0 130,828.0 146,555.0 $1,030,310 $167,286 $863,0249,460.0RTA-19 Total 455,156 2,791,883316,103.0 199,703.0 237,041.0$1,636,612 $442,503 $1,194,10915,027.0RTA-20 Total 302,179 1,850,668417,121.0 250,446.0 280,496.0$1,735,494 $269,876 $1,465,61815,936.0RTA-202 Total 19,412 154,45346,421.0 148,410.0 165,340.0 $387,076 $44,011 $343,0655,574.0RTA-204 Total 41,460 335,82836,276.0 144,151.0 159,880.0 $365,105 $75,200 $289,9055,248.0RTA-206D Total 60,160 370,58739,671.0 158,857.0 298,506.0 $557,902 $159,322 $398,5805,122.0RTA-208 Total 35,799 289,97649,303.0 187,453.0 222,662.0 $516,726 $58,413 $458,3137,427.0RTA-21 Total 131,335 804,50929,768.0 148,294.0 164,224.0 $1,015,146 $134,776 $880,3709,321.0RTA-210 Total 17,393 140,88414,035.0 50,372.0 90,670.0 $174,864 $44,594 $130,2702,513.0RTA-212 Total 20,608 166,92038,345.0 149,764.0 258,886.0 $400,507 $192,863 $207,6445,757.0RTA-216 Total 74,359 456,05436,581.0 163,190.0 168,674.0 $660,530 $291,369 $369,1616,065.0RTA-217 Total 18,113 146,71547,761.0 219,391.0 259,894.0 $468,450 $211,565 $256,8856,733.0RTA-22 Total 406,953 2,495,701623,218.0 371,566.0 447,034.0$2,265,096 $398,285 $1,866,81120,798.0RTA-23 Total 72,574 560,300711,783.0 144,028.0 195,830.0 $697,426 $78,590 $618,83610,025.0RTA-24 Total 69,959 538,34339,333.0 119,783.0 129,146.0 $616,068 $76,773 $539,2958,856.0RTA-27 Total 426,715 2,614,366526,279.0 515,507.0 558,598.0$2,706,669 $434,567 $2,272,10224,852.0RTA-29 Total 130,085 796,59229,352.0 150,092.0 160,256.0 $980,442 $122,787 $857,6559,002.0RTA-3 Total 92,504 749,284310,270.0 130,453.0 155,845.0 $662,088 $90,857 $571,2319,517.0RTA-30 Total 79,084 619,89428,022.0 89,987.0 111,726.0 $517,572 $71,176 $446,3967,440.0TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 1 of 6 Table 3 - SRTP Route StatisticsRiverside Transit Agency -- 7Data ElementsRoute # Day TypePeakVehicles PassengersPassengerMilesRevenueHoursTotalHoursRevenueMilesTotalMilesOperatingCostPassengerRevenueNetSubsidyFY 2011/12All RoutesRTA-31 Total 107,446 823,17728,183.0 143,608.0 158,567.0 $542,850 $88,998 $453,8527,803.0RTA-32 Total 147,864 1,129,610110,293.0 128,619.0 147,314.0 $677,605 $107,054 $570,5519,721.0RTA-33 Total 33,801 273,78714,842.0 63,821.0 67,676.0 $318,618 $29,447 $289,1714,580.0RTA-35 Total 59,379 480,96927,211.0 169,623.0 192,958.0 $460,047 $57,437 $402,6106,613.0RTA-40 Total 20,853 168,91023,629.0 71,292.0 88,254.0 $220,815 $20,624 $200,1913,174.0RTA-41C Total 45,891 344,89827,817.0 116,650.0 166,226.0 $462,777 $62,012 $400,7656,652.0RTA-41D Total 48,656 299,72123,847.0 40,506.0 92,458.0 $263,135 $48,072 $215,0632,416.0RTA-42 Total 46,569 369,15825,623.0 81,480.0 84,926.0 $378,040 $40,962 $337,0785,434.0RTA-49 Total 233,257 1,428,97829,366.0 111,783.0 123,827.0 $980,865 $224,580 $756,2859,006.0RTA-50 Total 19,727 159,78722,671.0 16,786.0 19,836.0 $169,004 $154,497 $14,5072,429.0RTA-51 Total 31,787 257,47812,044.0 23,309.0 25,428.0 $135,285 $122,174 $13,1111,935.0RTA-53 Total 1,385 11,219 793.010,563.0 11,964.0 $49,633 $43,163 $6,470710.0RTA-55 Total 30,000 243,00221,665.0 15,785.0 23,353.0 $85,034 $16,362 $68,6721,221.0RTA-61 Total 47,071 381,27716,330.0 115,694.0 120,834.0 $426,969 $31,283 $395,6866,137.0RTA-7 Total 112,060 858,568210,267.0 147,396.0 166,951.0 $682,047 $145,638 $536,4099,804.0RTA-74 Total 105,311 853,025310,897.0 185,045.0 200,671.0 $713,403 $166,746 $546,65710,254.0RTA-79 Total 75,360 610,418411,329.0 187,250.0 202,285.0 $750,057 $148,732 $601,32510,781.0RTA-794 Total$129,100 $129,100 $0RTA-8 Total 121,207 928,198210,481.0 188,242.0 223,492.0 $682,228 $172,915 $509,3139,807.0RTA-Ba/Bea Total 1,033 12,742 972.0 19,376.0 21,733.0 $47,752 $3,931 $43,821753.0RTA-GT DAR Total 5,235 64,550 4,338.0 68,832.0 77,438.0 $204,370 $17,141 $187,2293,222.0RTA-Hemet Total 73,832 910,352 38,001.0479,224.0 604,673.0 $1,723,585 $267,442 $1,456,14327,173.0RTA-Jurupa Total 11,089 136,728 8,186.0 109,747.0 133,398.0$369,077 $36,756 $332,3215,819.0RTA-LakeEl Total 9,162 112,966 7,263.0 108,832.0 129,936.0$334,911 $33,730 $301,1815,280.0RTA-MurDAR Total 35,604 438,995 25,703.0366,451.0 446,347.0 $1,210,424 $119,699 $1,090,72519,083.0RTA-MV DAR Total 69,985 862,919 40,166.0544,968.0 641,296.0 $1,863,373 $227,592 $1,635,78129,377.0RTA-No/Co Total 21,725 267,872 10,420.0 142,798.0 191,964.0$465,697 $84,434 $381,2637,342.0RTA-Perris Total 33,507 413,145 21,547.0 351,174.0 402,393.0$1,039,559 $118,003 $921,55616,389.0TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 2 of 6 Table 3 - SRTP Route StatisticsRiverside Transit Agency -- 7Data ElementsRoute # Day TypePeakVehicles PassengersPassengerMilesRevenueHoursTotalHoursRevenueMilesTotalMilesOperatingCostPassengerRevenueNetSubsidyFY 2011/12All RoutesRTA-RivDAR Total 76,453 942,660 50,147.0759,529.0 906,126.0 $2,373,344 $271,897 $2,101,44737,417.0RTA-Sun Ci Total 14,379 177,291 11,058.0 169,089.0 193,360.0$516,680 $45,045 $471,6358,146.0RTA-TaxiBB Total 218 2,687 151.0 5,384.0 5,384.0 $18,921 $1,246 $17,675151.0RTA-TaxiGT Total 133 1,637 92.0 2,903.0 2,903.0 $8,930 $799 $8,13192.0RTA-TaxiHe Total 983 12,126 711.021,142.0 21,142.0 $62,972 $4,083 $58,889711.0RTA-TaxiJu Total 190 2,338 109.0 3,391.0 3,391.0 $10,695 $933 $9,762109.0RTA-TaxiLE Total 796 9,820 533.012,347.0 12,347.0 $41,549 $4,416 $37,133533.0RTA-TaxiMu Total 591 7,281 426.013,086.0 13,086.0 $46,989 $2,972 $44,017426.0RTA-TaxiMV Total 1,103 13,595 811.0 24,976.0 24,976.0 $81,281 $5,718 $75,563811.0RTA-TaxiNC Total 574 7,081 270.0 9,910.0 9,910.0 $27,749 $2,402 $25,347270.0RTA-TaxiPe Total 787 9,704 546.015,361.0 15,361.0 $53,608 $3,384 $50,224546.0RTA-TaxiRi Total 908 11,188 528.016,717.0 16,717.0 $55,626 $3,622 $52,004528.0RTA-TaxiSC Total 377 4,643 262.0 7,962.0 7,962.0 $25,292 $1,875 $23,417262.0Service Provider Totals$41,805,701$12,298,382$54,104,08312,332,916.010,485,001.0721,522.0622,861.054,308,3278,076,918134TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 3 of 6 Table 3 - SRTP Route StatisticsRiverside Transit Agency -- 7Performance IndicatorsRoute # Day TypeOperatingCost PerRevenue HourOperatingCost PerRevenue MileCost PerPassengerFareboxRecoveryRatioSubsidy PerPassengerSubsidy PerPassengerMileSubsidy PerRevenueHourSubsidy PerRevenueMilePassengersPer HourPassengersPer MileFY 2011/12All RoutesRTA-0 TotalRTA-1 Total $9.95 $3.65$108.91$2.71 $0.44 $80.77 $7.38 29.8 2.7325.84%RTA-10 Total $8.96 $6.55$108.91$5.57 $0.91 $92.68 $7.63 16.6 1.3714.90%RTA-11 Total $8.24 $6.46$108.91$5.48 $0.89 $92.31 $6.98 16.9 1.2715.24%RTA-12 Total $9.04 $6.07$108.91$5.13 $0.84 $92.10 $7.65 18.0 1.4915.43%RTA-13 Total $9.20 $6.19$108.91$5.28 $0.86 $92.98 $7.85 17.6 1.4914.62%RTA-14 Total $8.48 $6.95$108.91$6.01 $0.98 $94.13 $7.33 15.7 1.2213.57%RTA-15 Total $8.94 $4.70$108.91$3.77 $0.61 $87.31 $7.17 23.2 1.9019.83%RTA-16/16E Total $9.38 $4.72$108.91$3.81 $0.62 $87.91 $7.57 23.1 1.9919.28%RTA-18 Total $7.88 $5.44$108.91$4.56 $0.74 $91.23 $6.60 20.0 1.4516.23%RTA-19 Total $8.20 $3.60$108.91$2.62 $0.43 $79.46 $5.98 30.3 2.2827.03%RTA-20 Total $6.93 $5.74$108.90$4.85 $0.79 $91.97 $5.85 19.0 1.2115.55%RTA-202 Total $2.61 $19.94$69.44$17.67 $2.22 $61.55 $2.31 3.5 0.1311.37%RTA-204 Total $2.53 $8.81$69.57$6.99 $0.86 $55.24 $2.01 7.9 0.2920.59%RTA-206D Total $3.51 $9.27$108.92$6.63 $1.08 $77.82 $2.51 11.7 0.3828.55%RTA-208 Total $2.76 $14.43$69.57$12.80 $1.58 $61.71 $2.44 4.8 0.1911.30%RTA-21 Total $6.85 $7.73$108.91$6.70 $1.09 $94.45 $5.94 14.1 0.8913.27%RTA-210 Total $3.47 $10.05$69.58$7.49 $0.92 $51.84 $2.59 6.9 0.3525.50%RTA-212 Total $2.67 $19.43$69.57$10.08 $1.24 $36.07 $1.39 3.6 0.1448.15%RTA-216 Total $4.05 $8.88$108.91$4.96 $0.81 $60.87 $2.26 12.3 0.4644.11%RTA-217 Total $2.14 $25.86$69.58$14.18 $1.75 $38.15 $1.17 2.7 0.0845.16%RTA-22 Total $6.10 $5.57$108.91$4.59 $0.75 $89.76 $5.02 19.6 1.1017.58%RTA-23 Total $4.84 $9.61$69.57$8.53 $1.10 $61.73 $4.30 7.2 0.5011.26%RTA-24 Total $5.14 $8.81$69.57$7.71 $1.00 $60.90 $4.50 7.9 0.5812.46%RTA-27 Total $5.25 $6.34$108.91$5.32 $0.87 $91.43 $4.41 17.2 0.8316.05%RTA-29 Total $6.53 $7.54$108.91$6.59 $1.08 $95.27 $5.71 14.5 0.8712.52%RTA-3 Total $5.08 $7.16$69.57$6.18 $0.76 $60.02 $4.38 9.7 0.7113.72%RTA-30 Total $5.75 $6.54$69.57$5.64 $0.72 $60.00 $4.96 10.6 0.8813.75%TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 4 of 6 Table 3 - SRTP Route StatisticsRiverside Transit Agency -- 7Performance IndicatorsRoute # Day TypeOperatingCost PerRevenue HourOperatingCost PerRevenue MileCost PerPassengerFareboxRecoveryRatioSubsidy PerPassengerSubsidy PerPassengerMileSubsidy PerRevenueHourSubsidy PerRevenueMilePassengersPer HourPassengersPer MileFY 2011/12All RoutesRTA-31 Total $3.78 $5.05$69.57$4.22 $0.55 $58.16 $3.16 13.8 0.7516.39%RTA-32 Total $5.27 $4.58$69.71$3.86 $0.51 $58.69 $4.44 15.2 1.1515.79%RTA-33 Total $4.99 $9.43$69.57$8.56 $1.06 $63.14 $4.53 7.4 0.539.24%RTA-35 Total $2.71 $7.75$69.57$6.78 $0.84 $60.88 $2.37 9.0 0.3512.48%RTA-40 Total $3.10 $10.59$69.57$9.60 $1.19 $63.07 $2.81 6.6 0.299.33%RTA-41C Total $3.97 $10.08$69.57$8.73 $1.16 $60.25 $3.44 6.9 0.3913.39%RTA-41D Total $6.50 $5.41$108.91$4.42 $0.72 $89.02 $5.31 20.1 1.2018.26%RTA-42 Total $4.64 $8.12$69.57$7.24 $0.91 $62.03 $4.14 8.6 0.5710.83%RTA-49 Total $8.77 $4.21$108.91$3.24 $0.53 $83.98 $6.77 25.9 2.0922.89%RTA-50 Total $10.07 $8.57$69.58$0.74 $0.09 $5.97 $0.86 8.1 1.1891.41%RTA-51 Total $5.80 $4.26$69.91$0.41 $0.05 $6.78 $0.56 16.4 1.3690.30%RTA-53 Total $4.70 $35.84$69.91$4.67 $0.58 $9.11 $0.61 2.0 0.1386.96%RTA-55 Total $5.39 $2.83$69.64$2.29 $0.28 $56.24 $4.35 24.6 1.9019.24%RTA-61 Total $3.69 $9.07$69.57$8.41 $1.04 $64.48 $3.42 7.7 0.417.32%RTA-7 Total $4.63 $6.09$69.57$4.79 $0.62 $54.71 $3.64 11.4 0.7621.35%RTA-74 Total $3.86 $6.77$69.57$5.19 $0.64 $53.31 $2.95 10.3 0.5723.37%RTA-79 Total $4.01 $9.95$69.57$7.98 $0.99 $55.78 $3.21 7.0 0.4019.82%RTA-794 Total100.00%RTA-8 Total $3.62 $5.63$69.57$4.20 $0.55 $51.93 $2.71 12.4 0.6425.34%RTA-Ba/Bea Total $2.46 $46.23$63.42$42.42 $3.44 $58.20 $2.26 1.4 0.058.23%RTA-GT DAR Total $2.97 $39.04$63.43$35.76 $2.90 $58.11 $2.72 1.6 0.088.38%RTA-Hemet Total $3.60 $23.34$63.43$19.72 $1.60 $53.59 $3.04 2.7 0.1515.51%RTA-Jurupa Total $3.36 $33.28$63.43$29.97 $2.43 $57.11 $3.03 1.9 0.109.95%RTA-LakeEl Total $3.08 $36.55$63.43$32.87 $2.67 $57.04 $2.77 1.7 0.0810.07%RTA-MurDAR Total $3.30 $34.00$63.43$30.63 $2.48 $57.16 $2.98 1.9 0.109.88%RTA-MV DAR Total $3.42 $26.63$63.43$23.37 $1.90 $55.68 $3.00 2.4 0.1312.21%RTA-No/Co Total $3.26 $21.44$63.43$17.55 $1.42 $51.93 $2.67 3.0 0.1518.13%RTA-Perris Total $2.96 $31.03$63.43$27.50 $2.23 $56.23 $2.62 2.0 0.1011.35%TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 5 of 6 Table 3 - SRTP Route StatisticsRiverside Transit Agency -- 7Performance IndicatorsRoute # Day TypeOperatingCost PerRevenue HourOperatingCost PerRevenue MileCost PerPassengerFareboxRecoveryRatioSubsidy PerPassengerSubsidy PerPassengerMileSubsidy PerRevenueHourSubsidy PerRevenueMilePassengersPer HourPassengersPer MileFY 2011/12All RoutesRTA-RivDAR Total $3.12 $31.04$63.43$27.49 $2.23 $56.16 $2.77 2.0 0.1011.45%RTA-Sun Ci Total $3.06 $35.93$63.43$32.80 $2.66 $57.90 $2.79 1.8 0.098.71%RTA-TaxiBB Total $3.51 $86.79$125.30$81.08 $6.58 $117.05 $3.28 1.4 0.046.58%RTA-TaxiGT Total $3.08 $67.14$97.07$61.14 $4.97 $88.38 $2.80 1.4 0.058.94%RTA-TaxiHe Total $2.98 $64.06$88.57$59.91 $4.86 $82.83 $2.79 1.4 0.056.48%RTA-TaxiJu Total $3.15 $56.29$98.12$51.38 $4.18 $89.56 $2.88 1.7 0.068.72%RTA-TaxiLE Total $3.37 $52.20$77.95$46.65 $3.78 $69.67 $3.01 1.5 0.0610.62%RTA-TaxiMu Total $3.59 $79.51$110.30$74.48 $6.05 $103.33 $3.36 1.4 0.056.32%RTA-TaxiMV Total $3.25 $73.69$100.22$68.51 $5.56 $93.17 $3.03 1.4 0.047.03%RTA-TaxiNC Total $2.80 $48.34$102.77$44.16 $3.58 $93.88 $2.56 2.1 0.068.65%RTA-TaxiPe Total $3.49 $68.12$98.18$63.82 $5.18 $91.99 $3.27 1.4 0.056.31%RTA-TaxiRi Total $3.33 $61.26$105.35$57.27 $4.65 $98.49 $3.11 1.7 0.056.51%RTA-TaxiSC Total $3.18 $67.09$96.53$62.11 $5.04 $89.38 $2.94 1.4 0.057.41%Service Provider Totals0.7713.0$3.99$67.12$0.77$5.1822.73%$6.70$5.16$86.86TransTrack Manager™4/25/2011Page 6 of 6 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FY 2011/12 - FY 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 3A: FY 2011/12 INDIVIDUAL ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route # Route Class Route Description Cities/Communities Served Directly Operated Fixed Routes: 1 Regional From UCR and Downtown Riverside to Galleria at Tyler and Corona primarily via University Ave and Magnolia Ave Riverside, UC Riverside campus area, Arlington, Home Gardens, Corona 10 Local From Big Springs St on Riverside's Northside to Galleria at Tyler primarily via Brockton St, Blaine St, Victoria Ave and Lincoln Ave Riverside, UC Riverside campus area, Casa Blanca, La Sierra, eastside of Riverside 11 Local Circulator routings between Moreno Valley Mall and March Air Reserve Base primarily via Frederick St, Ironwood Ave, Heacock St and JFK Dr Moreno Valley, March Joint Powers area, March Air Reserve Base 12 Local From Stephens Ave and Center St on Riverside's Northside, through Downtown, then to Pierce St at Magnolia Ave via Magnolia Ave and California Ave Riverside, La Sierra, and northside of Riverside 13 Local From Spruce St and Atlanta Ave to Galleria at Tyler in Riverside via MLK Blvd, Arlington Ave, Central Ave and Tyler St Riverside, Hunter Park-Eastside, Arlanza and La Sierra 14 Local From Galleria at Tyler to Downtown Riverside via Indiana Ave and Brockton Ave, then to Loma Linda VA Hospital via Fwy 215 and 10 Riverside, Casa Blanca, Highgrove, Grand Terrace, Colton, Loma Linda 15 Local From Downtown Riverside to Galleria at Tyler to Pierce St and Sterling Ave via Magnolia Ave, Arlington Ave, La Sierra Ave and Indiana Ave Riverside, Arlanza and La Sierra 16 Local From Moreno Valley Mall to Main St and Russell St in Riverside via Day St, Sycamore Canyon Blvd, Box Springs Rd and University Ave Moreno Valley, Riverside, Canyon Crest, Riverside Eastside, UC Riverside campus 18 Local From RCC Moreno Valley campus to Moreno Valley Mall and Heacock via Sunnymead Ranch, Cottonwood St and schools along Frederick St, Perris Blvd, Pigeon Pass Rd and Kitching St Moreno Valley 19 Regional From Moreno Valley Mall to Perris Transit Center via Perris Blvd and Sunnymead Blvd Moreno Valley, Perris 20 Regional From Jurupa Ave and Birch St in Riverside to RCC Moreno Valley campus via Central Ave, Alessandro Blvd and Iris St Riverside, Moreno Valley, Mission Grove 21 Local From Galleria At Tyler in Riverside to Country Village in Mira Loma via Van Buren Blvd, Mission Blvd and Pedley Metrolink Station Jurupa, Glen Avon, Pedley, Riverside 22 Regional From the Lake Elsinore Outlet Mall to Downtown Riverside Terminal via Hwy 74, Old Elsinore Rd and Alessandro Blvd Riverside, Woodcrest, Mead Valley, Perris, Meadowbrook, Lake Elsinore 27 Regional From Florida Ave and Lincoln Ave in East Hemet to Galleria at Tyler in Riverside via Florida Ave, 215 Fwy and Van Buren Blvd Riverside, Woodcrest, Perris, Sun City, Menifee, Romoland, Hemet, Valle Vista 29 Regional From the Downtown Riverside Terminal to Hamner Ave and Limonite Ave in in Eastvale via Rubidoux Blvd and Limonite Ave Eastvale, Mira Loma, Pedley, Rubidoux, Riverside 41 1 Regional From the Mead Valley Community Center to Moreno Valley with stops at RCC Moreno Valley campus and Riverside County Medical Center Moreno Valley, Perris, Mead Valley 49 Regional From the Downtown Riverside Terminal to Country Village via Mission Blvd Mira Loma, Glen Avon, Rubidoux, Riverside, Jurupa 206 Express From Promenade Mall in Temecula to Corona Metrolink Station via Fwy 15 with stops in Murrieta and Lake Elsinore Outlet Center Temecula, Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Corona 216 2 Express From the Downtown Riverside Terminal to Village at Orange via 91 and 55 Fwy Riverside, Corona, Orange 1 Route 41 has selected trips that are directly operated, with the majority remaining contracted. 2 Previously Route 149, renumbered in July 2010. 3 Rural areas are those with less than 50,000 in population. Revised 5/18/2011 Table 3A Individual Route Description RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FY 2011/12 - FY 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 3A: FY 2011/12 INDIVIDUAL ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route # Route Class Route Description Cities/Communities Served Contracted Fixed Routes: 3 Local 10th St and Belle Ave in Corona via Main St and Hamner Ave to North Main Metrolink Station and RCC Norco campus, continuing to Eastvale Riverside, La Sierra, Norco, Corona, Eastvale, Mira Loma 7 Local Lake Elsinore Outlet Center, Downtown Lake Elsinore, Senior Center, Walmart shopping Center, Inland Valley Medical Center in Wildomar Lake Elsinore, Lakeland Village, Sedco Hills, Wildomar 8 Local From Lake Elsinore Outlet Center to Walmart on Railroad Canyon Rd via Grand Ave, Wildomar and Canyon Estates Dr Lake Elsinore, Sedco Hills, Wildomar 23 Local From Inland Valley Hospital in Wildomar through Murrieta to County Center Dr in Temecula Murrieta, Wildomar, Temecula 24 Local Temecula circulator with stops at the County Center, Old Town, Library, Pechanga Resort and Temecula Walmart Temecula, Pechanga Community 30 Local Perris circulator serving the Perris Transit Center, Walmart and central part of the community Perris 31 Rural 3 Service from Banning to Hemet Valley Mall via Lamb Canyon, State St, Mt San Jacinto Community College Banning, Beaumont, Gilman Hot Springs, San Jacinto, Hemet 32 Local From Hemet Valley Mall to Mt. San Jacinto College via Downtown San Jacinto and San Jacinto Ave San Jacinto Hemet 33 Local From Super-Walmart and Hemet Valley Mall in western Hemet to east Hemet Hemet, East Hemet 35 Regional From Banning to Moreno Valley Mall with stops at K-Mart, Walmart on Moreno Beach Dr, senior center and Riverside County Medical Center Banning, Beaumont, Moreno Valley 40 Rural3 From Walmart in Lake Elsinore to Cherry Hills Blvd in Sun City with stops in Canyon Lake and Quail Valley Menifee, Sun City, Quail Valley, Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore 41 1 Regional From the Mead Valley Community Center to Moreno Valley with stops at RCC Moreno Valley campus and Riverside County Medical Center Moreno Valley, Perris, Mead Valley 42 Local Estudillo Express - San Jacinto circulator with stops at Soboba Casino and various mobile home parks San Jacinto, Soboba Community 50 Trolley Riverside Jury Trolley Service Downtown Riverside, RCC Campus area 51 Trolley Crest Cruiser, a UCR to Canyon Crest circulator via Chicago Ave, Central Ave and Canyon Crest Dr Riverside, UC Riverside campus area 53 Trolley Bear Runner, a UCR to Canyon Crest circulator via Chicago Ave, Central Ave, Aberdeen Dr and Campus Dr Riverside, UC Riverside campus area 55 Trolley Temecula Trolley route, connecting Harveston community to schools, shops and other RTA routes Temecula 61 Regional From Sun City Shop Center to Promenade Mall area in Temecula with stops at Menifee Valley Medical offices, and Mt San Jacinto College Menifee campus Temecula, Murrieta, Menifee, Sun City 74 Regional From San Jacinto to Hemet, Sun City and Perris, serving Mt San Jacinto College, Hemet Valley Mall and Mt San Jacinto's Menifee campus, mostly via State St, Simpson Rd and Newport Rd San Jacinto, Hemet, Winchester, Menifee, Sun City, Perris 79 Regional From Hemet Valley Mall to Temecula City Hall via Winchester Rd (State Hwy 79). Also serves County Center Dr, Promenade Mall, Old Town Temecula and Temecula City Hall Hemet, Winchester, French Valley, Murrieta and Temecula 202 Express From Walmart in Murrieta and Promenade Mall in Temecula to Oceanside Transit Center Murrieta, Temecula, Fallbrook, Bonsall, Oceanside 204 Express From UC Riverside campus to Montclair TransCenter via Riverside Downtown Terminal, Country Village and Ontario Mills Mall Riverside, Ontario, Glen Avon, Montclair 208 Express From Promenade Mall in Temecula to Riverside Metrolink Station and Downtown Terminal via 215 Fwy with stops in Murrieta, Sun City, Perris, Moreno Valley Temecula, Murrieta, Sun City, Perris, Riverside, Moreno Valley 210 Express From Banning and Beaumont to Downtown Riverside Terminal with stops in Moreno Valley and Riverside Metrolink Station Banning, Beaumont, Moreno Valley, Riverside 212 Express Express service from Hemet and San Jacinto to Riverside Downtown Terminal with stops at Perris and UC Riverside East Hemet, San Jacinto, Hemet, Perris, Riverside 217 Express Express service from San Jacinto and Hemet to Temecula and Escondido Hemet, San Jacinto, Temecula, Escondido 1 Route 41 has selected trips that are directly operated, with the majority remaining contracted. 2 Previously Route 149, renumbered in July 2010. 3 Rural areas are those with less than 50,000 in population. Revised 5/18/2011 Table 3A Individual Route Description RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY FY 2011/12 - FY 2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan TABLE 3A: FY 2011/12 INDIVIDUAL ROUTE DESCRIPTIONS Route # Route Class Route Description Cities/Communities Served Contracted Paratransit Routes: Curb-to-Curb Banning and Beaumont Curb-to-Curb Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, Quail Valley Curb-to-Curb Grand Terrace, Highgrove, Loma Linda, Colton Curb-to-Curb Hemet, Homeland, Romoland, San Jacinto, Valle Vista, Winchester Curb-to-Curb Glen Avon, Belltown, Jurupa, Pedley, Rubidoux, Mira Loma (Country Village) Curb-to-Curb Moreno Valley, March Air Reserve Base Curb-to-Curb Murrieta, Temecula Curb-to-Curb Corona, Norco Curb-to-Curb Perris, Mead Valley, Nuevo Curb-to-Curb Riverside, Canyon Crest, Arnold Heights, Orangecrest, Woodcrest Curb-to-Curb Sun City, Menifee Curb-to-Curb within RTA service area 1 Route 41 has selected trips that are directly operated, with the majority remaining contracted. 2 Previously Route 149, renumbered in July 2010. 3 Rural areas are those with less than 50,000 in population. Sun City Taxicab Moreno Valley Murrieta/Temecula Corona/Norco Perris Riverside Banning/Beaumont Lake Elsinore Highgrove/Loma Linda Hemet Jurupa Revised 5/18/2011 Table 3A Individual Route Description Riverside Transit Agency FY 2011/12 - FY 2013-14 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 4 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12 Updated:5/25/11 Project Description Capital Project Number (1) Total Amount of Funds LTF LTF Western County Reserve 2 STA 3 STA (RCTC Reserves) Measure A Operating Assistance Measure A Operating Assistance RCTC Reserves Section 5307 - Riv-San Bernardino Section 5307 - Temecula/ Murrieta Section 5307 - Hemet/San Jacinto Section 5307 - Los Angeles 5 Section 5309 Carryover Section 5311 5 TUMF Carryover Section 5316 JARC Section 5317 New Freedom 6 Farebox / Other Operating Assistance 26,385,883 22,939,055 1,164,397 6,223 1,850,000 426,208 Operating Assistance - CTSA 605,113 524,300 80,813 GASB 43/45 ARC 645,000 645,000 OCTA 794 129,100 129,100 CommuterLink 212 & 217 826,713 47,130 328,114 375,245 76,224 Extended Fixed Route Service 751,389 94,810 241,719 336,530 78,330 Farebox (Cash, Tix, Passes)9,129,859 9,129,859 Travel Training 213,026 21,303 21,303 85,210 85,210 COA/BRT Study 5 400,000 240,000 160,000 Interest Income 50,000 50,000 Advertising Revenue 18,000 18,000 CNG Sales 250,000 250,000 Cal PERS CERBT Reimbursement 200,000 200,000 Capitalized Preventive Maintenance 9,187,500 1,837,500 4,350,000 3,000,000 Capital Cost of Contracting 5,312,500 1,062,500 1,250,000 3,000,000 Subtotal: RTA Operating 1 $54,104,083 $26,647,298 $0 $0 $0 $1,710,000 $785,969 $5,600,000 $6,000,000 $1,850,000 $0 $240,000 $426,208 $160,000 $796,985 $85,210 $9,802,413 Care Connexxus, Inc-Travel Training 10,691 10,691 Riv Cty Regional Med Ctr-Med Transport 197,452 197,452 Subtotal: Soc Svcs Operating 4 $208,143 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $208,143 $0 Subtotal: Operating $54,312,226 $26,647,298 $0 $0 $0 $1,710,000 $785,969 $5,600,000 $6,000,000 $1,850,000 $0 $240,000 $426,208 $160,000 $796,985 $293,353 $9,802,413 Revenue Vehicles - (85) DO Heavy Duty FY12-1 18,659,314 10,225,000 6,434,314 2,000,000 Revenue Vehicles - (3) Commuterlink E-Lo's FY12-2 524,794 104,959 419,835 Revenue Vehicles - (6) COFR E-Lo's FY12-2 1,052,000 210,400 841,600 Revenue Vehicles - (17) DAR Type II's FY12-3 1,318,451 224,137 1,094,314 Non-Revenue Vehicles - (9) Support Vehicles FY12-4 135,791 27,158 108,633 Non-Revenue Vehicles - (2) Travel Training FY12-5 40,000 4,000 4,000 16,000 16,000 Non-Revenue Vehicles - (3) S&Z Trucks FY12-6 161,625 32,325 129,300 Capital Maintenance Spares FY12-7 1,678,372 335,674 1,342,698 Capitalized Tire Lease FY12-8 243,034 48,607 194,427 Facility Maintenance FY12-9 897,276 179,455 717,821 Information Systems - Travel Training FY12-10 5,200 520 520 2,080 2,080 Subtotal: Capital $24,715,857 $4,520 $10,225,000 $6,434,314 $1,162,715 $4,520 $0 $4,848,628 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,080 $18,080 $2,000,000 Total: Operating & Capital $79,028,083 $26,651,818 $10,225,000 $6,434,314 $1,162,715 $1,714,520 $785,969 $10,448,628 $6,000,000 $1,850,000 $0 $240,000 $426,208 $160,000 $815,065 $311,433 $11,802,413 1 Operating Expense budget does not include any GASB pre-funding, ARC only. 2 $6,434,314 STA is Gas Tax Swap funds. 3 $1,162,715 of STA is RCTC reserves. 4 Social Services Pass-Thru funds are exempt from Farebox and PIP calculations. 5 COA Study to use $400,000 of unencumbered 5309 and TUMF funds from Transit Enhancements Program of Projects (TBD). 6 Other Funding ($2,000,000) for (85) DO Heavy Duty Revenue Vehicles is 2010 & 2011 FET Credit. Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY12-1 PROJECT NAME Replacement Revenue Vehicles – Heavy Duty Buses PROJECT DESCRIPTION Partial funding toward the purchase of (85) heavy duty buses to be used for directly operated routes. These buses have estimated service life of 12 years or 500,000 miles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The new buses will replace the old NABI model buses that have reached the end of their service life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2012 LTF (Western County Reserves)10,225,000$ STA 6,434,314$ Federal Excise Tax Credit 2,000,000$ Total 18,659,314$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance None Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY12-2 PROJECT NAME Replacement Revenue Vehicles for Contracted Operations PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of (9) E-Lo buses – (3) for CommuterLink service and (6) for contracted fixed routes. The E-Lo buses are medium-size, medium-duty, approximately 30-feet in length and have estimated service life of 7 years or 200,000 miles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replace (3) Thomas buses used for CommuterLink service and (6) Type II buses used for contracted fixed routes. These vehicles have reached the end of their service life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2012 Sec 5307 1,261,435$ STA 315,359$ Total 1,576,794$ 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 # Project Description Unexpended Balance* CA-90-Y614 FY08 STA Replacement vans $23,865 FY11 STA, Prop 1B E-Lo model vehicles $741,253 * As of 3-30-2011 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY12-3 PROJECT NAME Replacement Revenue Vehicles for Dial-a-Ride Operations PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of (17) Type II vehicles for dial-a-ride operations. These vehicles have estimated life of 5 years or 150,000 miles per FTA guidelines. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replace Type II buses that have reached the end of their useful life per FTA Circular 7030.1C. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2012 Sec 5307 1,094,314$ STA 224,137$ Total 1,318,451$ 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 # Project Description Unexpended Balance None Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY12-4 PROJECT NAME Replacement Support Vehicles PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of (9) relief cars for Operations. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replacement of model 2005 and 2006 relief cars that have reached the end of their service life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source Relief Cars Sec 5307 108,633$ STA 27,158$ Total 135,791$ 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 # Project Description Unexpended Balance* CA-90-Y691 FY07 STA Replacement Support Vehicles $14,078 * As of 3-30-2011 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY12-5 PROJECT NAME Support Vehicles for Travel Training Program PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of (2) cars for the Senior/Disabled Travel Training Program. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The new cars will be used by the program staff in conducting training to seniors and persons with disabilities to effectively use public transit both the fixed route and dial-a-ride services. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Sec 5316 16,000$ Sec 5317 16,000$ LTF 4,000$ Measure A 4,000$ Total 40,000$ 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 Grant # RCTC Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance New project Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY12-6 PROJECT NAME Replacement Trucks for Stop & Zone Operations PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of (3) trucks for Stop & Zone Operations. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replacement of 2007 F-450 Stake Bed trucks that have reached the end of their service life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source S&Z Trucks Sec 5307 129,300$ STA 32,325$ Total 161,625$ 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 Grant # RCTC Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance* None * As of 3-30-2011 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY12-7 PROJECT NAME Capital Maintenance Spares PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of spare parts for rolling stock under the bus maintenance program. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Purchase of vehicle parts based on projected needs whose individual costs meet the requirement for capital reimbursement. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2012 Sec 5307 1,342,698$ STA 335,674$ Total 1,678,372$ 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 Grant # RCTC Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance* CA-90-Y781 FY10 STA Capital Maintenance Spares $971,929 FY11 STA Capital Maintenance Spares $333,229 * As of 3-30-2011 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY12-8 PROJECT NAME Capitalized Tire Lease PROJECT DESCRIPTION Capital cost of leasing bus tires. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION As part of the Agency’s maintenance program, tires are inspected and replaced based on tread wear and air pressure. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2012 Sec 5307 194,427$ STA 48,607$ Total 243,034$ 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 Grant # RCTC Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance* FY10 Sec 5311 ARRA Capitalized Preventive Maintenance $47,375 FY11 STA Capitalized Tire Lease $ 1,239 * As of 3-30-2011 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY12-9 PROJECT NAME Facility Maintenance PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of ergonomically designed office furniture, carpet replacement at Riverside facility, lighting retrofit, resurfacing of maintenance shop floors, painting the interior and exterior of Riverside and Hemet buildings, concrete repair and replacement. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Miscellaneous facility maintenance and improvements to promote a safe and clean environment. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2012 Sec 5307 717,821$ STA 179,455$ Total 897,276$ 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 Grant # RCTC Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance* CA-90-Y614 FY08 STA Facility Improvements $ 22,055 CA-90-Y691 Facility Improvements $201,652 CA-90-Y781 FY10 STA Facility Maintenance $375,086 FY11 STA Facility Maintenance $ 1,000 * As of 3-30-2011 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY12-10 PROJECT NAME Information Systems PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of new computers for training staff of the Senior/Disabled Travel Training Program. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The new computers will be used by the staff in the administration and evaluation of the program’s progress and performance. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2012 Sec 5316 2,080$ Sec 5317 2,080$ LTF 520$ Measure A 520$ Total 5,200$ 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 Grant # RCTC Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance New project Riverside Transit Agency FY 2012/13 and FY 2013/14 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5.1 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2012/13 and FY2013/14 Project Description Total Amount of Funds LTF 3 STA Measure A Operating Assistance Section 5307 - Riv-San Bernardino Section 5307 - Temecula/ Murrieta Section 5307 - Hemet/San Jacinto Section 5309 Section 5311 Section 5316 JARC Section 5317 New Freedom Farebox / Other FY 2012/2013 Operating Assistance 30,264,282 26,314,282 1,500,000 2,000,000 450,000 GASB 43/45 Pre-funding - OCTA 794 135,000 135,000 CommuterLink 212 &217 892,785 268,382 139,899 408,281 76,224 Extended Late Night Service 811,441 247,355 119,201 366,555 78,330 Farebox (Cash, Tix, Passes)9,200,000 9,200,000 Travel Training 326,492 32,649 32,649 130,597 130,597 Interest Income 50,000 50,000 Advertising Revenue 20,000 20,000 Lease Revenue - Cal PERS CERBT Reimbursement 800,000 800,000 CNG Sales 250,000 250,000 Capitalized Preventative Maintenance 6,250,000 1,250,000 5,000,000 ADA Operating Assistance - Capital Cost of Contracting 5,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 Subtotal: FY12/13 RTA Operating 1 $54,000,000 $29,112,667 $0 $1,926,749 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $450,000 $905,433 $130,597 $10,474,554 Care Connexxus, Inc-Travel Training 10,891 10,891 Riv Cty Regional Med Ctr-Med Transport 199,545 199,545 Subtotal: Soc Svcs Operating 2 $210,436 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $210,436 $0 Subtotal: FY12/13Operating $54,210,436 $29,112,667 $0 $1,926,749 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $450,000 $905,433 $341,033 $10,474,554 Revenue Vehicles - (85) DO Heavy Duty 10,225,000 10,225,000 Capital Maintenance Spares 1,695,525 339,105 1,356,420 Capitalized Tire Lease 252,667 50,533 202,134 Replacement Revenue Vehicles 3,734,900 746,980 2,987,920 Replacement Support Vehicles 322,141 64,428 257,713 Revenue Vehicle Systems - DAR Vehicle On Board Video Surveillance 244,600 244,600 Bus Stop Amenities - Maintenance Equipment 168,751 33,750 135,001 Facility Maintenance 72,660 14,532 58,128 Information Systems 200,000 40,000 160,000 Temecula Transit Center - Corona/Riverside Transit Center - Advanced Traveler Information System - - Subtotal: FY12/13 Capital $16,916,244 $10,225,000 $1,289,328 $0 $5,157,316 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $244,600 Total: Operating & Capital FY12/13 $71,126,680 $39,337,667 $1,289,328 $1,926,749 $11,157,316 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $450,000 $905,433 $341,033 $10,719,154 1 Operating Expense budget does not include any GASB pre-funding, ARC only. 2 Social Services Pass-Thru funds are exempt from Farebox and PIP calculations. 3 $1,289,328 of STA is RCTC STA reserves. Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY13-1 PROJECT NAME Replacement Revenue Vehicles – Heavy Duty Buses PROJECT DESCRIPTION Partial funding toward the purchase of (85) heavy duty buses to be used for directly operated routes. These buses have estimated service life of 12 years or 500,000 miles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The new buses will replace the old NABI model buses that have reached the end of their service life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2012 LTF 10,225,000$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance None Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY13-2 PROJECT NAME Capital Maintenance Spares PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of spare parts for rolling stock under the maintenance program. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Purchase of vehicle parts based on projected needs whose individual costs meet the requirement for capital reimbursement. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2013 Sec 5307 1,356,420$ STA 339,105$ Total 1,695,525$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY13-3 PROJECT NAME Capitalized Tire Lease PROJECT DESCRIPTION Capital cost of leasing bus tires for FY2013. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Tires are inspected and replaced based on tread wear and air pressure. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2013 Sec 5307 202,134$ STA 50,533$ Total 252,667$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY13-4 PROJECT NAME Replacement Revenue Vehicles PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of (10) E-Lo type vehicles for contracted fixed route operations, and (22) Type II vehicles for dial-a-ride routes. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replace old units that have reached the end of their useful service life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2013 Sec 5307 2,987,920$ STA 746,980$ Total 3,734,900$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY13-5 PROJECT NAME Replacement Support Vehicles PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of (4) support vehicles for Administration and Operations, and (5) trucks for Stop & Zone. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replace old units that have reached the end of their service life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2013 Sec 5307 257,713$ STA 64,428$ Total 322,141$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY13-6 PROJECT NAME On-board Video Surveillance System PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of on-board surveillance system for Dial-a-Ride revenue vehicles. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replacement of existing cameras to upgrade entire surveillance system in the dial-a-ride vehicles. The cameras are an integral part of risk management, and driver modification program. It also ensures safe operation of vehicles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2013 Prop 1B 244,600$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY13-7 PROJECT NAME Maintenance Equipment PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of various maintenance equipment such as poinjar, air compressor/generator, vehicle jacks, scissors lift, floor scrubbers. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replacement of old equipment for safety and efficiency. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2013 Sec 5307 135,001$ STA 33,750$ Total 168,751$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY13-8 PROJECT NAME Facility Maintenance PROJECT DESCRIPTION Bus wash upgrades at the Riverside and Hemet facilities, automatic doors for the maintenance garage. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replace brushes of the bus wash to improve efficiency. Installation of automatic doors that will interface the gas detection activation with door openers. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2013 Sec 5307 58,128$ STA 14,532$ Total 72,660$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY13-9 PROJECT NAME Information Systems PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of ITS software and hardware. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replacement of new software to update and keep up with changes in technology. Replacement of old hardware that have reached the end of their useful life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2013 Sec 5307 160,000$ STA 40,000$ Total 200,000$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Riverside Transit Agency FY 2012/13 and FY 2013/14 Summary of Funds Requested Short Range Transit Plan Table 5.2 - Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2012/13 and FY2013/14 Project Description Total Amount of Funds LTF 3 STA Measure A Operating Assistance Section 5307 - Riv-San Bernardino Section 5307 - Temecula/ Murrieta Section 5307 - Hemet/San Jacinto Section 5309 Section 5311 Section 5316 JARC Section 5317 New Freedom Farebox / Other FY 2013/2014 Operating Assistance 31,797,691 27,572,691 1,750,000 2,000,000 475,000 GASB 43/45 Pre-funding - OCTA 794 140,000 140,000 CommuterLink 212 &217 319,502 97,852 50,066 147,918 23,667 Extended Late Night Service 122,807 37,934 18,040 55,974 10,859 Farebox (Cash, Tix, Passes)9,200,000 9,200,000 Travel Training - Interest Income 50,000 50,000 Advertising Revenue 20,000 20,000 Lease Revenue - Cal PERS CERBT Reimbursement 850,000 850,000 CNG Sales 250,000 250,000 Capitalized Preventative Maintenance 6,250,000 1,250,000 5,000,000 ADA Operating Assistance - Capital Cost of Contracting 5,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 Subtotal: FY13/14 RTA Operating 1 $54,000,000 $29,958,476 $0 $1,958,106 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $475,000 $203,892 $0 $10,404,526 Subtotal: Soc Svcs Operating 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal: FY13/14Operating $54,000,000 $29,958,476 $0 $1,958,106 $6,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $475,000 $203,892 $0 $10,404,526 COP Debt Service - Capital Maintenance Spares 2,057,623 411,525 1,646,098 Capitalized Tire Lease 263,248 52,650 210,598 Replacement Revenue Vehicles 44,244,804 10,225,000 3,803,961 15,215,843 15,000,000 Expansion Revenue Vehicles - Replacement Support Vehicles 100,050 20,010 80,040 Bus Stop Amenities - Maintenance Equipment - Facility Maintenance - Information Systems 200,000 40,000 160,000 Temecula Transit Center - Advanced Traveler Information System - Corona/Riverside Transit Center - - Subtotal: FY13/14 Capital $46,865,725 $10,225,000 $4,328,146 $0 $17,312,579 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000,000 Total: Operating & Capital FY13/14 $100,865,725 $40,183,476 $4,328,146 $1,958,106 $23,312,579 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $475,000 $203,892 $0 $25,404,526 1 Operating Expense budget does not include any GASB pre-funding, ARC only. 2 Social Services Pass-Thru funds are exempt from Farebox and PIP calculations. 3 $4,328,146 is RCTC STA reserves. Table 5.2A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY14-1 PROJECT NAME Capital Maintenance Spares PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of spare parts for rolling stock under the maintenance program. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Purchase of vehicle parts based on projected needs whose individual costs meet the requirement for capital reimbursement. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2014 Sec 5307 1,646,098$ STA 411,525$ Total 2,057,623$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.2A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY14-2 PROJECT NAME Capitalized Tire Lease PROJECT DESCRIPTION Capital cost of leasing bus tires for FY2014. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Tires are inspected and replaced based on tread wear and air pressure. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2014 Sec 5307 210,598$ STA 52,650$ Total 263,248$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.2A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY14-3 PROJECT NAME Replacement Revenue Vehicles PROJECT DESCRIPTION Partial funding toward the purchase of (85) heavy duty buses for directly operated routes. (4) E-Lo type vehicles and (3) Trolleys for contracted fixed route operations. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replace old units that have reached the end of their useful service life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2014 Sec 5307 15,215,843$ STA 3,803,961$ LTF 10,225,000$ Prop 1B 15,000,000$ Total 44,244,804$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.2A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY14-4 PROJECT NAME Replacement Support Vehicles PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of (4) support vehicles for Operations. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replace old units that have reached the end of their service life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2014 Sec 5307 80,040$ STA 20,010$ Total 100,050$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance Table 5.2A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER FY14-5 PROJECT NAME Information Systems PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase of ITS software and hardware. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Replacement of new software to update and keep up with changes in technology. Replacement of old hardware that have reached the end of their useful life per FTA guidelines. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) Funding Source FY 2014 Sec 5307 160,000$ STA 40,000$ Total 200,000$ 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 Grant # Project Description Unexpended Balance TABLE 6 – PROGRESS TO IMPLEMENT TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Table 6-Triennial Audit FY 2012-14 SRTP Recent Audit Recommendation (Covering FY 2006/07 – FY 2009/10) Action(s) Taken And Results To Date No Audit Findings Table 7 -- Service Provider Performance Targets ReportFY 2010/11 Short Range Transit Plan ReviewRiverside Transit AgencyFY 2010/11 Plan FY 2010/11 TargetFY 2010/11Year to DateThrough 3rd QuarterYear to DatePerformanceScorecardData Elements7,475,818Unlinked Passenger Trips50,275,225Passenger Miles622,246.0Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Hours10,670,981.0Total Actual Vehicle Revenue Miles12,512,107.0Total Actual Vehicle Miles$49,966,377Total Operating Expenses$11,745,671Total Passenger Fare Revenue$38,220,706Net Operating ExpensesPerformance IndicatorsMandatory:1. Farebox Recovery RatioMeets Target>= 17.09% 23.50%26.26%Discretionary:1. Operating Cost Per Revenue HourMeets Target<= $80.30 $80.30$80.302. Subsidy Per PassengerMeets Target>= $4.03 and <= $5.45 $5.11$4.433. Subsidy Per Passenger MileMeets Target>= $0.60 and <= $0.82 $0.76$0.674. Subsidy Per HourMeets Target>= $51.11 and <= $69.15 $61.42$59.215. Subsidy Per MileMeets Target>= $2.99 and <= $4.05 $3.58$3.496. Passengers Per Revenue HourMeets Target>= 10.80 and <= 14.61 12.0013.407. Passengers Per Revenue MileMeets Target>= 0.63 and <= 0.85 0.700.79Note:Must meet at least 4 out of 7 Discretionary Performance IndicatorsProductivity Performance Summary:Service Provider Comments:4/25/2011TransTrack Manager™Page 1 of 1 FY 2011/12 - Table 8 -- SRTP Performance ReportService Provider: Riverside Transit AgencyAll RoutesPerformance IndicatorsFY 2011/12PlanPlan PerformanceScorecard (a)FY 2011/12 TargetFY 2010/113rd QuarterYear-to-DateFY 2009/10End of YearActualPassengersNone6,007,581 8,076,9187,934,079Passenger MilesNone39,880,07754,308,32752,656,493Revenue HoursNone449,419.8622,861.0624,238.8Total HoursNone519,278.7721,522.0717,107.2Revenue MilesNone7,627,615.5 10,485,001.010,642,528.3Total MilesNone8,937,573.0 12,332,916.012,481,048.0Operating CostsNone$36,088,324 $54,104,083$47,326,309Passenger RevenueNone$9,479,541 $12,298,382$11,722,070Operating SubsidyNone$26,608,783 $41,805,701$35,604,239Operating Costs Per Revenue HourFails to Meet Target<= $80.73$80.30$86.86$75.81Operating Cost Per Revenue MileNone$4.73$5.16$4.45Operating Costs Per PassengerNone$6.01$6.70$5.96Farebox Recovery RatioMeets Target>= 17.0%26.26%22.73%24.76%Subsidy Per PassengerFails to Meet Target>= $3.77 and <= $5.09$4.43$5.18$4.49Subsidy Per Passenger MileMeets Target>= $0.57 and <= $0.77$0.67$0.77$0.68Subsidy Per Revenue HourMeets Target>= $50.33 and <= $68.09$59.21$67.12$57.04Subsidy Per Revenue MileMeets Target>= $2.97 and <= $4.01$3.49$3.99$3.35Passengers Per Revenue HourMeets Target>= 11.39 and <= 15.4113.4013.0012.70Passengers Per Revenue MileMeets Target>= 0.67 and <= 0.910.790.770.75a) The Plan Performance Scorecard column is the result of comparing the FY 2011/12 Plan to the FY 2011/12 Primary Target.a) FY11/12 Target and Plan Performance Scorecard to be updated by RCTC.Service Provider Comments:TransTrack Manager™5/25/2011Page 1 of 1 TABLE 9 – HIGHLIGHTS OF SRTP Operating & Financial Data FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 Estimate FY 11/12 Planned Systemwide Ridership 7,403,682 8,326,764 7,934,079 7,991,961 8,076,917 Operating Costs Per Revenue Hour $75.23 $77.15 $75.81 $80.30 $86.86 Recent Trends: Since FY 2009, RTA has saved over 70,000 fixed route revenue hours and $4 million in light of declining revenue sources. A new fare structure was implemented in late June 2009 that increased the base fare from $1.25 to $1.50. In January 2010, DAR policy changes took effect that raised the senior age eligibility from 60 to 65; implemented trip-by-trip eligibility enforcement; shortened the reservation window from 7 days to 3 days; enforced a strict ¾ mile boundary policy for all passengers; and implemented a new fare system model that would be based on the comparable fixed route model. Proposed Service Changes for FY 2012: No new services will be added unless fully funded by grant monies or city sponsored revenues. Service changes will focus on refining existing service through improved scheduling, streamlining, and better serving communities with the available resources. A COA study will be conducted to review existing operational services and provide a strategic plan for enhancements to begin in 2014. Operating Budget ($54,104,083): Increase of 8% over FY11 budget. Variance analysis by cost element is provided below: o Salaries – 5.2% increase due to headcount additions and the cessation of the administrative employee furlough program. o Benefits – 9.9% increase due to increases in Worker’s Compensation, medical insurance costs and CalPERs rates. o Services – 38% increase due to the Comprehensive Operational Analysis study which includes consideration for Bus Rapid Transit. o Utilities – 4.5% increase due to expected rate increases and full year impact of the new Corona Transit Center. o Advertising & Promotion –13.3% increase due to Marketing efforts with service changes, community relation, and 35th Anniversary events. o Travel/Training – 33.1% increase due to additional travel and budgeted BOD per diem (assumes addition of City of Jurupa Valley). o Purchased Transportation – 7.3% increase due to contracted rates and fuel. Capital Budget ($24,715,857): RTA’s 3-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is updated to reflect the current economic outlook and service needs with a focus on items which are mandatory to support our current service profile. FY 2012 CIP projects are funded with Federal Section 5307, Federal Sections 5316, Federal Section 5317, State Transportation Assistance (STA), Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and Federal Excise Tax Credit. A summary by project element for FY 2012 is shown below: o Revenue Vehicles - $21.5 million for 40 ft. buses, (3) CommuterLink buses, (6) Contracted Fixed Route buses and (17) DAR vehicles. o Non-Revenue Vehicles - $.3 million for (9) support vehicles, (2) Travel Training vehicles and (3) Stops & Zones trucks. o Maintenance - $1.9 million for maintenance spare parts and tire lease. o Facilities - $.9 million for facility maintenance. o Information Systems – Travel Training. APPENDIX A: RTA FIXED ROUTE MAPS 9 University Mission Inn 14th St.MarketB r o c k t o n VineIowaRustinChicagoCamyon Crest DrBlaine3rd Linden Madison Central Jurupa Adams Van Buren Tyler La Sierra Hole Pierce McKinley 10th St.Mai nMagnolia MagnoliaArlington 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 UCR DowntownRiversideTerminal Parkview Hospital Riverside Plaza Kaiser Hospital Corona Senior Ctr. Civic Ctr. La Sierra University Galleriaat Tyler Chemawa Middle School California Baptist University Ramona H.S. Corona H.S. RiversideCity College Smith Business CntrCommercePomonaAuto Center 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Medical Facility Alternate Routing Legend | Map not to scale RIVERSIDE CORONA10 RTA and Corona Cruiser honor each other’s Day and 30-Day passes at shared stops. Also serving: RCC, California Baptist University, Parkview Community Hospital, Galleria at Tyler, Kaiser Hospital, Corona. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com UCR/Downtown Terminal to W. Corona Metrolink Station Routing and timetables subject to change. 1 1 3 6th & Main Corona Cruiser 1 53 Highlander Shuttle 204 16 51 UCR 1 Magnolia & McKinley Corona Cruiser 1 12 15 La Sierra & Magnolia 1 6th & Smith Corona Cruiser 1 Magnolia & 14th 13 15 50 1 Brockton Arcade 10 14 15 91 91 91 1 Galleria at Tyler 10 12 13 14 15 21 27 216 Sixth St.1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station West CoronaMetrolink Station 1 Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station 16 208 210 212 Amtrak 1 6th St.Hamner AveHamner Ave5th St. 4th St. « Lampton 3rd St. 3rd St.Clark2nd St. 8th St. Ontario Stan Reynolds Pkwy BelleMainWashburnMagnolia Ave. 10th St W. Grand NorcoCollege Post Oce City Hall Norco Senior Center Senior Center DMV Target North Main Plaza Corona Transit Center Corona MallLibrary Corona Regional Medical Center DPSS Norco Library EleanorRooseveltH.S. 3 4 5 6 7 15 15 91 91 NORCO EASTVALE CORONAAlso serving: Norco, Norco Senior Center, Norco City Hall, RCC, North Main Plaza, Corona. No service weekends or the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Swan Lake/Pat’s Ranch Rd to Belle & 10th Routing and timetables subject to change. 3 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 3 North Main Plaza Corona Crusier 3 29 65th & Pat’s Ranch Rd 3 29 Hamner & Limonite 1 Main & 6th 3 1 2 68th St. 65th St. Citrus St Swan Lake Dr Sumner AvePat’s Ranch RdLimonite Ave Town & Country 3 Corona Transit Center 206 216 Corona Crusier 3 Belle & 10th Corona Crusier RTA and Corona Cruiser honor each other’s Day and 30-Day passes at shared stops. Also serving: DPSS, Downtown Lake Elsinore, Senior Center. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Lake Elsinore Outlet Center to Inland Valley Medical Center Routing and timetables subject to change. 7 LAKE ELSINORE WILDOMAR Clinton-Keith RdCatt RdH i d d e n S p r i n g s InlandValley DrP a l om a r S t CentralStMalagaRdC o l l i e r A v e Lakes h o r e D r Mission TrSu m m e r S t Grah a m A v e Main St »Chaney St 15 15 74 74 74 Central AveRailroadCanyon RdRiverside Dr Lake ElsinoreOutlets LAKE ELSINORE Walmart 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 407 Walmart 8 7 Malaga & Mission Trail 8 7 Inland Valley Medical Center 23 7 Palomar & Central 8 7 Outlet Center 8 22 206 Inland ValleyMedical Center DPSS SeniorCenter WildomarCity Hall 74 74 C o l l i e r A v e Chaney St W P o t t e r y S t W H e a l d A v e N Li n d s a y S t Summerhill DrW G r a h a m A v e S M a i n S tN Main StW L i m i t e d S t S S p r i n g S t W L a k e s h o r e D r E La k e s h o r e D r Mission TrCa s in o D rAuto Cn t r D r RailroadCanyon RdRailroadCanyon RdGrape S t Franklin St C a n y o n Es t a t e s D r Malaga Rd Nichols RdTownsend StN Kellogg StLake Elsinore Outlets City Hall DPSS Seni o r Cent e r 2 4 3 407 Malaga & Mission Tr 8 Also serving: Stater Bros, Albertsons, Lake Elsinore Recreation Center. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Lake Elsinore Walmart to Lake Elsinore Outlet Center Routing and timetables subject to change. 8 Gr a n d A v e P a l om a r S t CentralStL a k e s h o r e D r C o l l i e r A v e Li n c o l n Lakes h o r e D r Ca n y o n Es t a t e s D r Summerhill DrMission TrMachado StRiverside DrOrtega Highway Gr a p e Malaga Baldwin 74 74 15 7 4 3 2 1 WalmartWalmart AlbertsonsAlbertsons Chase Bank Chase Bank Lake Elsinore Recreation Center Lake Elsinore Recreation Center Mission Trail Library Mission Trail Library Lake Elsinore Outlets Lake Elsinore Outlets LAKE ELSINORE LAKE ELSINORE LAKE ELSINORE WILDOMARWILDOMAR 15 407 Walmart 8 7 Malaga & Mission Trail 8 AlbertsonsAlbertsons Lakeside HS Lakeside HS Stater Bros Stater Bros 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Medical Facility Legend | Map not to scale Alternate Routing 7 Outlet Center 8 22 206 5 6 Railroad Canyon Rd 7 Palomar & Central 8NB Only »Lakeshore DrRiverside DrRiverside Dr Machado Grand Ave Baxter Road Catt Rd H i d d e n S p r i n g sGrand AvenueGrand Avenue Central Street Pal o m a r Clinton Keith Roa d Pa l o m a rMission TrailRailr o a d C a n y o nCas inoCol l ie r Ave Diamond Dr IInland Valley Dr.8 Lake Elsinore Recreation Center Lake Elsinore Recreation Center Inland Valley Regional Medical Center Inland Valley Regional Medical Center 7 Lakeshore & Riverside 8 8 Inland Valley Hospital 23 7415 Terra Cotta MS Terra Cotta MS LincolnLincolnNorthbound Only « University AveMission Inn Ave 14th St Van Buren B l v d Jackson St Madison St Blaine StCentral AveArlington AveMagnol ia AveMagnolia AveLincoln AveVicto r ia Ave3rd StUCR RTA Mt V e r n o n Io w a Watkins BigSprings60 91 Horace CridgeOrangeLemon 9 8 2 4 5 6 1 3 Galleriaat Tyler Arlington H.S. Poly H.S. Notre Dame H.S. Riverside Community College Riverside Plaza Target BrocktonArcade DowntownTerminal Calif. Sch. for Deaf Gage M.S. RIVERSIDE Also serving: Downtown Riverside, Poly High, Gage Middle School, Notre Dame High, Calif. School for Deaf, Arlington High. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Big Springs & Watkins to Galleria at Tyler10 Routing and timetables subject to change. 7 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 1 Brockton Arcade 10 14 15 10 Iowa & Blaine 25 51 Eu c a l y p t u s A v e 215 215 1 Galleria at Tyler 10 12 13 14 15 21 27 216 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 OmnitransChicagoIowa3rdBlaine MagnoliaMagnoliaMagnolia Sterling Hole Si e r r a V i s t a L a S i e r r aPierce PierceMercedRiverwalk Va n B u r e n T y l e r Jacks o n Ada m s Auto C t r D r Madi s o n Arlington Central LincolnVictoriaUniversity 6th St Mission Inn 14th StMarketMulberry La Sierra University CHP 10 Central & Victoria 20 1 Magnolia & Pierce 1012 10 11 City Hall Routing and timetables subject to change.Also serving: Sunnymead Middle School, Moreno Valley High School. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Moreno Valley Mall/March ARB11 Ironwood Ave Sunnymead Blvd Eucalyptus Ave Cottonwood Ave « Counter-clockwise | Clockwise » Hemlock JFK DrMeyer Cactus Ave Alessandro Blvd Towngate Blvd Town Circle H e r i t a g e Heacock StPerris BlvdPerris BlvdIndian StFrederick StPigeon Pass RdRiverside Dr6th St601Centerpoi n t Sunnymead MS Moreno Valley HS Post Oce 5 4 2 3 Moreno Valley Mall March ARB MORENO VALLEY 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 11 Moreno Valley Mall 16 1918 35 208 210 11 Cottonwood & Heacock 18 11 Alessandro & Heacock 20 11 Alessandro & Frederick 20 11 Heacock & Sunnymead 19 60 MarketArlington CaliforniaHar r i son MagnoliaMagnolia MagnoliaPie r c e SterlingJurupa JurupaStreeter Eliz a b e t hMainOrangeOrangeColumbia Center Garner StephensOrangeLemonW La CadenaUniversity Olivewood14th M e r c e d 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 DMV Janet Goeske Ctr. Juvenile Hall Kaiser Hospital Hardman Center Salvation Army Sears Galleria at Tyler County Juvenile CourtsCounty Mental Health RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE County Farm Rd Mission Inn Oakley PrimerInterchange 1st St Downtown Terminal RiversideCity College Also serving: Galleria at Tyler, DMV, Downtown Terminal, Salvation Army. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Stephens & Center to Pierce & Sterling - Riverside12 Routing and timetables subject to change. 12 Arlington & Streeter 15 Riverside Plaza 1 Pierce & Sterling 12 15 12 Van Buren & California 15 21 12 Main & Russell 16 9 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Medical Facility Alternate Routing Legend | Map not to scale 1 Magnolia & Elizabeth 12 13 14 15 20 91 91 91 1 Galleria at Tyler 10 12 13 14 15 21 27 216PierceTyl e r Ri v e r w a l k Hole 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans MagnoliaD e A n z a S a n D e i g o Rivers ide MagnoliaKiddC h i c a g o L em o n O r a n g e3rd St.Massachusetts Io w a K a n s a s Blaine14th St / Martin Luther KingSpruceMarlborough V a n B u r e nColorado Tyl e rGouldCr e s t Mo n r o e ArlingtonArlingtonP h o e n i x CentralJurupaMission InnUniversity9 10 8 7 5 6 3 2 1 Galleria at Tyler DPSS Sierra Middle School RTA Norte Vista H.S. Wells Intermediate School RCC Riverside Airport RCH John North H.S. Downtown Terminal 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Medical Facility Alternate Routing Legend | Map not to scale RIVERSIDE Also serving: Galleria at Tyler, DPSS (Tyler oce), Riverside Airport, RCC, RTA Headquarters. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Spruce & Atlanta to Galleria at Tyler - Riverside13 Routing and timetables subject to change. Riverside Plaza1 14th & Magnolia 13 15 50 13 Iowa & Spruce 51 13 Arlington & Monroe 15 13 Colorado & Van Buren 21 13 Arlington & Tyler 15 Eastbound Westbound EBOnly 4E 4W Detour Route 1 Galleria at Tyler 10 12 13 14 15 21 27 216 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans SAN B E R N A R DI N O C O U N T Y RIVER SI D E C O U N T Y Also serving: Galleria at Tyler, Riverside Auto Center, Calif. School for the Deaf, Riverside Medical Clinic, RCC. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. RTA DOES NOT SERVE MICHIGAN AVENUE. MICHIGAN AVENUE IS SERVED BY OMNITRANS’ ROUTE 325. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Galleria at Tyler to Downtown Terminal to Loma Linda VA Hospital14 Routing and timetables subject to change. RIVERSIDE California School for the Deaf Downtown Terminal Madison Galleria at Tyler 1 Brockton Arcade 10 14 15 14 Michigan & Center Omnitrans 325 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans 1 Galleria at Tyler 10 12 13 14 15 21 27 216 1 University & Lemon 10 14 16 22 Tyl e r S t Indiana AveBrockton AveUniversity A v e Iowa A v e Center St Mi ch igan AveAnder son S t Barton Rd Prospect A v e GRAND TERRACE COLTON HIGH GROVE LOMA LINDA 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 Loma Linda Community Hospital VA Hospital Loma Linda VA Hospital Omnitrans14 10 14 51 Iowa & Blaine 3rd/Blain e Medical Facility 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale Loma Linda Medical Center 10 215 Routing and timetables subject to change.Also serving: Hardman Center, Riverside Airport, Metrolink, La Sierra, Cal. Paramedical College. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Downtown Terminal to Pierce and Sterling15 La S i e r r a MagnoliaMagnoliaHole Hole PierceSterlingPierc e » Tyl e r Tyl e r V a n B u r e n Van B u r e n S t r e e t e r Arlingto n Ma g n o l i a Jurupa 14th St « Universit y « Mission I n n Sunnyside Mo n r o e Ad a m s Ma d i s o nMa r k e t Bro c k t o n C h e s t n u t CaliforniaIndianaSears K-Mart Riverside Airport Norte Vista High School Loma Vista Intermediate School La Sierra Univ Paramedical College La Sierra High School Kaiser Hospital RCH Downtown Terminal La Sierra Metrolink Galleria at Tyler RIVERSIDE LA SIERRA 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Medical Facility Legend | Map not to scale 3 1 2 4 6 7 9 8 10 5 Hardman Center1521 Arlington & Van Buren 12 La Sierra & Hole 15 15 La Sierra Metrolink 794 1 LaSierra & Magnolia 12 15 12 Arlington & Streeter 15 13 15 Arlington & Monroe Riverside Plaza 1 14th & Magnolia 13 15 50 91 91 1 Brockton Arcade 10 14 15 Detour Routing 1 Galleria at Tyler 10 12 13 14 15 21 27 216 Mer c e d Riverside City College 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans 5 Fairmount Park UCR Downtown Terminal Moreno Valley Mall 215 Box Springs Rd.Canyon Crest Campus Dr Market Vine MartinLutherKing1st StRussellMain Orange MissionInnTowngateBlvd.TownCircle CanyonSpringsPlaza Canyon CrestTowne Center UniversityCentralDay St. MORENO VALLEY RIVERSIDE 60 60 215 4 3 1 2 Routing and timetables subject to change.Also serving: Downtown, UCR, Canyon Crest Towne Center, Canyon Springs Plaza. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Main & Russell to Moreno Valley Mall16 Sycamore Cyn PkwySycamore CynLochmoorF a i r I s l e 1 10 14 16 22 University & Lemon 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 11 Moreno Valley Mall 16 1918 35 208 210 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station 1 Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station 16 208 210 212 Amtrak 1 53 Highlander Shuttle 204 16 51 UCR Sunnymead Ranch Manzanita Centerpoint TowngateHe r i t a g e Old Lake Rd PerrisPigeon PassFrederickHeacockHeacockGrahamPerrisLasselle« LasselleKitchingCottonwood Cottonwood JFK Iris Gentian Krameria » Canyon Springs HS Vista Heights MS Moreno ValleyCollege MorenoValley Mall MaryMcLeod Bethune School Vista Verde MS Vista DelLago HS Moreno Valley HS MORENO VALLEY 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Medical Facility Legend | Map not to scale 2 1 3 4 5N 5S 6 7 18 Moreno Valley College 2019 41 11 Moreno Valley Mall 16 1918 35 208 210 18 Perris & Alessandro 19 20 60 Routing and timetables subject to change.Also serving: Moreno Valley Mall/Hometown Buet, Canyon Springs High School, Sunnymead Ranch, Moreno Valley High School, Vista Del Lago High School, Riverside Community College. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Sunnymead Ranch to Moreno Valley College18 11 18 Cottonwood & Frederick 11 18 Cottonwood & Heacock Alessandro Iris Sunnymead BlvdTown Circl e FrederickC StE San Jacinto « LasselleKrameria Orange Nuevo JarvisPerrisPerrisHeacock PerrisNevadaIndianMORENO VALLEY PERRIS Moreno Valley Mall March Mountain HS RCRMC Moreno Valley College Perris Station Transit Center Perris HS Val Verde HS Temple Christian HS Perris Town Center Perris Plaza Perris Valley Spectrum Walmart 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Medical Facility Alternate Routing Legend | Map not to scale Ramona Expwy Morgan Starcrest / Ross Lowe’s 5 67 1 3 Routing and timetables subject to change. 19 Perris Station Transit Center 22 27 30 74 208 212 19 Perris & Ramona Expwy 41 19 Valley Plaza Hospital 30 18 Moreno Valley College 2019 41 11 Moreno Valley Mall 16 1918 35 208 210 18 Perris & Alessandro 19 20 11 Sunnymead & Heacock 19 4 2 Centerpoint Also serving: March Mountain High School, RCC, Perris, Perris High School. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Moreno Valley Mall to Perris Station Transit Center19 19 Ross/Lowe's/Starcrest 41 Day St. Chicago Ar l i n g t o n Mission Grove Frederick Trautwein Magnolia Brockton Indian Indian Perris Kitching Peninsula Lasselle Nason » Victoria AlessandroJurupaCentralAlessandroMoreno Beach RIVERSIDE MORENO VALLEY 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mission Grove Plaza City Hall Poly HS Riverside Plaza Kaiser Permanente Hospital Moreno Valley College Social Security RCRMC 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Medical Facility Legend | Map not to scaleKrameriaIrisIris215 18 Moreno Valley College 19 20 41 1 Magnolia & Elizabeth 12 13 14 15 20 Birch Alternate routing when school is in session 7 No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Magnolia Center, RCR Med Cntr, MoVal Comm Hosp, Moreno Valley College20 Routing and timetables subject to change. 20 Trautwein & Mission Grove 22 10 Central & Victoria 20 RCRMC 3520 41 18 Perris & Alessandro 19 20 11 Alessandro & Frederick 20 Marlay San Sevaine Ben Nevis Philadelphia Cherry TylerClayPedleyEtiwandaFelsparMagnolia CaliforniaCabernetMulberryCountryVillage60 V a n B u r e n RIVERSIDE PEDLEY GLEN AVON MIRA LOMA FONTANA 3 2 1 6 5 Galleria at Tyler The Pedley Station Walmart K-Mart Jurupa Valley Spectrum Jurupa Valley HS Glen Avon Library Melba Dunlap Community Center & Library Country Village 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale Arlington Limonite Jurupa Mission Blvd. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY 21 Pedley Station 29 21 Etiwanda & Limonite 29 15 Arlington & Van Buren 21 12 California & Van Buren 21 21 Country Village 49 Cherry & Mulberry Omnitrans Medical Facility ArcherCollins4S 4N 1 Galleria at Tyler 10 12 13 14 15 21 27 216 Also serving: Glen Avon Library, Pedley Station Metrolink, Van Buren. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Galleria at Tyler to Country Village21 Routing and timetables subject to change. 74 74 A l e s s a n d r o T r a u tw e in WoodParsonChicagoChestnut« MarketThedaAlexanderMarkham Alessandro Mi s s i o n Gr o v e Nichols Oleander ClarkOld Elsinore Rd Van Buren Mariposa Cajalco Rider St Riverside Central Nava j o C St4th San Jacinto Mission Inn University Ellis 15 RIVERSIDE WOODCREST MEAD VALLEY PERRIS LAKE ELSINORE 10 9 4 5 3 2 1 MLK HS Citrus Hill H.S. Social Security Oce Mission Grove Plaza LakeElsinoreOutletCenter DowntownTerminal 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale Meadowbrook CollierGreenwald7 Outlet Center 8 22 206 20 Mission Grove at Social Security 22 7 6 8 22 Trautwein & Van Buren 27 Perris Station Transit Center 19 Perris Station Transit Center 22 27 30 74 208 212 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans Information Center Web Site 1-800-800-7821 www.RiversideTransit.com Also serving: Lake Elsinore, Mead Valley, Woodcrest, & Kmart. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Downtown Terminal to Lake Elsinore Outlet Center22 Routing and timetables subject to change. 22 41 Cajalco Rd & Clark St. MURRIETAMURRIETA TEMECULATEMECULA 79 15 15 15 Eq u i t y D r WhitewoodWhitewood Je e r s o nHa y e s Ma d i s o nWa s h i n g t o n Priel i p p Jackson Av Kalmia Juniper Night Hawk Vineyard Pkwy InlandValleyDrYnez RdMargarita RdYnez RdHancockWinchesterCountyCenter DrNutmeg Li n c o l n SkyviewRidgeAvenidaArconteCalif. OaksCalif. Oaks Nicolas Mu r r i e t a H o t S p r i n g s Murrieta Hot Springs 215 1 2 4 38 9 5 7 6 LibraryLibraryCourtSocial ServicesCourtSocial Services Medical Facility Alternate Routing 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale Also serving: Inland Valley Reg. Medical Center, Rancho Springs Medical Center, Chaparral High School, County Center Drive. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Temecula - Murrieta - Wildomar Routing and timetables subject to change. 23 WILDOMARWILDOMAR Los Alamos Murrieta Senior Ctr & City Hall Rancho Springs Medical Center Walmart Promenade MallPalm Plaza Chaparral HS Skyview Ridgeanda Apts Vista Murrieta H.S. Murrieta Valley HS Inland Valley Regional Med Ctr 23 County Center Drive 24 55 61 79 23 Walmart 202 206 23 61 Hancock & Los Alamos 23 208 Los Alamos & Whitewood 23 24 55 79 217 61 Equity Dr & Ynez Rd 7 Inland Valley Hospital 23 AltaMurrieta DrClinton Keith Cli n t o n K e i t h TEMECULA 7979 79 15 15 Eq u i t y D r .Ynez Rd.Ynez Rd .Ynez Rd.Ynez Rd .Margarita Rd.Ma r g a r i t a R d . Margarita Rd.County CenterWinchester Solana 6th FrontPujolJeersonMe r c e d e s Pauba Rd. Campanula NB Only Temecula Pkwy Me a d ow s P kw y Deer Hollo w Pec h a n g a P k w y Rancho California Rancho Vista Main 1st 7 4 Tower PlazaLibrary Chaparral HS Margarita MS Temecula Library Linfield Christian HS Great Oaks HS Palomar Village Temecula Valley HS Rancho Vista HS Temecula ES Town Ctr.Target Pechanga Resort Temecula Walmart Temecula Plaza Promenade Mall Palm Plaza County Ctr. Koll Business Ctr. Post Oce Temecula Stage Stop Old Town Costco Court Social Services Also serving: County Center Drive, Temecula Schools, Temecula Stage Stop & Old Town. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Temecula to Pechanga Resort to Temecula Walmart Routing and timetables subject to change. 24 1 OverlandVail Ranch Red Hawk Pkwy 23 79 County Center Drive 24 55 61 5 23 Temecula Stage Stop 24 6 2 3 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Alternate Routing Legend | Map not to scale « Peppercorn 23 24 55 79 217 61 Equity Dr & Ynez Rd 74 91 215 215 Ramona Express way 7 6 5 4 1 2 3 SUN CITY VALLE VISTA HEMET PERRIS ROMOLAND RIVERSIDE WOODCREST Galleria at Tyler MLK High Grant Lincoln Soboba San Jacinto State Lyon Lyon Wood Rd Gilmore Sun City « Bradley KirbyPalomar Sherman JacksonEthanacMatthewsPerris Trautwein C St »FloridaCherryHillsMcCallDevonshire4thNuevoVan BurenVan BurenVan Buren MagnoliaOrangeTerrace« San JacintioPalmHemet Valley Mall 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Alternate Routing when school is in session Legend | Map not to scale 22 27 Trautwein & Van Buren27 Sun City - Stater/Vons 40 61 74 208 Perris H.S. Riverside National Cem. 27 Hemet Valley Mall 31 32 74 79 212 217 33 42 NB NB/SB SB SB 1 Galleria at Tyler 10 12 13 14 15 21 27 216 Also serving: Riverside National Cemetery, Perris High, & Valle Vista. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Galleria at Tyler to Hemet Valley Mall and Florida & Lincoln27 Routing and timetables subject to change. Perris Station Transit Center 19 Perris Station Transit Center 22 27 30 74 208 212 NORTHBOUND DETOUR IN EFFECT 2:30 P.M. TO 7 P.M. Hamner Pat’s Ranch Rd65th68th Pedley Camino Real Collins LimoniteJurupaLim o n i t e Ri v e r v i e w Pacic Van Buren 42nd/TiltonMission Blv d 24th24thHa l l Rubidou x B l vd 6 5 2W 2E 3 1 RUBIDOUX RIVERSIDE PEDLEY EASTVALE MIRA LOMA Jurupa Valley Spectrum Rubidoux Academy De Anza Plaza DowntownTerminal The Pedley Station 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale MarketMission InnUniversity60 21 Limonite & Archer 29 3 65th & Pat’s Ranch 29 3 Hamner & Limonite 29 29 Mission & Rubidoux 49 Alternate Routing 15 4 Archer 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans Also serving: Belltown, Downtown Rubidoux, Rubidoux Academy, De Anza Plaza, Vons Shopping Center. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Downtown Terminal to Hamner & Limonite29 Routing and timetables subject to change. Eastbo u n d Westbou n d 19 Valley Plaza Hospital 30 215 215Perris BarrettRedlands AveWil k e r s o n A v Ramona Expressway Orange Placentia Nuevo Rd.CarterLa MoreSan Jacinto Weston N a v a j o 4th Perris Perris Redlands AveGoetzD StreetA StreetC StreetA Street4th Bowen MetzRichards 7th 11th 11th Ellis San Jacinto San Jacinto 7 5 4 3 2 1 PERRIS Perris HS Stater Bros. Center Perris Senior Center Civic Center Post Oce Library Valley Plaza Doctors Hospital Medical Facility 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale Also serving: Perris High School, Civic Center, Post Oce, Library. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Perris - Weston & Carter to Walmart Routing and timetables subject to change. 30 74 4th & Wilkerson 30 74 6 Walmart Perris Station Transit Center 19 Perris Station Transit Center 22 27 30 74 208 212 WB WB WB EB EB EB EB/WBEB/WB EB/WB 79 Lamb Canyon G i lm a n S p r i n g s 2 3 4 HEMET SAN JACINTO BEAUMONT/ BANNING Mt. San JacintoComm College Hemet ValleyMall 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 31 Mt. San Jacinto College 32 74 212 217 31 Buena Vista & Devonshire 33 31 Sun Lakes Blvd. 35 Pass Transit Walmart PassTransit 1 StateStateStateR am o n a B l v d I d y l lw l d D r De An z a D r Ramo n a E x p y Buena Vista »Thornto n A v e« Gilbert StGilmoreStetson A v e Stetson A v eLyon AveDevons h i r e A v e Fruitval e A v e Menlo A v e Esplana d e A v e Florida A v eSan Jacinto StPalm AveLatham A v e » Acacia A v e Whittier A v e Mayber r y A v e City Hall County Complex 10 Highland SpringsCommerce Way »Sun L a k e s B l v d 1st St 2nd St SunLakes Village Kmart 5 27 Hemet Valley Mall 31 32 74 79 212 217 33 42 Also serving: Walmart, Kmart, Riverside County Administration Complex, Mt. San Jacinto Community College. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Beaumont/Banning to San Jacinto & Hemet Valley Mall31 Routing and timetables subject to change. 74 HewittMistletoe »LasRosasVillinesEvans San JacintoSan JacintoStateState« EagleBuena VistaLyonLyonKirbySandersonCommonwealth Esplanade DevonshireDevonshire Latham Florida Ave.Florida Ave. Mayberry Menlo Stetson 7th St. Sagecrest 7th St. Main St.Main St.De A n z a Idyll w i l d AcaciaGilmore Palm AvRam o n a B l v d Ramona Expressway HEMET SAN JACINTO 1 2 5 7 Mt. San Jacinto Comm College Acacia MS City HallMonte Vista MS North Mountain MS San Jacinto HS Stater Brothers Super Walmart Chamber of Commerce Valley Wide Teen Center Hemet Med Ctr Simpson Center Hemet Valley Mall/Sears Hemet Valley Center City Hall 32 San Jacinto & Latham 33 Also serving: Hemet Hospital. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Hemet Valley Mall to Mount San Jacinto College Routing and timetables subject to change. 32 32 San Jacinto & Esplanade 42 74 6 4 3 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Alternate Routing Legend | Map not to scale 74 27 Hemet Valley Mall 31 32 74 79 212 217 33 42 31 Mt. San Jacinto College 32 74 212 217 74 79 74 Hemet HS Dartmouth MS HemetValleyMall Super Walmart W Thornton AveW Acacia AveW Johnston AveW Oakland AveE Oakland AveE Acacia AveW Devonshire AveFlorida Ave WFlorida Ave WFlorida Ave EW Stetson AveW Stetson AveE Stetson AveThornton AveMayberry AveW Menlo AveW Fruitvale AveWe n tw o r t h D r S Cawston Ave Sanderson Ave San Jacinto StSan Jacinto St S Columbia St Dartmouth St Stanford St Sanderson Ave S Lyon AveN Lyon Ave S Gilbert St S Lyon Ave N State St N Buena Vista St S State St N Gilmore St Kirby St HEMET EAST HEMET 1 3 4 2 Simpson Senior Center Medical Facility 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 27 Florida & Stanford 33 27 Florida & San Jacinto 31 32 33 33 Sanderson & Thornton 74 79 31 San Jacinto & Oakland 32 33 74 27 Hemet Valley Mall 31 32 74 79 212 217 33 42 Also serving: Hemet Valley Mall, Hemet mobile home parks. No service on weekends or on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Hemet - Sanderson to East Hemet33 Routing and timetables subject to change. 6010 10 Hi g h l a n d S p r i n g s Co m m e r c e Wa y Fr e d e r i c k Pig e o n P a s s CenterpointTown CircleSun Lakes Blvd1st St2nd St5 4 3 2 1 BEAUMONT/ BANNING MORENO VALLEY MorenoValley Mall Kmart SunLakes Village Medical Facility 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale Also serving: Walmart, Kmart, City Hall, Riverside County Regional Medical Center. No service on weekends or on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Beaumont/Banning to Moreno Valley Mall35 Routing and timetables subject to change. RCRMC Senior Center RCRMC 20 35 41 Senior Center 19 35 31 Sun Lakes Blvd. 35 PassTransit M o r e n o B e a c h D r » Kit c h i n g S t » Per r i s B l v d »Eucalyptus AveFir AveFir A v e Na s o n S t 60 11 Moreno Valley Mall 16 1918 35 208 210 SuperWalmartSuper TargetStoneridge Shopping Center Auto Mall Walmart PassTransit 15 215 215 Railroad Canyon Rd « Berea Bradley Rd Evans Goetz Rd Canyon HillsNewport RdNormandyCanyon Lake DrLakeshore DrGrapeCherry Hills BlvdR a i l r o a d C a n y o n R d 1 2 3 4 MENIFEE SUN CITY LAKE ELSINORE CANYON LAKE QUAIL VALLEY 27 Sun City - Stater/Vons 40 61 74 208 407 Walmart 8 Stater/Vons Center Quail Valley Fire Station Sun City Plaza Senior Center Albertsons City Hall Main Gate Walmart CAN Y O N LAK E 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Long Term Detour Legend | Map not to scale Also serving: Lake Elsinore, Quail Valley, Canyon Lake, Sun City. No service on Weekends or on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Lake Elsinore to Sun City Routing and timetables subject to change. 40 City Hall RamonaExpy Gentian Ave Iris Ave Krameria Via De Anza JFK Dr Cactus Rider St Oakwood Rider St H a r v i l l Evans RdCajalco Rd. MORENO VALLEY 215 Perris BlvdNasonLasselle StWebsterIndianSeaton RdClark StDay StBrown StHainesEvans RdPERRISCajalco ExpyMead Valley Community Center Ross/Lowe's/Starcrest RCRMC Lasselle &Via De Anza Moreno ValleyCollege Morgan St 1 3 5 4 6 7 MEAD VALLEY Starcrest Rancho Verde H.S. ValVerde H.S. Vista Del LagoH.S. RossLowe'sMedical Facility 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale Also serving: Rancho Verde High School, RCC Mo Val, Riverside County Regional Medical Center. No service on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Mead Valley Community Center to Moreno Valley College and RCRMC Routing and timetables subject to change. 41 2 RCRMC 20 35 41 19 Perris & Ramona Expy 41 19 Ross/Lowe's/Starcrest 41 22 41 Cajalco Rd & Clark St. 18 Moreno Valley College 2019 41 Lasselle St Main StreetLake Park DriveMi s t l e t o e E. 7th StSa n J a c i n t o Sa n J a c i n t o He w i t t S. P i c o S. E s t u d i l l o W. 7th St.Sa n t a F e EsplanadeLa EntradaCommonwealthRamona Expr e s s w a y Soboba 5 6 4 3 1 2 Soboba Springs Mobile HomeEstates SobobaCasino RegalCinemas Stater Bros. Rite Aid SuperWal-Mart Post Oce CaravanaMobile Lodge San Jacinto Trailer Park Tradewinds Mobile Lodge Grandview Mobile Home Park Las Casitas Mobile Home Park El Rancho Mobile Estates Valley HiMHP San JacintoCommunity Center WestboundEastboundSoboba Springs Mobile HomeEstates Also serving: San Jacinto, Soboba Springs MHE, Caravana ML, San Jacinto TP, Tradewinds ML, Grandview MHP, Las Casitas MHP, El Rancho MHE, Valley Hi MHP. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com San Jacinto - Hemet Routing and timetables subject to change. 42 Cottonwood AveEnterprise AveRamona Expy Soboba Rd E Main StLake Park DrStater BrosW Devonshire AveFlorida AveEsplanade AveSta t e S t Pal m A v e Grand AveN L y o n A v e Kir b y S t San J a c i n t o A v e San J a c i n t o He w i t t S t San t a F e Mis t l e t o e Sta t e S t 7th St7th StMenloSOBOBA CASINO HEMET VALLEY MALL 1 2 3 4 5 6 32 San Jacinto & Esplanade 42 74 HEMET SAN JACINTO 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale San Jacinto CommunityCenter Super Walmart Mobile HomeParks 74 City Hall 27 Hemet Valley Mall 31 32 74 79 212 217 33 42 60 60 Opal R u b i d o u x Ch e s t n u t Mission Blvd.San SevaineBen NevisMission Blvd.Mission InnUniversityPedley R d . Felspar Pyrite Camino Real Valley W a y Cr e s t m o r e Jur u p a Country Village Rd PhiladelphiaMarlayCabernet 5 4 3 2 1 COUNTRY VILLAGE RIVERSIDE RUBIDOUX FONTANAGLEN AVON Eddie Smith Senior Center Rubidoux Academy Jurupa Aquadic Park Patriot H.S. Downtown Terminal Country Village 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scaleSAN BERNARDINO COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTY29 Mission & Rubidoux 49 21 Country Village 49 Omnitrans Country Village & Marlay Also serving: Riverside, Rubidoux, Pedley. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Downtown Terminal to Country Village49 Routing and timetables subject to change. 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans 14th Street 12th St. 10th St. 11th St. Rice Tequesquite Terracina RamonaBrocktonBrockton MagnoliaMarketMainMainRIVERSIDE Riverside County Court House Riverside Community Hospital Physical Therapy & Sports Clinic County Administrative CenterHall of Justice Calvary Presbyterian Church Parking Lot (nearest stop 14th & Magnolia) RCC City Hall Eden Lutheran Church Parking Lot United Methodist Church Also serving: Jury Remote Parking to 12th & Main, Riverside County Courthouse. Runs Monday – Thursday Only. No service on the following holidays and court closure: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Jury Trolley | Red Line50 Routing and timetables subject to change. 1 13 15 50 Market & 14th 1 13 15 50 14th & Magnolia 1 13 15 50 Magnolia & Terracina 50 208 210 212 10th & City Hall 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Medical Facility Trolley Stops Legend | Map not to scale RUNS ON UCR ACADEMIC DAYS ONLY. No service on weekends or the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Crest Cruiser UCR - Canyon Crest Towne Centre Routing and timetables subject to change. 51 215 UCR Canyon Crest Towne Centre Village Towers Apartments UCR Lot 4 University Village Post Oce 60 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Trolley Stops Legend | Map not to scale MLK Blv d . MLK Blv d . Universit y A v . Vassar St. Monte Vis t a Via Puebl o Blaine University A v . Spruce S t . Wa t k i n s D r . Central A v .Iowa Av.Chicago Av.Chicago Av.El CerritoCanyon Crest Dr.CanyonCrest Dr.W CampusCanyon Crest Dr.2 3 4 5 6 7 1 16 51 208 210 212 Canyon Crest & MLK (Lot 30) Highlander Shuttle University Village & Village Towers Apts 1 16 25 51 53 10 25 51 Iowa & Blaine 1 13 22 25 51 53 16 Chicago & University 22 51 Chicago & Central 16 51 53 Canyon Crest & Central RIVERSIDE 1 53 Highlander Shuttle 204 16 51 UCR RUNS ON UCR ACADEMIC DAYS ONLY. No service on Fridays, weekends or the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Bear Runner UCR - Canyon Crest Towne Centre Routing and timetables subject to change. 53 215 UCR Canyon Crest Towne Centre Grand Marc Life Science Lot 6 Stonehaven Apts. Science Library Riverside Sports Center University Village Lot 24 Post Oce 60 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Trolley Stops Legend | Map not to scale MLK Blv d MLK Blv d . Universit y A v Vassar Universit y A v Linden St Blaine St Central A v Iowa AvChicago AvEucalyptus Big Springs RdChicago AvEl CerritoCanyon Crest DrCanyonCrest Dr.Canyon Crest DrAberdeen DrE. Campus DrRustin Av2 34 5 6 7 8 9 1 16 51 53 208 210 212 Canyon Crest & MLK (Lot 30) Highlander Shuttle Grand Marc 25 51 53 16 51 53 Canyon Crest & Central RIVERSIDE 1 53 Highlander Shuttle 204 16 51 UCR Also serving: Chaparral High School, Ysabel Barnett Elementary School, Abbott, Promenade Mall, Harveston and County Center Drive. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Route will not operate June 13 - August 5. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Temecula Trolley | Green Line Routing and timetables subject to change. 55 Trolley Stops Transfer to other RTA Routes Legend | Map not to scale Winchester RdYne z R d Overland Dr M a r g a r i t a R d 15 ChaparralH.S. YsabelBarnettE.S. Abbott Extended StayAmerica BestWestern HARVESTON Palm Plaza Shopping Center TEMECULA MotorCarPkwy Promenade Mall at P.F. Chang’s 202 206 208 2177955 County Center 23 24 61 79 55 The Promenadeat Temecula Overland Dr Winchester RdDate StCounty Center Dr Equity Dr Yn e z R d Nicol a s R d Ynez RdY n e z R d Harveston DrHarvestonSchool RdRustic Glen Dr Harveston DrVillage RdLa k e v i e w R d Ma r g a r i t a R dMargarita Rd« Township Rd 23 24 55 79 217 61 Equity Dr & Ynez Rd 215 215 15 15 215 79 79 MSJCMenifee Haun Rd Medical Facility City Hall Countryside MarketplaceSeniorCenter Promenade MallCounty Services Rancho Springs Medical Center « Loma Linda Medical Center (served spring 2011) Newport Rd Los Alamos RdWhitewood Los Alamos RdMurrieta Hot Springs Rd Murrieta Hot Springs RdWinchester RdWinchester RdJe e r s o n A v e Pal o m a r S t W a s h i n g t o n A v e HancockAveIvy StMargarita R dMa r g a r i t a R d YnezRdCountyCenter Dr Scott Rd La Piedra Keller » Clinton Keith Linnel McElwainPoi n s e t t i a Baxte r Newport Rd Domenigoni Pkwy McCallBlvd Chambers Ave Murrieta RdAntelope RdMenifeeMeadowlarkEncanto DrSun C ityBlvdValley BlvdSUN CITY MENIFEE MURRIETA TEMECULA 1 2 3 4 5 67 23 79 County Center 24 55 61 23 Hancock & Los Alamos 61 61 MSJC Menifee 74 27 Cherry Hills & Bradley 40 61 74 208 Medical Facility 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 23 24 55 79 217 61 Equity Dr & Ynez Rd Also serving: Sun City Center, Loma Linda Medical Building. No service on weekends or on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Sun City - Menifee - Murrieta - Temecula61 Routing and timetables subject to change. State San Jacinto Lyon Gilmore Warren Sanderson Winchester Antelope » Menifee RohrabacherBradley Sun City Perris C St Wilkerson D om e n i g o n i KirbyRamona BlvdOaklandCommonwealth »DevonshireLathamMcCall4thSan JacintoCherry HillsNewportLa PiedraNewportFloridaMustangSimpsonMt. San Jacinto College Mt. SanJacinto College/Menifee Hemet ValleyMall Sun City Center, Chamber of Commerce, Library, Post Oce West Valley High School Super Walmart Super Walmart Medical Facility 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 215 215 SUN CITY MENIFEE HEMET WINCHESTER SAN JACINTO PERRIS 3 2 7 4 6 5 1 Westboundonly Eastbound only 61 MSJC, Menifee 74 32 San Jacinto & Esplanade 42 74 74 Simpson & Winchester 79 27 Cherry Hills & Bradley 40 61 74 208 33 Sanderson & Thornton 74 79 WBEB Perris StationTransit Center 19 Perris Station Transit Center 22 27 30 74 208 212 30 4th & Wilkerson 74 Also serving: Hemet Valley Mall. No service on weekends or on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com San Jacinto - Hemet - Sun City - Perris74 Routing and timetables subject to change. 74 27 Hemet Valley Mall 31 32 74 79 212 217 33 4231 Mt. San Jacinto College 32 74 212 217 GilmoreKirbyWarrenTemekuPouroySandersonWinchesterBr igg s WinchesterRancho California Moreno 6th » 1st Main Auld Tech n o l o g y Murr i e t a Hot S p r i n g s »Sky CanyonNicolas Simpson Benton MagdasColoradas Mustang County CenterYnez Jeer son Front StPujo l Equity » Overland Florida Devonshire Promenade Mall Temecula Stage Stop 6th & Front County Center Dr Sheri Station Southwest Justice Center Winchester & Pouroy » Winchester & Simpson » West Valley High School French Valley Airport Chaparral HS HEMET FRENCH VALLEY WINCHESTER MURRIETA TEMECULA 3 2 5 4 7 74 79 79 8 Hemet Valley Mall 15 15 Super Walmart 27 Hemet Valley Mall 31 32 74 79 212 217 33 42 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Map not to scale 6 1 Mercede s 23 24 55 79 217 61 Equity Dr & Ynez Rd Also serving: Hemet Valley Mall. No service on weekends or on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Information Center Web site (951) 565-5002 www.RiversideTransit.com Hemet - Winchester - Temecula79 Routing and timetables subject to change. 23 79 County Center Drive 24 55 61 74 Simpson & Winchester 79 23 79 Nicolas & Winchester 24 79 Temecula Stage Stop 33 Sanderson & Thornton 74 79 Promenade Mall at P.F. Chang’s 202 206 208 2177955 MURRIETA FALLBROOK TEMECULA OCEANSIDE Murrieta - Temecula - Oceanside Transit Center Oceanside Transit Center Promenade Mall Coaster NCTD Greyhound Amtrak California The Sprinter Oceanside Transit Center MadisonMurrieta Hot S p r i n g s Winchester N. C o a s t H i g h w a y Pala R d .San Luis ReyMichiganMission SeagazeTre m o n t Inbound AM »Outbound PM »Old Hwy. 395« Ynez Rancho California » C am i n o D e l R e y C o l l e g e Town C n t r 7676 Park-And-Ride Lot 19 “Nessie Burger Lot” AbbottVascular 15Walmart RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY No service on weekends or the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Routing and timetables subject to change. 23 Walmart 202 206 202 NCTD Town Center North $3.00 FREE WITH VALID METROLINK PASS 202 Mall Lo o p Route may be deviated due to trac conditions. GEN. FARE EACH WAY 2 1 3 4 5 S S 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Stop Legend | Maps not to scale S Promenade Mall at P.F. Chang’s 202 206 208 2177955 Motor Car Pkw y MONTCLAIR ONTARIO RIVERSIDE Fairmount Park Park- And- Ride Riverside - Montclair Transcenter 60 10 15 Monte Vista Market St Mission Blvd Canyon Crest « Iowa Pedley Mulberry Miliken Central 3rd StLindenMission InnUniversityGranite Hills »JurupaMall DrArrow HwyRichtonDowntown Terminal UCR OntarioMills Mall Montclair Plaza Omnitrans Ontario Mills Mall Foothill Transit Omnitrans 204 Montclair Transcenter MontclairTranscenter 5 4 2 S 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Maps not to scale No service on weekends or the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Routing and timetables subject to change.NorthboundSouthbound $3.00 FREE WITH VALID METROLINK PASS 1 Route may be deviated due to trac conditions. GEN. FARE EACH WAY RIVERSIDE COUNTYBERNARDINO COUNTY1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 25 29 49 149/216 204 208 210 212 Omnitrans 3 Country Village & Granite Hills Stop NB at Country Village Rd & Country Club Dr. 1 53 Highlander Shuttle 204 16 51 UCR CORONA LAKE ELSINORE MURRIETA Temecula - Murrieta - Lake Elsinore - Corona Metrolink Winchester M a r g a r i t a Murrieta Hot Springs Rd Ma d i s o n Hidden Valley Pkwy CentralC o l l i e rNichols91 TEMECULA Promenade Mall 15 215 15 15 Walmart Lake Elsinore Outlet Center3 2 1 7 Outlet Center 8 22 206 23 Walmart 202 206 $3.00 FREE WITH VALID METROLINK PASS Main/HamnerW. Grand 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Legend | Maps not to scale GEN. FARE EACH WAY Promenade Mall at P.F. Chang’s 202 206 208 2177955 Corona Transit Center 3 Corona Transit Center 206 216 Corona Crusier 4 No service on weekends or the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Route may be deviated due to trac conditions. Routing and timetables subject to change. 215 215 91 6060 15 15 DowntownTerminal MorenoValleyMall UCR Lot30 Los Alamos& Whitewood PromenadeMallLosAlamosRdWinchester Rd PERRIS SUN CITY MENIFEE MURRIETA TEMECULA MORENO VALLEY RIVERSIDE MLK Blvd Day StPerris BlvdNB SB SBNB/SB 215 Temecula - Murrieta - Sun City - Perris - Moreno Valley - Downtown Terminal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Also serving: Riverside City Hall and County Administration Building. No service on weekends or the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. $3.00 FREE WITH VALID METROLINK PASS BradleyCherry HillsSun CityMcCall 4thC StSan Jacinto D St27 Cherry Hills & Bradley 40 61 74 208 23 Los Alamos & Whitewood 208 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Alternate Routing Legend | Maps not to scale Route may be deviated due to trac conditions. GEN. FARE EACH WAY 11 Moreno Valley Mall 16 1918 35 208 210 Perris Station Transit Center 19 Perris Station Transit Center 22 27 30 74 208 212 Promenade Mall at P.F. Chang’s 202 206 208 2177955 Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station 1 Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station 16 208 210 212 Amtrak 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans Routing and timetables subject to change. 215 10 10 215 91 60 60 DowntownTerminal Super Target BeaumontCity Hall Stagecoach Plaza Shopping Center MorenoValleyMall EucalyptusFir loop MLK BlvdPerris Blvd Day St Frederick St Redlands Blvd6th StRamsey & Sunset BEAUMONT BANNING CALIMESA REDLANDS RIVERSIDE MORENO VALLEY SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTY4 3 2 1 7 6 5 Nason St Banning - Beaumont - Moreno Valley - Riverside Metrolink $3.00 FREE WITH VALID METROLINK PASS210 Route may be deviated due to trac conditions. BANNING W Ramsey StN Sunset Ave Parking LotStagecoach PlazaAlso serving: Riverside City Hall, County Admin. Building. No service on weekends or the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. RTA Route 210 Stop GEN. FARE EACH WAY 11 Moreno Valley Mall 16 1918 35 208 210 35 Nason & Fir 210 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Alternate Routing Legend | Maps not to scale Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station 1 Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station 16 208 210 212 Amtrak 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans Routing and timetables subject to change. RIVERSIDE Routing and timetables subject to change. Hemet - San Jacinto - Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station - Downtown Terminal $3.00 FREE WITH VALID METROLINK PASS212 Also serving: Riverside City Hall and Riverside County Administration Building, MSJC. No service on weekends or the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. GEN. FARE EACH WAY 215 91 60 DowntownTerminal 3 65 4 PERRIS MORENO VALLEY UCR Lot30M L K B l v d Hemet Valley Mall Mt San Jacinto College74 KirbyStateFlo r i d a A v e La t h a m De v o n s h i r e Flo r i d a A v e SAN JACINTO HEMET S 1 S Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Additional Stops Legend | Maps not to scale 2 INSET MAP AREAHe m e t Va l l e y M a l l DevonshireFlorida AveKirbyGilmoreLathamHarvardState3SINSET MAP27 Hemet Valley Mall 31 32 74 79 212 217 33 42 Perris Station Transit Center 19 Perris Station Transit Center 22 27 30 74 208 212 Riverside -Downtown Metrolink Station 1 Riverside - Downtown Metrolink Station 16 208 210 212 Amtrak 1 31 Mt. San Jacinto College 32 74 212 217 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans Es p l a n d e S HemetTransitDepot ROUTE MAY BE DEVIATED DUE TO TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 91 91 91 91 55 91 MainWeir CanyonN o h l R a n c h Green RiverTustinSerfas ClubGran d B l v d. Market Mi s s i on In nLime Mulberry Uni v e r s i t yVa n B u r e n T y l e r MagnoliaMcK in l e y Continued below > < Continued above 5 4 3 2 ORANGE CORONA CORONA RIVERSIDE PR Village at Orange PRCorona Park-And-RideCorona Park-And-RideDowntown Terminal Galleria at Tyler East Portion of 216 West Portion of 216 Orange CountyRiverside CountyOCTA Village at Orange Downtown Terminal to Village at Orange Routing and timetables subject to change. 216 216 Route may be deviated due to trac conditions. 55 Heim Ave Meats AveCanal StTustin AveLayover WB ends; EB starts = Stop Also serving: Riverside, The Galleria at Tyler, Corona, and Village at Orange, Orange County. No service on: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 1 Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Inset Map Park-And-Ride Legend | Map not to scale PR 1 Downtown Terminal 10 12 13 14 15 16 22 29 49 204 208 210 212 216 Omnitrans 1 Galleria at Tyler 10 12 13 14 15 21 27 216 Corona Transit Center 3 Corona Transit Center 206 216 Corona Crusier1 $3.00 FREE WITH VALID METROLINK PASS GEN. FARE EACH WAY Routing and timetables subject to change. INSET MAP AREA San Jacinto - Hemet - Temecula - Escondido $3.00217 Also serving: MSJC. No service on weekends or the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. GEN. FARE EACH WAY 215 15 15 3 2 1 5 Hemet Valley Mall 79 79 78 74 74 Sanderson AveWinchester RdDomenigoni Pkwy Esplande Thornton HEMET PromenadeMall Escondido Transit Center Escondido City Hall MURRIETA TEMECULA ESCONDIDO S 1 S Time and/or Transfer Point Transfer Point and Information Additional Stops Legend | Maps not to scale Escondido Transit Center NCTD MTS The Sprinter KirbyFlorida LathamDevonshire S4 27 Hemet Valley Mall 31 32 74 79 212 217 33 42 Promenade Mall at P.F. Chang’s 202 206 208 2177955 Hemet Valley Mall Devonshire Florida AveKirby GilmoreLatham HarvardState4 S INSET MAP Mt San Jacinto College State31 Mt. San Jacinto College 32 74 212 217 S S HemetTransitDepot ROUTE MAY BE DEVIATED DUE TO TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Routing and timetables subject to change. 23 24 55 79 217 61 Equity Dr & Ynez Rd APPENDIX B: SERVICE STANDARDS AND WARRANTS SERVICE STANDARDS & WARRANTS Adopted January 2009 Amended January 2010 Revised May 2011 I. SummaryPurpose Service standards are resourceful for the planning and operation of an agency as it provides the foundation for route design and resource management. RTA recognizes the importance of evaluating its services and has conducted an extensive study on how its own service standards will be used through the use of reports and studies conducted by leading transportation research programs and other transit agencies. One of the most prominent transportation research bodies is the Transit Research Board (TRB). The TRB is a leader of transportation research and innovation. It is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council which is a private, nonprofit institution that is the principal operating agency of the National Academies in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. Among the many research programs that TRB administers are those funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) such as The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). FTA provides TCRP approximately $8 million annually to study operating problems and address them with approaches to help meet the demands placed on public transit systems. The results of this program have produced numerous studies and findings that are highly regarded and used in the transit industry, and are incorporated into RTA’s Design Standards and Warrants. In June 2007, the Board accepted the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) as a guiding document for service enhancements over the course of the next five to ten years. Among the strategies and recommendations included in the COA’s Service Improvement Plan are “Service Standards” (Section 4.5). The service standards provided in the COA outline the recommended minimum levels of providing public transit with respect to design characteristics such as route structure, coverage, span of service, and on-time performance. Since the acceptance of the COA, service has been measured against the standards and was formerly adopted by the Board of Directors in January 2009. The service standards in the COA are based primarily on peer comparisons and stakeholder consultation along with the experiences of professional staff. However, while most standards are applicable others needed to be modified to reflect the demographics and characteristics in western Riverside County. As the transit agency with the second largest service area in the nation, it is necessary to have standards and warrants that better reflect the demographics and characteristics in western Riverside County, namely the differences in service levels for regional, local, rural, and express bus service which are not common to most transit operators and are unique to the region. Service standards are also used to evaluate numerous requests and proposals for service modifications that are received from a variety of sources including customers, employees, transit professionals and technical resources. With standards in place, a criterion is used to measure how and when service modifications will take effect. New service warrants are also necessary for the design and implementation of new routes because it provides a rationale by which new services can be justified. Service standards and warrants, sometimes known as design standards and guidelines at other transit agencies, is different and independent of Riverside County Transportation Commission’s (RCTC) Productivity Improvement Program (PIP). While PIP is an effective tool in the measurement of performance, its primary purpose is to determine financial viability of service. There are eight measures in the PIP, but there are two bellwethers of change that are more closely monitored, which are Farebox Recovery and Passengers per Revenue Hour. These are the primary measurements for determining service performance based on the PIP standards. Farebox recovery is the only mandatory target. For the other targets, the Agency must meet or exceed four of the remaining seven to continue receiving Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding as a transit commission requirement. The mandatory target, farebox recovery, is mandated by the State of California and requires that a transit agency maintain a minimum threshold to continue receipt of Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. The farebox recovery ratio is Currently, the Agency’s farebox recovery target is 16.85 percent, a blended percentage based on a requirement for urbanized transit service to maintain a farebox recovery of 20 percent and rural transit service to maintain a farebox recovery of 10 percent. The required passenger per revenue hour target is 10.36. Each PIP target is updated annually with RTA’s Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). In addition to these factors, service change recommendations are based on analysis inclusive of public comments, ridership data and operational characteristics. As part of the adoption of the COA, a recommendation was made to set the requirements for a minimum level of service that respects quality, design characteristics such as route structure, service area coverage, operating hours, and on-time performance. Since the acceptance of the COA as a service planning tool, the economy has taken a downturn. What would normally be standards to consider service enhancements can be used to maintain agency service stability. The same standards for considering service enhancements can also provide an objective way to assist in making fair and balanced service reductions. Productivity Improvement Program 1. Farebox Recovery Ratio Mandatory 1. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour 2. Subsidy Per Passenger 3. Subsidy Per Passenger Mile 4. Subsidy Per Hour 5. Subsidy Per Mile 6. Passengers Per Revenue Hour 7. Passengers Per Revenue Mile Meet 4 out of 7 Area % of Fixed Route Distance Urban 85%1500 ft Non-Urban 100%Undefined II. Service Standards There are several factors that are typically considered when objectively measuring service performance. These factors in addition to the PIP help in the determination of whether service is effective at meeting the common needs of the community. A. Population Density The level of service to provide is determined by the number of people to serve in a particular area. Population density can be measured in miles, by zip code, census zone, neighborhoods or any number of logical factors. Typically density is measured in the number of people per square mile since FTA recognizes coverage based on distance from service in miles. Density is determined in two fundamental ways-- number people housed per square mile or the number of employees per square mile. RTA staff works with city and county planners to estimate current and future density to properly plan for future public transportation access. A typical standard of route design is such that 85% of all residences, places of work, secondary and post secondary schools, shopping centers, and public facilities in the RTA urban transit service area are within a walking distance of 1,500ft. of a bus stop during the daytime Monday through Saturday. Western Riverside County is comprised of a highly diverse transit market. However, less than two percent of the 1.7 million service area population comprises the ridership of RTA. Further, when measured by census tract, about 23 percent of the over 2,500 square miles is designated by the Bureau of Census as urbanized area, or a “UZA” within western Riverside County. A large UZA consists of a population over 200,000 a nd in RTA’s service area, the greater Riverside area qualifies. All small UZA’s consist of a population over 50,000. The Hemet/San Jacinto area qualifies as a small UZA. When evaluating the density of an area the demand for service is also considered. Some areas have significant density but have little service demand. Automobile centric and higher income communities are but a few examples of areas that may have sufficient density with little demand for public transit. B. Route Classifications Route Classifications help to define the type of service to operate based on the density of the area in which the service is routed. RTA service can be classified into four fixed route categories – regional, local, rural and express. Complementary to the fixed route service is paratransit service, also known as Dial-a-Ride. Regional route service is the backbone of the network as it operates between metropolitan areas on primary corridors and may utilize the freeway system to travel between communities. It is not uncommon for regional service to travel through non-urban areas to link two urban areas. Within a metropolitan area stops are spaced at urban intervals (based on the ¼ mile walking distance of determining stop locations, see D. Bus Stop Spacing), which for RTA these routes serve a secondary purpose of transporting passengers locally. Local routes supplement regional routes by circulating through various neighborhoods and serving secondary corridors. A local route also serves as feeder routes to regional and express routes and transports customers within a community on shorter trips. Bus stop spacing is at urban service intervals. Local service is further defined by routes that are operated directly by RTA and those that are contracted to private sector service providers. Routes operated directly account for about three-quarters of the system-wide ridership. In defining standards in the categories of span of service and headways there are Local – Direct and Local – Contracted classifications. An exclusive Rural route serves as lifeline service that feeds regional service. The service is for the most part limited in operation and serves secondary roadways within non-urbanized areas. Given the growth of western Riverside County, rural route service is primarily limited to portions of Regional route service and areas between cities. Express routes provide limited stop service designed to transport commuters to and from employment sites and provide connections to service outside western Riverside County. Labeled as CommuterLink, these buses use the freeway system to provide faster service. Trolley routes and Special service are designed to meet the needs of a specific market or community and often are designed as a circulator to serve a targeted group with common travel patterns. Dial-A-Ride (paratransit) service complements fixed route service for customers who are physically challenged and are unable to navigate their way to a bus stop. DAR service is offered curb to curb within three-quarters of a mile of fixed-route service, excluding express routes. Passengers eligible for the service are seniors and those qualified under the ADA law. When used effectively route classifications provide the community with a balanced service structure. The following table highlights the classification of each fixed-route: 1 Regional 3 Local 10 Local 7 Local 11 Local 8 Local 12 Local 23 Local 13 Local 24 Local 14 Local 30 Local 15 Local 31 Rural 1 16 Local 32 Local 18 Local 33 Local 19 Regional 35 Regional 20 Regional 40 Rural 1 21 Local 41 Regional 22 Regional 42 Local 25 Local 50 Trolley 27 Regional 51 Trolley 29 Regional 53 Trolley 41 Regional 55 Trolley 49 Regional 61 Regional 216 149 2 Express 74 Regional 206 Express 79 Regional 202 Express 204 Express 208 Express 210 Express 212 Express 217 Express Directly Operated Routes Contract Operated Routes 1 Rural areas are those with less than 50,000 in population. 2 To be renamed Route 216 effective July 2010. C. Span of Service The span of service, the hours of operation, refers to the start and end time of a route. Depending on the route structure (i.e., regional, local, rural, express), the span of service will vary depending on the demand in the community. In urbanized areas, bus service is expected to start earlier and end later in the day; whereas, for local and rural routes, the demand for earlier and later service may not be present. The days of operation also contribute to when bus service will be provided. In RTA’s system, all fixed-routes are proposed to operate weekdays from at least 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and, depending on the density, can start as early as 4:00 a.m. and stay in service until 10:30 p.m. on weekdays under ideal times. Under the current economic conditions and to continue to provide customers with adequate service, the service hours for local routes are proposed to be curtailed. a. Weekday service standards for Locals: Local- Direct services are recommended to start between the hours of 4:30 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. and end between the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Local – Contract services are recommended to start between the hours of 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and end between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. b. Saturday service standards for Locals: Local- Direct services are recommended to start between the hours of 5:30 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and end between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.; Local – Contract services are recommended to start between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and end between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. c. Sunday service standards for Locals: Local – Direct service is recommended to start between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and end between the hours of 6:00pm to 8:00 p.m.; Local – Contract services are recommended to start between the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and end between the hours of 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Ridership on weekdays accounts for the majority of boarding activities and is mainly attributed to riders who utilize public transit for employment purposes. On weekends, the hours of service is reduced as demand is lower resulting from most people having a traditional weekday work schedule. Route Classification Start Range End Range Start Range End Range Start Range End Range Local - Direct 4:30 AM - 6:30 AM 8:00 PM - 10:00 PM 5:30 AM - 7:30 AM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Local - Contract 5:30 AM - 7:30 AM 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM 6:30 AM - 8:30 AM 5:30 PM - 7:30 PM Regional - Direct 4:00 AM - 6:00 AM 8:30 PM - 10:30 PM 5:00 AM - 7:00 AM 7:30 PM - 9:30 PM 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM Regional - Contract 5:00 AM - 7:00 AM 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Rural 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM 6:00 AM - 8:00 AM 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Express Trolley or Special BRT 4:00 AM 10:00 PM 5:00 AM 9:00 PM 5:00 AM 9:00 PM Dial-A-Ride Not Applicable Varies based on targeted market or community Based on hours of fixed-routes, excluding Express and BRT Not ApplicablePeak Hours Weekday Saturday Sunday For Regional routes such as RTA’s Route 1 or 49, the service standard recommendations are as follows: a. Weekday service standards for Regionals: Regional- Direct services are recommended to start between the hours of 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. and end between the hours of 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.; Regional – Contract services are recommended to start between the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and end between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. b. Saturday service standards for Regionals: Regional- Direct services are recommended to start between the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and end between the hours of 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.; Regional – Contract services are recommended to start between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and end between the hours of 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. c. Sunday service standards for Regionals: Regional – Direct service is recommended to start between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and end between the hours of 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; Regional – Contract services are recommended to start between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and end between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Rural routes, primarily lifeline routes, are recommended to start between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and end between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Rural areas those with less than 50,000 in population. Express routes operate during peak hours in the morning and evening to accommodate commuters. The hours of operation are adjusted based on peak direction commute patterns to meet commuter trains and regional employment centers start and end times. Ridership can necessitate modifications to the peak hours in order to accommodate additional service demand, such as seasonal weekday and weekend trips or overflow capacities. Trolley and Special routes operate based on the customer market base, whether it is aimed at transporting commuters or students and its days of operation may also vary depending on whether the demand for service is seasonal. Dial-A-Ride service coincides with the hours of fixed-route service. D. Bus Stop Spacing Route coverage refers to the spacing distance between adjoining routes. This criterion is used to guide spacing between bus stops to maximize patron accessibility to transit service within the resources available. Depending on the population density, bus stop spacing in RTA urbanized areas usually averages about 1,500 ft. (.28 miles) to 2,500 ft. (.47 miles). As service approaches more suburban and rural areas, bus stop spacing may be limited to locations with accessible curb and gutters and sidewalks suitable for compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). For express routes that travel longer distances, the number of bus stops will be limited and are located in cities and communities that will attract the greatest number of commuters traveling in the same direction. Density Characteristics Bus Stop Spacing Very High- Over 5,000 persons per sq mile (e.g., activity centers such as hospitals and universities) Density = 16-30 units/acre Every 1/8 mile to ¼ mile High- 4,000 to 5,000 persons per sq mile (e.g., apartments, senior housing, offices, and commercial centers) Density = 8-15 units/acre Every ¼ mile Medium- 2,000 to 4,000 persons per sq mile Density = 5-7 units/acre Every ¼ mile to ½ mile Low or Rural- Less than 2,000 persons per sq mile Density = 1-4 units/acre Every ¼ mile to 1 mile or more if outside development area Bus stop spacing has an impact on average speed of service. The more stops a bus makes the lower the average speed of travel. E. On-Time Performance On-time performance, also known as schedule adherence reporting, is the deviation of actual arrival and departure time from the timetable or schedule. On- time performance standards vary in the industry depending on the size of the transit operator, generally the larger the size of operations the more stringent the standard. (TCRP, 1995) Other factors such as density and route distances are also considered in setting an on-time standard. RTA is considered a medium size operator and requires that no bus shall leave a time point early, and should arrive at a time point no later than 6 minutes after the scheduled arrival time. This 6 minute window is appropriate for RTA’s service area due to the average distance traveled by each route and the combined rural and urban areas. Transit agencies typically set a standard in percentages of on-time arrivals that they desire to achieve as a measure of good service quality. Among medium size transit systems the typical desired level of on-time performances is between 80 to 95 percent. One theory in setting standards is to set targets. A desired standard may not be On-Time Performance Target On-Time 0 to 6 minutes Standard 90% FY 2011 Target 85% achievable within the first year or so given the starting point of the current conditions. An example is if on-time performance is 62 percent, achieving a standard of 90 percent maybe difficult within 12 months of operations without significant investment of resources. Setting a target below the standard, say of 80 percent, would act as a way to benchmark service improvements over the course of a 12 month period. To make gains towards improving on-time performance, agencies establish targets that demonstrate continuous improvements as they work toward standards. With the use of ITS software on-time performance is collected daily and measured monthly for all directly operated routes. Contracted service on-time performance is measured by supervisor surveys randomly each week. The average number of checks is 28.5 per day. Given the two different ways of collecting on-time performance data and blending the two types of operations, a standard of 85 percent or above is believed achievable. Using the theory of setting targets to reach a goal, the standard of 90 percent could be set with a first year target of achieving over 85 percent schedule adherence. Should the on-time performance of a specific route fall below the target of 85%, a schedule adherence analysis will be conducted to improve the running time. F. Headways Headway, also known as frequency, is the maximum interval between each scheduled fixed route bus (e.g., the bus runs every 30 minutes). Headways are essential to the quality of service. Studies such as RTA’s COA have found that higher frequency headways correlate to higher ridership. However, this conventional theory is true if demand is supported by high density. In RTA’s system, headways range anywhere from every 20 minutes to every 120 minutes, depending on the density and demand for service. As services are routed away from urbanized areas, maximum intervals are higher. Clock-face schedules are an attribute of consistent headways and are intervals of 20 minute in- crements for the purpose of this analysis. RTA’s COA study recommends that headways on most routes in the urban area be at intervals of at least 15 minutes. Based on financial and resource constraints, staff finds a closer match for headways to be at intervals of 20/40/60 Route Class Freq in 20 min increments FY 2011 Target Local - Direct 40/60 40-70 Local - Contract 40/60 60-90 80 Regional 20/40/60 20-100 Rural 60-120 60-120 Express Varies Varies Trolley/Special Varies Varies BRT 10-15 N/A Dial-A-Ride N/A N/A minutes for Local route service. This means that all route schedules would operate at 20, 40, or 60 minutes. Regional service headways currently expand to every 100 minutes. Clock-face schedules can be a powerful marketing tool as the customer can depend on service coming at specific time intervals. Effort is given to timing transfers based on headway intervals. G. Transfer Wait Time Transfer wait time is the time a customer has to wait for another bus route to arrive at a transfer point. The COA proposes that at timed transfer points, buses should be scheduled so that the wait time is not longer than 5 minutes for arriving buses or Metrolink trains. However, to more closely match the geographic and demographic demands of the system, timed transfers can vary depending on the distance and frequency of a route. In more urbanized areas such as downtown Riverside, transfer wait times will not be longer than approximately 20 minutes. However, in smaller urbanized and even in rural areas, the transfer wait time can reach up to 30 to 45 minutes depending on the frequencies of the routes in the area. For a regional route, RTA expects that transfer wait times should not exceed 20 minutes. For local and rural routes, transfer wait times should not exceed 30 to 45 minutes. For an express route, which is usually timed to train transfers, transfer wait time should not exceed 20 to 30 minutes. H. Load Factor The maximum vehicle loadings refer to the maximum number of passenger s per bus, including standees. Depending on the bus, the maximum number of passengers should not exceed 150% of the seating capacity or the legal weight limit of the bus. Load factors are based on the type of vehicle and service route classification type. RTA’s fixed-route fleet consists of four six types of vehicles each having varying standee limitations. The only service which should not exceed the seated capacity is on Dial-A-Ride vehicles. Route classification variations are based on the type of in-service operation. For example Express route, CommuterLink service, is not recommended to have standees given the high amount of in-service freeway time at high speeds and limited stopping. While on the other hand, Regional routes cover a broad distance at slower speeds utilizing local corridor roads and have many stops. Standees under these conditions are permitted. Similarly, Local routes have many stops and travel below local road speeds during the majority of the in-service operation. Standees can be permitted up to the legal limit of the bus. Bus Size/Route Classification Max. Seated Capacity Max. Standees *Max. Vehicle Loadings 40 ft. Bus 38-44 seats Regional 16-19 standees 143% Local 16-19 standees 143% Express 0 standees 100% 27-32 ft Bus 24-27 seats Regional 10-12 standees 143% Local 10-12 standees 143% Express 0 standees 100% 22-24 ft. Bus 12-14 seats Regional 0 standees 100% Local 0 standees 100% Rural 0 standees 100% *Size and seats may vary by bus design. Bus Size/Route Classification Max. Seated Capacity Max. Standees * 40-ft. (NABI)40 29 30-ft. (Thomas)27 18 29-ft. (Type VII)24 7 27-ft. (E-Lo)21 4 27-ft. (Trolley)26/27 12/19 24-ft. (Type II)12 5 Dial-A-Ride vehicles should not exceed 100% of the seated capacity. Trolley and Special service load factor will be determined based on service needs. III. Productivity vs. Coverage Target To help improve effectiveness and efficiency it is prudent to set a target for the productivity level of service to operate. In order to meet productivity requirements while continuing to provide coverage to areas that would not be serviced if performance were the only factor, peer agencies have adopted standards requiring 60 to 80 percent of their fixed route service to perform up to productivity factors and 20 to 40 percent of fixed route service operated as coverage routes to meet the standards. Currently overall RTA service is about 50/50 (productive/coverage). The service that exceeds performance standards enables the Agency to provide more effective and efficient operations in areas of need that do not meet performance standards. Given RTA’s diverse service area, there are places that are being served based on the need to provide coverage. To maximize cost efficiency, a higher percentage of service should be designed to improve productivity and a smaller percentage of service designed based on coverage. With a greater percentage of service being productive affords the Agency the flexibility to sustain service based on coverage. The approved proposed criteria for all new and existing service iscriterion for all new and existing service is for 60 percent to be productive and 40 percent to be based on coverage. This establishes the benchmark for productive service to meet mandatory farebox recovery. However, it also allows for new service to be implemented following TDA guidelines for exemption of inclusion and exclusion based on performance standards within the year the service was implemented and the following two fiscal years. The 60/40 split is recommended based on the Agency’s large service area that includes both urban and rural routes. This objective enables transit operators to maintain highly productive service and still meet the requirements of the Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is the policy of RTA to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. IV. New Service Warrants The Service Standards described herein are used as a measurement for the implementation of new service. Over time, PIP targets are updated annually change and new service can be exempted from meeting the required criteria for up to two years. The performance of new service is evaluated during this initial period on whether or not it meets the Productivity or Coverage target. If a route fails to perform up to standards, it may be discontinued. To maximize cost efficiency, a higher percentage of service should be designed to improve productivity and a smaller percentage of service designed based on coverage. With a greater percentage of service being productive affords the Agency the flexibility to sustain service based on coverage. The proposed criteria for all new and existing service is for 60 percent to be productive and 40 percent to be based on coverage. This establishes the benchmark for productive service to meet mandatory farebox recovery. However, it also allows for new service to be implemented following TDA guidelines for exemption of inclusion and exclusion based on performance standards within the year the service was implemented and the following two fiscal years. The 60/40 split is recommended based on the Agency’s large service area that includes both urban and rural routes. This objective enables transit operators to maintain highly productive service and still meet the requirements of the Title VI Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is the policy of RTA to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so that no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. IV. New Service Warrants The Service Standards described herein are used as a measurement for the implementation of new service. Over time, PIP targets change and new service can be exempted from meeting the required criteria for up to two years. The performance of new service is evaluated during this initial period on whether or not it meets the Productivity or Coverage target. If a route fails to perform up to standards, it may be discontinued. APPENDIX C: TITLE VI POLICY AND PROCEDURES RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY TITLE VI COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE (Approved 11/18/10) It is the policy of the Riverside Transit Agency, as a grant recipient of the Federal Transit Administration, to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 49 CFR, Part 21; related statutes and regulations to that end that no person shall be excluded from participation in or be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, under any program or activity receiving financial assistance. Any complaint alleging that the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) has not complied with Title VI regulations may be reported through the RTA Customer Information Center at 1-800-800-7821. Any perceived discriminatory complaint will be handled by Human Resources. Human Resources Department will be responsible investigating the complaint and will request that it be followed-up in writing to the Chief Executive Officer, P.O. Box 59968, Riverside, CA 92517. The complainant may use the RTAs Title VI Complaint Form to submit their complaint, or if the form is not used, the written complaint must at a minimum, provide the following information: a) the specific act(s) of RTA’s non-compliance in question; b) the date(s) of RTA’s non-compliance in question; c) specify the reasons why the complaining party believes that RTA is not in compliance with the Title VI regulation(s) in question; d) the name and address of the complainant (and person discriminated against if different from complainant); and e) if applicable, the Title VI minority status of the complainant (or person discriminated against if different from complainant) . f) Upon receipt of the written Title VI Complaint, the Chief Executive Officer will contact the Director of Human Resources to provide a summary of the complaint, and request an investigation of the complaint: The Director of HR will coordinate efforts into investigating the act(s) of non-compliance with Title VI regulations alleged in the complaint and preparing a written response. The written response will be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer within 10 business days from the date it is received by the Director of HR. Upon review of the written investigation submission and any independent investigation deemed appropriate conducted by the RTA, the Chief Executive Officer will either: a) render a decision which will be final, and advise all interested parties of this decision in writing; or b) at the sole election of the Chief Executive Officer, conduct an informal hearing at which the interested participating parties will be afforded an opportunity to present their respective position, including facts, documents, justification, and technical information in support thereof. • The parties may be, but are not required to be, represented by counsel at the informal hearing, which will not be subject to formal rules of evidence or procedures. • Following the informal hearing, the Chief Executive Officer will render a decision, which will be final, and advise all interested parties thereof in writing. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TITLE VI COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE Parties dissatisfied with the final decision of the Riverside Transit Agency Chief Executive Officer, whether following review of the written submission or informal hearing, may submit their complaint to the FTA at the address below no later than 180 days after the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by FTA. Federal Transit Administration Office of Civil Rights Attn: Title VI Program Coordinator 400 7th Street SW Room 9100 Washington, DC 20590 COMPLAINT ACCEPTANCE Once a complaint has been accepted by FTA for investigation, FTA will notify the recipient or subrecipient that it has been subject to a Title VI complaint and ask the agency to respond in writing to the complainant’s allegations. Once the complainant agrees to release the complaint to the recipient or subrecipient, FTA will provide the agency with the complaint. If the complainant does not agree to release the complaint to the recipient or subrecipient, FTA may choose to close the complaint. FTA strives to complete Title VI complaint investigation within 180 days of the date that FTA accepts the complaint for investigation. INVESTIGATION FTA will make a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply with this part. The investigation will include, where appropriate, a review of the pertinent practices and policies of the recipient, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with this part occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination as to whether the recipient has failed to comply with Title VI. LETTERS OF FINDING AND RESOLUTION After the investigation has been completed FTA’s Office of Civil Rights will transmit to the complainant and the grantee one of the following three letters based on its findings: a. A letter of resolution that explains the steps the recipient or subrecipient has taken or promises to take to come into compliance with Title VI. b. A letter of finding that is issued when the recipient or subrecipient is not found to be in noncompliance with Title VI. This letter will include an explanation of why the recipient or subrecipient was not found to be in non-compliance, and provide notification of the complainant’s appeal rights. If applicable, the letter can include a list of procedural violations or concerns, which can put the recipient or subrecipient on notice that certain practices are questionable and that without corrective steps, a future violation finding is possible. c. A letter of finding that is issued when the recipient or subrecipient is found to be in noncompliance. This letter will include each violation referenced as to the applicable regulations, a brief description of proposed remedies, notice of the time limit on the conciliation process, the consequences of failure to achieve voluntary compliance, and an offer of assistance to the recipient or subrecipient in devising a remedial plan for compliance, if appropriate. APPEALS PROCESS The letters of finding and resolution will offer the complainant and the recipient or subrecipient the opportunity to provide additional information that would lead FTA to reconsider its conclusions. In general, FTA requests that the parties in the compliant provide this additional information within 60 days of the date the FTA letter of finding was transmitted. After reviewing this information, FTA’s Office of Civil Rights will respond either by issuing a revised letter of resolution or finding to the appealing party, or by informing the appealing party that the original letter of resolution or finding remains in force. FTA strives to transmit these letters within 30 to 60 days of receiving the appeal. APPENDIX D: LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP) POLICY Riverside Transit Agency Limited English Proficiency Policy (Approved 4/23/09) Background: Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” directs each Federal agency to develop and implement a system by which Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons can meaningfully access those services and published guidance for their respective funding recipients in order to assist them with their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In response, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published guidance requiring that DOT funding recipients take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to the benefits, services, information, and other important portions of their programs and activities for LEP persons. I. Policy RTA is committed to taking reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to its services, including route information, telephone based customer service, instructional rider information, fare information, public meeting notices, applications for discounted fares and other customer-based materials. RTA shall base “meaningful access” on the following four factors provided in the DOT LEP Guidance document: 1. The number and proportion of LEP persons served or encountered in the eligible service population 2. The frequency with which LEP individuals come into contact with RTA’s programs, activities and services 3. The nature and importance of the program, activity or service 4. The costs of implementation and the resources available II. Procedures 1. At each service change, RTA shall perform a Language Needs Assessment to determine the language demographics of its service area using one or both of the following methods: a. Use census data to identify the percentage of LEP persons by census tract. LEP persons will be defined as those who identified themselves in the census data as speaking English “less than well” or “not at all.” b. Conduct a valid ridership survey to identify the percent of RTA riders that are LEP persons. 2. If the percentage of LEP persons in a particular census tract is significant or if the ridership survey shows a significant percentage of RTA’s riders are LEP persons, RTA will identify the primary language(s) of those individuals and implement the following steps: a. All instructional and informational rider materials and passenger notices shall be translated into the identified language(s) and published in conjunction with the English versions. b. All public hearing notices shall be published in English in an English language newspaper and also published in the identified language(s) in newspapers that are published in the identified language(s), while following all requirements set forth in the RTA Public Hearing Policy. c. All public hearing notices shall contain the following verbiage in English and the identified language(s): Any Person who requires a translation into a language other than English in order to participate in this meeting should contact RTA at (951) 565- 5000, no fewer than two business days prior to this meeting to enable RTA to make reasonable arrangements to assure a translator at this meeting. d. The RTA Customer Information Center (CIC) shall strive to schedule at least one person capable of speaking the indentified language(s) at all times. e. Major parts of the RTA website shall be offered in English and the identified language(s). f. Pictographs shall be used on the buses whenever possible to instruct and depict necessary information and procedures. g. Notices shall be posted on buses and in the RTA lobby that assistance is available at no charge in English and the identified language(s). h. Information displays at community events where it is likely that significant numbers of LEP persons will attend shall be staffed by at least one person fluent in the identified language(s) as practical. RTA printed information at the event shall be available in English and the identified language(s). i. All applications for discounted fares shall be in English and the identified language(s). j. All surveys shall be in English and the identified language(s). k. All Board of Directors agendas shall contain the following verbiage in English and the identified language(s): Any Person who requires a translation of the Board proceedings into a language other than English in order to participate in this meeting should contact the RTA Clerk of the Board, telephone number (951) 565-5044, no fewer than two business days prior to this meeting to enable RTA to make reasonable arrangements to assure a translator at this meeting 3. All Title VI complaint forms shall be available in English and the identified language(s). 4. On an annual basis, RTA staff shall evaluate the LEP policy and, if necessary, recommend to the Board any changes based on input from the following sources: a. Formal comments from the public b. Feedback from Board members, customers, community members and RTA staff c. Input and recommendations from federal and state officials d. Changes in regulations APPENDIX E: PUBLIC HEARING POLICY Riverside Transit Agency Public Hearings Policy (Approved 4/23/09) Background: The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) periodically makes changes to routing, timetables and fares. Because these changes can affect RTA customers, the Agency and the Board need to consider public input when deciding or approving these types of proposed changes. This creates the need for policy defining when and how public hearings will be held. I. Policy RTA will hold at least one public hearing, advertised for no fewer than 30 days prior, in order to receive public comments for: 1. All proposed fare changes 2. All routing and timetable reductions that exceed 25 percent of their current configurations All input received from the public shall be provided to the Board of Directors for their consideration in evaluating proposed changes. II. Procedures 1. All public hearings shall be held during a regular meeting of the RTA Board of Directors. 2. RTA shall advertise notice of public hearing in general circulation paper(s) no fewer than 30 days prior to the public hearing. 3. In addition to the public hearing, RTA may also offer a public comment period during which public comments will be accepted by any standard method of communication during public comment meetings or at RTA headquarters. 4. RTA staff will provide a summary of all public input received during the public comment period to the Board for their consideration in evaluating proposed changes. 5. The Board will vote on changes, and RTA will publicize their decision back to the public. FY 2011/12 – FY 2013/14 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN JUNE 2009 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW .................................................................. 2 1.1 Description of Service Area ..................................................................... 2 SunBus System Map ............................................................................... 3 1.2 Population Profile and Demographic Projections .................................. 4 1.3 Fixed Route Transit Services and Paratransit Service ............................ 4 Fixed Route Information ................................................................... 5 - 15 Paratransit Service ............................................................................... 16 1.4 Current Fare Structure and Proposed Fare Structure ........................... 17 1.5 Revenue Fleet ....................................................................................... 18 1.6 Existing Facilities and Planned Facilities ............................................... 18 1.7 Taxi Administration ................................................................................ 18 CHAPTER 2 EXISTING SERVICE and ROUTE PERFORMANCE ............... 21 2.1 Fixed Route Service - Route by Route Analysis .................................... 21 2.2 Paratransit Service - System Performance ............................................ 22 2.3 Key Performance Indicators .................................................................. 24 2.4 Productivity Improvement Efforts ........................................................... 24 2.5 Service Standards & Warrants ............................................................. 24 2.6 Major Trip Generators and Projected Growth over Next 2 Years ......... 25 2.7 Equipment, Passenger Amenities and Facility Needs ........................... 25 CHAPTER 3 PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES and IMPLEMENTATION ...... 32 3.1 Recent Service Changes ....................................................................... 32 3.2 Recommended New Local Route ......................................................... 32 3.3 Service Modification & Adjustments ..................................................... 35 3.4 Marketing Plans and Promotion............................................................. 35 3.5 Budget Impact on Proposed Changes ................................................... 35 CHAPTER 4 FINANCIAL and CAPITAL PLANS .......................................... 44 4.1 Operating and Capital Budget .............................................................. 44 4.2 Funding Plans to Support Proposed Operating and Capital ................. 44 4.3 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements ........................................... 45 FIGURES Figure 1 SunBus System Map ..................................................................... 3 Figure 2 SunBus Fare Structure ................................................................. 17 Figure 3 SunDial Fare Structure ................................................................. 17 Figure 4 Analysis of FY 2009/10 Performance Statistics ........................... 21 Figure 5 Fixed Route Service Annual Ridership Comparison .................... 22 Figure 6 Comparison of SunDial FY 08/09 & FY 09/10 Ridership ............... 22 Figure 7 SunDial Service Annual Ridership Comparison ........................... 24 TABLES Table 1 Fleet Inventory ........................................................................ 19-20 Table 2 Ridership Data ...................................................................... 27 - 31 Table 3A Individual Route Description ......................................................... 36 Table 3B FY 2010/11 New Route Exemption Sheet .................................... 37 Table 3C Data Elements and Route Statistics ...................................... 38 - 43 Table 4 Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12 ............................ 47 Table 4A Capital Project Justification for FY 2011/12 .......................... 48 - 59 Table 4.1 Summary of Funds Requested in FY 2011/12 ............................. 60 Table 4.1A Universal Call for Projects Capital Project Justification ................ 61 Table 5 Summary of Funds Requested for FY 2011/12 & FY 2012/13 ......... 62 Table 5.A Capital Project Justification FY 2011/12 ................................ 63 - 70 Table 5.1 Summary of Funds for FY 2013/14 ................................................ 71 Table 6 Audit Performance ........................................................................ 72 Table 7 Service Provider Performance Target Report .............................. 73 Table 8 SRTP Performance Report .......................................................... 74 Table 9 Highlights of FY 2010/11 SRTP ................................................... 75 1 INTRODUCTION The Fiscal Year (FY) 2011/12-2013/14 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) sets the objectives for FY 2011/12 for SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) transit services and capital improvement plan for the Coachella Valley. The SRTP is developed within the context of the regional planning process aimed at implementing SunLine’s participation in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan. The development of the SRTP is essential in that it enables staff to fulfill directions from SunLine’s Board of Directors and the agency’s mission. The FY 2011/12-2013/14 SRTP presents strategic plan for service improvements and capital projects to achieve the objective of the mission statement. The SRTP will be submitted to the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for approval which will set the framework for request for federal funds as required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The SRTP is a three-year capital and operating plan which is approved by SunLine’s Board of Directors and RCTC. RCTC is responsible for oversight, funding and coordination of all public transportation services in Riverside County. Although the SRTP is a three-year plan, only the first year of the plan is funded with the remaining two years provided for planning purposes. The SRTP consists of information on SunLine’s services and operating characteristics and the annual budget, which is incorporated in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP), State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), and Federal Transportation Improvement Plan (FTIP). For the FY 2011/12-2013/14 SRTP, SunLine is considering implementing one new route, as well as realigning an existing route in FY 2011/2012. Based on the most recent population projection, there are over 400,000 permanent residents that reside in the Coachella Valley. The latest population figures are based on estimates from the State Department of Finance. Furthermore, projections by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) indicates the population of the Valley will increase to more than one million residents by 2035 and with employment estimates for the Valley also doubling by the same year. MISSION STATEMENT To provide safe and environmentally conscious public transportation services and alternate fuel solutions to meet the mobility needs of the Coachella Valley. 2 CHAPTER 1 – SYSTEM OVERVIEW 1.1 Description of Service Area SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) is a Joint Powers Authority created in 1977 to provide public transit service to its member cities and unincorporated communities in the Coachella Valley. Member cities include Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio, Coachella, and the unincorporated communities of Thermal, Mecca, Oasis, Bermuda Dunes, and Thousand Palms. SunLine’s Board of Directors consists of elected officials from member cities and Riverside County who provide policy direction to the General Manager and staff. The Board meets monthly and if necessary, may meet more than once to address pressing operational and budgeting issues. SunLine’s service area is 1,120 square miles with transit service offered throughout the Coachella Valley. The Agency is located approximately 120 miles east of the Los Angeles Basin, 60 miles east of the Riverside/San Bernardino Inland Empire, between the San Gorgonio Pass on the west and the Salton Sea on the southeast. The System Map is shown on page 3. SunLine’s fixed route service, SunBus, consists of 11 routes connecting the Valley from Desert Hot Springs to Mecca. Buses operate 363 days a year, with no service on Thanksgiving and Christmas. The span of service starts from 4:50 a.m. and ends at 11:30 p.m. seven days a week. Buses operate every 20 to 90 minutes, depending on the route and day of the week. Line 111 is the major trunk line that extends from Indio to Palm Springs, with all routes feeding into that route. Service information on each route is discussed on the next several pages beginning on page 5. The most recent survey undertaken by the Agency highlighted four categories of fixed route riders: workers, students, seniors and visitors, of which seventy-one percent are employed or students. Seventy-nine percent are low income, transit dependent, and use SunBus five days or more. The survey results indicated that the typical SunLine rider speaks English and Spanish, have an average income of $20,000 and are between the ages of 23 to 65. School and work are the overriding trip generators, followed by shopping, medical care and recreation. Most commuter trips within Coachella Valley are concentrated in the City of Palm Desert, with twenty-three percent of all work trips ending in Palm Desert. Data compiled for trip purposes show that commuting patterns are focused in Palm Desert with most passengers traveling from the cities of Cathedral City, Indio, La Quinta and Palm Springs to Palm Desert. There are also strong commuting patterns between La Quinta and Indio, and also from Coachella to Indio and other segments of the Valley as well. Most commute trips in the system occur along Highway 111, with nearly all destinations served directly by Line 111. 3 Effective January 2, 2011 4 1.2 Population Profile and Demographic Projection A review of cities with the most increase in their population from April 2000 through April 2010 indicates the City of Coachella grew by 79.1% followed by the cities of La Quinta, Indio, Desert Hot Springs, Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells. According to the State Department of Finance data sources, more than 70,000 people moved to the aforementioned cities with the cities of Indio and Coachella gaining the most. Overall, the population in Coachella Valley continues to grow. 1.3 Fixed Route Transit Services and Paratransit Service Fixed Route Service • Regional Services - These are highly traveled corridors that service a variety of trip purposes and connect a variety of regional destinations. These routes also comprise the backbone of the network and may utilize the freeway to travel between communities. An example is the Line 111 which travels from Palm Springs to Indio. Typically, the frequency of this type of service is 15 minutes or better with consistent service provided throughout the day, and has wider bus stop spacing • Sub-regional Services – These routes operate on well traveled corridors linking two cities together. Examples include Lines 14, 30, 32, 50, 70, 90, and 91. Ideally, this type of service meets a wide range of travel needs and is geared towards travel between two or more cities. Frequency for this kind of service is 30 minutes or better all day with a minimum of all day weekday service throughout the service area. Sub-regional service is convenient and provides connections to regional bus service. • Community-Based Services – These routes are established to provide benefits for local communities and offers an all-day circulation as well as connection to regional or sub-regional routes. Lines 24 and 80 are examples of this type of service. Community-based service are also referred to as local service that have consistent service through the day, have frequencies of 60 minutes or better, and have frequent stops for passengers to access as many destinations as possible. • Market-Based Services – These types of services are tailored to serve specific segments at specific times of the day, including supplemental service such as school trippers. These routes have flexible routing and schedule, may vary throughout the day and week, and are tailored to specific market targets and defined market needs. Information about SunLine’s fixed route service, including a combination of regional, sub-regional and community-based services are provided on the next several pages. 5 LINE 14: WEST & PIERSON TO PALM CANYON & BARISTO Line 14 serves the cities of Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs. The route connects to Line 24 (Palm Springs), Line 30 (Cathedral City/Palm Springs), Line 32 (Thousand Palms/Rancho Mirage/Palm Desert/Cathedral City/Palm Springs), and Line 111 (Highway 111). The route links riders with local shopping centers, middle and high schools, and other services within the community of Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs. The route offers service to the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Employment Development Department, and a number of the retail centers along the route. Line 14 operates 28 roundtrips weekdays on 35- minute headways, and 20 roundtrips during weekends on 45-minute headways. PALMMISSION LAKES WESTDESERT HOT SPRINGS PIERSON GENE AUTRY TRLVISTA CHINO SUNRISEFARRELLTAHQUITZ PALM SPRINGSPALM CYNCALLE ENCILIARAMON BARISTO 10 DILLON TIME POINT 6 LINE 15: BI-DIRECTIONAL LOOP TWO BUNCH PALMS & PALM DRIVE Line 15 serves the community of Desert Hot Springs, which connects to Line 14 (Palm Springs/Desert Hot Springs) and links riders with local shopping centers, middle and high schools, and other services provided within the City of Desert Hot Springs. Line 15 offers service to the community center, K-Mart and the Stater Brothers stores. The route operates 21 trips on weekdays and 18 trips on weekends. TWO BUNCH PALMS HACIENDA WESTCUANDOPIERSON DESERT HOT SPRINGS DON ENGLISH WAYPALM 7 LINE 24: TAHQUITZ & FARRELL TO PALM CANYON & STEVENS Line 24 offers service in Palm Springs with passengers connecting to Line 14 (Desert Hot Springs/Cathedral City/Palm Springs), Line 30 (Cathedral City/Palm Springs), Line 32 (Thousand Palms/Rancho Mirage/Palm Desert/Cathedral City/Palm Springs) and Line 111 (Highway 111). This route links riders to destinations such as the Desert Regional Hospital, Palm Springs International Airport, Palm Springs City Hall, Desert Highland Community Center, middle and high schools, and a number of retail outlets. Line 24 operates 19 roundtrips on weekdays and 17 roundtrips during weekends on 45- minute headways. PALM SPRINGS TAHQUITZCABALLEROSPALM CYNRACQUET CLUBINDIAN CYNG A TE W A Y ROSA PARKS RDVIDEO VISTA CHINO BARISTO SUNRISESTEVENS TACHEVAH 111 FARRELL14 Palm Springs International Airport Riverside County Family Health Center EL CIELOSAN RAFAEL 8 LINE 30: PALM CANYON & BARISTO TO E PALM CANYON & MONTY HALL Line 30 is the system's most productive route, with service to the cities of Cathedral City and Palm Springs. Within these communities, riders are able to access the city libraries, city halls, senior centers, the Palm Springs and Cathedral City high schools, and various commercial and industrial centers. Line 30 connects to Line 14 (Desert Hot Springs/Palm Springs), Line 24 (Palm Springs), Line 32 (Thousand Palms/Rancho Mirage/Palm Desert/Cathedral City/Palm Springs) and Line 111 (Highway 111). Line 30 operates 31 roundtrips during weekdays on 30-minute headways and 21 roundtrips during weekends on 40-minute headways. SUNRISEFARRELLCALLE ENCILIATAHQUITZ PALM CYNBARISTO RAMON DATE PALME. PALM CYNCATHEDRAL CYNPEREZ PALM SPRINGS 3214 111 14 24 CATHEDRAL CITY 1 1 1 MONT HALLYSocial Security Office 9 LINE 32: TOWN CENTER & HAHN TO SAN LUIS REY & RAMON Line 32 serves the communities of Palm Springs, Thousand Palms, Cathedral City, Palm Desert and a portion along the City of Rancho Mirage boundary with connections to SunBus Line 14 (Desert Hot Springs/Palm Springs), Line 111, Line 30 (Cathedral City/Palm Springs), and Line 50 (Palm Desert/Rancho Mirage). Riders can access the Palm Springs Air Museum, middle and elementary schools, and various retail centers along Ramon Road. Routing over the Monterey/I-10 Interchange ensures access to Costco, Home Depot, Regal Cinemas 16 theater complex and service to the Agua Caliente Casino on Ramon Road at Bob Hope Drive. This route also provides service to the Eisenhower Medical Center, College of the Desert, Westfield and the McCallum Theater. Line 32 operates 14 roundtrips daily on a 50-minute headways and 11 roundtrips on a 70-minute headways. MONTEREYBOB HOPE DRAVE 30 VISTA CHINO MARAVILLADATE PALMPALM SPRINGS CATHEDRALCITY PALM DESERT FRED WARINGTOWN CTR WYTHOUSAND PALMS HWY 111 COUNTRY CLUB MISSION SAN LUIS REYGENE AUTRYMONTEREYRAMON DINAH SHORE College McCallum of the Desert Theater Palm Springs Air Museum JOHN L SINNHAHN 50 111 30 50 30 RANCHO MIRAGE SIERRA DEL SOL 10 LINE 53: TOWN CENTER WAY & HAHN TO GERALD FORD & COOK Line 53 provides service within the city of Palm Desert, which enables riders on the route to access Eisenhower Medical Center, the College of the Desert, the McCallum Theater, Palm Desert City Hall, Kaiser Permanente, California State University San Bernardino, University of California Riverside, Palm Desert High School, Palm Desert library, and major shopping centers, including Westfield Palm Desert. Line 53 connects with Line 111 at two locations; at Westfield Palm Desert and on Highway 111 at Deep Canyon, as well as connects with Line 32 at Westfield. Line 53 operates 12 roundtrips on weekdays and 11 roundtrips during weekends on 80-minute headways. PALM DESERT LINE 53 Sept 2010 INDIAN WELLS HWY 111 COOKFRED WARINGTOWN CENTER WAYSAN PABLOGERALD FORD TIME POINT DEEP CANYONDEEP CANYONDEEP CANYON 11 LINE 70: MADRID & VALLEJO TO HARRIS LANE & WASHINGTON Line 70 offers bus service to the communities of La Quinta, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and Bermuda Dunes. Riders are able to access the City Hall and senior center in La Quinta, local schools, and various retail shopping centers along Adams Street and Avenue 47, and connect with Line 111 on Highway 111 at Adams Street. Line 70 operates 21 roundtrips on 45-minute headways during weekdays and 11 roundtrips on 90-minute headways during weekends. 12 LINE 80: BI-DIRECTIONAL LOOP – HWY 111 & FLOWER Line 80 provides transit service to residents of the City of Indio and enable them to access civic, educational, county offices, as well as public and social service offices. This includes John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Riverside County Fair & National Date Festival, Employment Development Department, East Valley College of the Desert campus, Riverside County social services offices, Department of Motor Vehicles, Martha's Village & Kitchen, Coachella Valley Cultural Museum, Indio Senior Center and library, local schools, and a variety of retail shopping centers within the community. Line 80 connects to Line 90 (Coachella/Indio), Line 91 (Indio/Coachella/Thermal/ Mecca/Oasis) and Line 111 at the transfer location on Highway 111 and Flower Street in the City of Indio. The route operates 15 roundtrips daily on 60-minute headways. INDIO MONROEDR CARREON AVE 44 MILES PARKREQUA VAN BURENI NDI O B L V DTOWNEDMV CV Museum OASISRiverside County Family Health Center COD - East Campus Social Services Workforce Development Center HWY 111 HWY 111 JACKSONREQUA I NDI O B L V DSunLine’s Indio Facility 90 91 111FLOW RENORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND Martha’s Village & Kitchen AVE 48JACKSON 13 LINE 90: HWY 111 & FLOWER TO AVENUE 53 & SHADY LANE Line 90 serves the cities of Coachella and Indio allowing passengers to access the Employment Development Department, City Hall in the City of Coachella, library, Police Department, the senior center, Boys & Girls Club, local schools and shopping centers. Connections to Line 80 (Indio), Line 91 (Indio/Coachella/Thermal/Mecca/Oasis) and Line 111 (Highway 111 Corridor) occur at the transfer location on Highway 111 at Flower Street in Indio. Line 90 operates 29 roundtrips during weekdays and 27 roundtrips weekends on 35-minute headways. 14 LINE 91: HWY 111 & FLOWER TO AVENUE 66 & MIDDLETON The Line 91 links the cities of Indio and Coachella, as well as the unincorporated communities of Thermal, Mecca, and Oasis. Riders on Line 91 are able to connect to Lines 80, 90, and 111 at the transfer location on Highway 111 and Flower Street in Indio. This allows passengers to access employment sites, medical and shopping facilities. Line 91 also provides direct service to College of the Desert’s East Valley Campus on school days. Line 91 operates 16 trips on 60-minute headways during weekdays and 12 trips during weekends on 80-minute headways. 15 LINE 111: HWY 111 & FLOWER TO PALM CANYON STEVENS Line 111 offers service along Highway 111 from Palm Springs to Indio, with service also provided to the cities of Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and La Quinta. Line 111 enables riders to travel to destinations along the Highway 111 corridor and connects to all routes in the system except for Line 15. Connecting routes include Line 14 (Desert Hot Springs/Palm Springs), Line 24 (Palm Springs), Line 30 (Palm Springs/ Cathedral City), Line 32 (Palm Desert/Palm Springs/Thousand Palms/Rancho Mirage/Cathedral City), Line 50 (Rancho Mirage/Palm Desert), Line 70 (La Quinta/Indian Wells/Bermuda Dunes/Palm Desert), Line 80 (Indio), Line 90 (Coachella/Indio), and Line 91 (Indio/Coachella/Thermal/Mecca/Oasis). This route links riders with major retail and commercial centers, recreational attractions, museums, educational and medical institutions, municipal and county services. Line 111 operates 43 roundtrips during weekdays on 20-minute headways and 22 roundtrips during weekends on 40-minute headways. In 2010, Amtrak signed a Service Agreement with SunLine to begin a cooperative effort for the purpose of providing rail passengers’ access to Amtrak connecting bus service in Coachella Valley. Under the Agreement, buses operating along Amtrak’s Route 19 from Indio to Bakersfield for the San Joaquin train service will make scheduled stops at designated bus stops in the cities of Palm Desert and La Quinta. Additionally, buses traveling along Amtrak’s Route 39 will also make scheduled stops at the designated bus stops in the cities of Palm Desert and La Quinta. However, Route 39 is not in operation and will be implemented depending on funding availability. 16 PARATRANSIT INFORMATION SunLine’s paratransit service, SunDial, offers curb-to-curb service designed to meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and offers next day complementary demand-response service to Coachella Valley residents unable to use fixed route service. All applicants must complete an application, describing in detail the nature of their mental or physical disability that would prevent a person from using regular fixed route service. Applicants must obtain a physician’s (or approved health care professional’s) statement and signature verifying their disability. Each applicant is notified in writing within twenty-one days upon review of their applications. Certified riders that have ADA Certification Identification Card are eligible to use SunDial for their transportation needs, including medical appointments, shopping, and other social activities. SunDial service is available within ¾ miles on either side of the existing SunBus system and is available by advanced reservation. Reservation is based on fixed route service hours serving passengers’ origin and destination. SunDial is provided 7 days a week, 363 days a year with no service offered on Thanksgiving and Christmas. Consolidated Transportation Services Agency [CTSA] As the designated CTSA, SunLine coordinates public transportation services throughout its service area, including providing mobility training and assisting with grant applications. Staff participates in meetings with social and human service agencies, bus riders, and other advocates through forums such as the Riverside County Transportation Commission [RCTC] Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Committee, SunLine’s Access Committee, T-NOW, and neighboring transit operators. As part of the Call for Projects issued in FY 2009, SunLine acts a pass-through for funding received from the Section 5316 (JARC) and Section 5317 (New Freedom) through the Federal Transit Administration awarded to RCTC, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments [CVAG], Independent Living Partners, and Desert Samaritans to offer transportation service options to Coachella Valley residents. 17 1.4 Current Fare Structure and Proposed Fare Structure SunLine’s current fare structure consists of four fare categories: adult, youth, Senior (60+)/Disabled, and persons with disabilities who use SunDial. SunLine fixed route passengers pay the adult fare unless eligible for discounted fares which are available only to seniors, the disabled and youth. There are two fare payment options: cash and passes; with children 4 years and under riding free with an adult fare. In FY 2010/11, staff completed the fare study which examined if current fares should be increased. Figures 3 and 4 shown below highlights the current fare structure. FIGURE 2: SunBus Fare Structure TYPE OF FARE FARE CATEGORY FIXED-ROUTE FARES ADULT (18 YRS – 59 YRS) YOUTH (5 YRS – 17 YRS) SENIOR 60+/ DISABLED/MEDICAID Cash/Base Fare $1.00 $.85 $.50 Transfers $.25 $.25 $.25 Day Pass $3.00 $2.00 $1.50 31-Day Pass $34.00 $24.00 $17.00 10-Ride Pass $10.00 $8.50 $5.00 GO Pass (Only sold in Summer for Youths) -- $30.00 -- Coachella Valley Employer Pass $24.00 -- -- FIGURE 3: SunDial Fare Structure TYPE OF FARE (Only for ADA Certified Clients) SINGLE RIDE MULTIPLE RIDES (10-RIDE) Cash Fare - Same City $1.50 -- Cash Fare - City to City $2.00 -- 10-Ride Pass - Same City -- $15.00 10-Ride Pass – City to City -- $20.00 18 1.5 Revenue Fleet SunLine currently has 99 buses in its fleet, including 68 fixed route and 31 demand response vehicles. Additionally, there are 39 support vehicles used for various activities in support of transit services provided in the Coachella Valley. SunLine continues to replace old buses in the fleet, especially those that have met their useful life to ensure compliance with FTA regulations. Replaced fixed route buses had mileage in excess of 500,000 and/or were over 12 years old while paratransit buses that were replaced had over 50,000 miles and 5 years old. 1.6 Existing Facility/Planned Facilities Operational Facilities SunLine’s head office is located in Thousand Palms and houses the Administration, Operations and Maintenance Departments. SunLine staff is currently housed in a number of mobile homes that have passed their usual life. SunLine continues to work with the Riverside County Departments of Planning and Transportation to obtain necessary permits for construction of the Administrative Offices. In conjunction with the Administrative building, SunLine plans to build a transit hub close for use by commuters traveling from the Coachella Valley to the Pass Area, as well as connect to services provided by the Riverside Transit Agency to MetroLink stations. SunLine received American Recovery and Reinvestment Act [ARRA] funds in FY 2009 to expand the maintenance facility in Thousand Palms. The planned improvements will add capacity to enable the Agency work on more than two buses at a time. SunLine is also examining the feasibility of rehabilitating the Indio facility which is utilized for dispatching, transfer point for passengers transferring among routes, and by operators for their breaks. 1.7 Taxi Administration The SunLine Regulatory Administration (SRA), which is charged with licensing and regulating taxicab franchises and drivers in the Coachella Valley, also ensures residents and visitors are charged fair and reasonable price. In addition, SRA is responsible for establishing and enforcing ethical standards maintained by the Franchising Board. Fleet Franchises Airport Taxi Yellow Cab American Cab of the Desert 19 20 21 CHAPTER 2 – EXISTING SERVICE and ROUTE PERFORMANCE 2.1 Fixed Route Service - Route by Route Evaluation and Analysis Over the last couple of years, SunLine has made improvements to all fixed routes, including realigning existing routes and improving frequency to increase ridership. A review of the FY 2009/10 data indicates a slight increase over the same period for FY 08/09. Ridership on Line 32 has more than doubled showing a 33% increase in usage since its inception in September 2008. Service Efficiency and Effectiveness To determine the efficiency effectiveness of all routes, staff reviewed the year-to-date performance statistics for FY 09/10 with data from TransTrack below that shows the most and least efficient routes. Factors used include passenger boarding, passenger per revenue hour, cost per passenger, passenger revenue per revenue hour, and the farebox recovery ratio. FIGURE 4: Analysis of FY 2009/10 Performance Statistics LINES PASSENGER COUNT PASSENGER PER REVENUE HOUR COST PER PASSENGER PASSENGER REVENUE PER HOUR FAREBOX RECOVERY RATIO 14 498,054 21.7 $4.42 $20.74 21.57% 24 141,682 13.3 $7.23 $12.71 13.21% 30 674,048 33.3 $2.88 $31.83 33.18% 32 147,881 10.9 $8.78 $10.42 10.88% 50 65,243 6.0 $16.02 $5.73 5.95% 70 167,860 17.8 $5.41 $16.91 17.58% 80 205,060 19.1 $5.02 $26.21 19.01% 90 200,567 17.4 $5.52 $16.64 17.32% 91 147,060 9.8 $9.80 $9.38 9.75% 111 1,360,278 24.4 $3.94 $23.31 24.28% As shown in the above table, Lines 50 and 91 were the least productive routes while Lines 30, 111, 14, and 80 were the most productive routes. Due to low productivity, Line 50 was realigned and renamed as Line 53, and implemented as part of the September 2010 service improvements. 22 FIGURE 5 below depicts a graph showing fixed route ridership comparison from FY 2006 through FY 2010. FIXED ROUTE RIDERSHIP COMPARISON FY 2006 - FY 2010 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 2.2 Paratransit Service – System Performance Paratransit and subscription services offered in the Coachella Valley continues to do well which shows that over 80,000 residents used SunDial service for day to day activities, such as medical appointment, shopping, or for work. A total of 106,019 residents compared to 97,414 users were served in FY 09/10. Overall, ridership for the demand response and subscription continues to grow. FIGURE 6: Comparison of SunDial FY 08/09 & FY 09/10 Ridership SERVICE TYPE FY 08/09 FY 09/10 PERCENT CHANGE SunDial 72,827 80,340 10.3% Subscription 24,587 25,679 4.4% Total 97,414 106,019 8.8% 23 FIGURE 7 below compares usage of demand response and subscription services from FY 2005/06 through FY 09/10. Specialized Transit Service To offer residents in the Valley more transportation choices, SunLine partnered with the Independent Living partners who manage the TRIP Program in Riverside County to provide specialized transportation services for residents in Coachella Valley. TRIP is renowned for its innovative transportation program that offers transportation service to persons who are physically or mentally unable to use fixed route and paratransit services for their mobility needs, especially medical appointments. As part of the RCTC’s call for projects issued and approved for FY 09/10 and FY 10/11, federal funds were awarded and programmed to agencies in Riverside and the Valley to provide additional specialized transit services to residents in Coachella Valley. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments [CVAG] also received Section 5316 (JARC) funds from the first call of projects to implement a transportation program to serve homeless residents sheltered at the Roy’s Desert Resource Center looking for employment. The Riverside County Transportation Commission [RCTC] received JARC funding to implement a Rideshare Program in the Coachella Valley for residents interested in ridesharing. Coachella Valley residents that successfully participated in ridesharing for a three month period received financial incentives. The Desert Samaritans was awarded Section 5317 (New Freedom) funds to implement a transportation program offering vouchers to seniors for activities such as medical appointments, shopping, and travel to governmental offices in the Valley. SunLine also received JARC funds to add trips to the Line 91 route that provides service in the unincorporated communities and the cities of Coachella and Indio for employment related activities, as well as received New Freedom funding for continuation of the TRIP Program. For the second call for projects completed in early 2011, JARC funds has been awarded to CVAG and RCTC to continue programs implemented in FY 2009/10 while SunLine received JARC funds to implement a new commuter route to the Pass Area. In addition, SunLine was awarded New Freedom funds to implement a Taxi Voucher Program for seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons with low income. SUNDIAL RIDERSHIP COMPARISON FY 2006 - FY 2010 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 24 2.3 Key Performance Indicators To ensure adherence to the Productivity Improvement Program [PIP], SunLine continues to monitor and evaluate routes to assure compliance with key performance indicators. The performance indicators are tracked through a management performance tool called TransTrack implemented by RCTC for all transit operators. Over the last four years, SunLine has consistently met all key performance indicators approved in the SRTP, including the mandatory target for the farebox recovery ratio. 2.4 Productivity Improvement Efforts Staff continues working in coordination and cooperation with local jurisdictions on service related issues that affects transit services provided in the Coachella Valley. Staff will continue monitoring service routes using service warrants to further evaluate routes. In addition to concentrating on modifying and adjusting service routes, further analysis will be undertaken to review unproductive routes to determine if segments or trips of existing routes should be discontinued due to low productivity. 2.5 Service Standards and Warrants The following factors listed below are considered when analyzing new service proposals and requests, as well as evaluating existing service: Area Coverage: While most of the SunLine service area is adequately covered according to these standards, there are some areas which are served more intensely than others. When service is proposed, the new route should be evaluated based on its proximity to others, and the necessity of its implementation based on area coverage standards. Currently unserved or underserved markets provide potential for new transit ridership; however, there is an additional cost for providing ADA paratransit service if fixed route new service is proposed. Market Area Characteristics: Staff also considers the density and demographic characteristics of a given service area as an important determinant for providing successful transit success. In tying area coverage standards to population and employment densities, SunLine recognizes the need to provide more service within more intensely developed areas, and often considers this factor as part of the service development process. Transit-Dependent Populations: SunLine considers the effects of service changes on transit-dependent riders during service planning processes. While SunLine’s current network serves most transit-dependent populations and their destinations effectively, we continue to examine transit-dependency when evaluating new service proposals. Special Market Needs: Staff often receives request for new service when existing routes do not adequately address unique market opportunities. Short routes such as shuttles, for example, may often and potentially connect two or more destinations with strong relationships; for instance, a transit center and an employment center, a senior center and a shopping complex; student housing and a university campus. They also provide local circulation between destinations in a single community with the service span and frequency tailored to these unique markets. 25 Recommended Standards of Evaluating New Services Once a route is implemented, performance monitoring begins immediately to determine if the route is reaching its desired potential and to meet the performance standards. New service routes that do not meet minimum standards are subject to the same remedial actions as existing services and may consider evaluation points at both 6 months and one year, in order to evaluate how new service routes are progressing over time. 2.6 Major Trip Generators and Projected Growth Markets over Next Two Years SunLine continues to evaluate, monitor and adjust transit service serving residents in Coachella Valley. Given the on-going economic condition, SunLine is proposing limited service changes in FY 2011/12 and will continue tracking new developments to ensure service is offered to the new areas. Through the Agency’s development review program, staff works in cooperation and concert with local jurisdictions to determine whether new developments require transit service. SunLine also consults with staff from local jurisdiction regularly to analyze existing and proposed developments for the need for additional transit service. As the Valley continues to grow, SunLine will assess areas in which additional transit could potentially be provided. Staff plans to realign the existing community-based service in the city of Indio to offer service north of the city. The proposed service improvements to transit service in the city of Indio entails realigning the existing Line 80, in addition to implementing a new route Line 81 in FY 2011/12. Staff submitted a grant application in response to RCTC’s Call for projects in FY 2010/11 and was awarded JARC and New Freedom funds to implement a commuter service from the Coachella Valley to the Pass Area. This will enable residents from the Valley to connect to commuter service provided by the Riverside Transit Agency from the Pass Area to the MetroLink station in downtown Riverside. Additionally, given the lack of funding to provide school transportation service by the school districts in the Valley, SunLine will continue working with school districts to improve access to public transit and will work on coordinating school bell times for routing and scheduling purposes. 2.7 Equipment, Passenger Amenities and Facility Needs Passengers Amenities and Bus Stop Improvement Program SunLine has over 500 bus stops located throughout its service area which are cleaned and maintained on a regular basis. Since completion of the 2006 COA and 2009 COA Update, SunLine has made significant improvements to bus stops in the Coachella Valley. Most recently in FY 2008/09 and FY 09/10, SunLine installed 151 bus shelters at selected bus stops using American Reinvestment Recovery Act funds. In FY 2011/12, the Agency plans on installing more amenities at bus stops within the service area. Revenue Collection Equipment With approved funding in FY 08/09 and FY 09/10, SunLine installed electronic registering fareboxes on all fixed route buses to increase the ability to collect more accurate revenue, decrease staff’s time in reconciling revenue collected, improve ridership counts, and improve passengers’ experience riding the bus by issuing passes on-board for more convenience. In addition to new fareboxes, one ticket vending machine [TVM] was 26 installed at the transfer location in Indio. Staff is planning on installing additional ticket vending machines at select locations in the Valley. On-Board Security Cameras SunLine installed interior and exterior video cameras on current fixed route buses to improve the Agency’s ability to monitor and record activities inside and outside the buses that will enhance the safety and security of passengers. With these cameras, SunLine is able to investigate criminal and suspicious activities that may occur at bus stops, transfer locations and while the buses travel on the road. Furthermore, to enhance the safety of passengers on demand response buses, staff installed Smart Drive technology which enables us to monitor, track and provide real-time data on activities in the buses. In FY 2011/12, staff plans to use Prop 1B Transit Security funds to install smart drive technology on fixed route buses, as well as install cameras on demand response buses. Intelligent Transportation System [ITS] By the end of September 2011, staff hopes to complete installation of ITS equipment on all fixed route and paratransit buses, as well as select support vehicles. The equipment included Automatic Passenger Counters, Automatic Voice Annunicators, Automated Vehicle Locaters, and Global Positioning Systems. Additionally, staff implemented scheduling software for fixed route planning. SunLine plans on installing Advanced Passengers Transportation Systems at selected transfer locations for passengers to get real-time arrival information on bus service, and will incorporate Google Transit for trip planning purposes. Bus Replacement Program Over the last several years, SunLine replaced most of the aging fixed route and demand response buses in the fleet. These buses are powered with compressed natural gas and have various technologies that improve reliability of service, enhance safety of passengers, provide better fuel efficiency, and decrease maintenance costs thereby reducing vehicle breakdowns and frequent repairs. In FY 2011/12, staff plans to purchase paratransit buses to replace aging buses; in addition to replacing aging support vehicles, as well as purchase expansion support vehicles. Facility Needs Staff continues to work on the environmental assessment, preliminary and final engineering, and Master Plan for the new Administrative Building. SunLine is also planning on conducting a feasibility study to determine the best use for the satellite facility in Indio. 27 28 29 30 31 32 CHAPTER 3 – PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES AND IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 Recent Service Changes SunLine currently operates 11 fixed routes serving various segments of the Valley, from the unincorporated communities of Mecca, Thermal and Oasis in the eastern part of the Valley to Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs. Line 111 connects with all routes at strategic points along the Highway 111 corridor. In FY 09/10, SunLine served over 3.7 million passengers system-wide, with service offered to 3,607,733 riders on fixed route buses, 106,019 rides to paratransit clients and 19,403 uses for the TRIP program. A. Fiscal Year 2010 Improvements were made on all routes beginning September 2009 through May 2010 as part of the planned service changes. Some of the changes implemented in September 2009 include additional trips added on to Lines 14, 30, 70, and 111 to enhance service provided to middle and high schools in the Valley. Additionally, the frequency on Line 70 was improved from 50 to 45 minutes; thereby, improving service offered to residents in La Quinta, especially in the Cove. Trips were also added to service offered on Line 91, with direct service to the College of the Desert East Valley Campus in Mecca/Thermal. Lines 90 and 91 were realigned within the City of Coachella. B. Fiscal Year 2011 Service improvements in FY 2010/11 entailed realigning Line 14 in Desert Hot Spring due to implementation of Line 15. As a result, service previously offered along Hacienda on Line 14 is now part of the community-based service provided on Line 15. Additional buses were added to Lines 32 and 111 to improve service adherence. Also, given the decreased ridership and low productivity on Line 50, the route was realigned and renamed Line 53 to offer a community-based service within the City of Palm Desert. 3.2 Recommended New Local Route For FY 2011/12, the Agency plans to realign the existing community-based route, Line 80 to provide service north of Interstate 10. The current Line 80 will remain the same with minor changes to route operation. With the changes to the existing route, a new route Line 81 will be implemented to offer service to the retail and commercial stores on the north end of the City and potentially provide service to the newly constructed transportation center in the City along Indio Boulevard. Preliminary routing maps are shown on pages 33 and 34. 33 A. Proposed Line 80 Route Map INDIO MONROEDR CARREON AVE 44 MILES PARKREQUA VAN BURENI NDI O BL V DTOWNEDMV CV Museum OASISRiverside County Family Health Center COD - East Campus Social Services Workforce Development Center HWY 111 Martha’s Village & Kitchen AVE 48JACKSON SunLine’s Indio FacilityFLOWER 34 B. Proposed Line 81 Route Map COD - East Campus Social Services Workforce Development Center AVE 44 INDIO SHADOW PALM HWY 111 DR CARREON AVE 46 MONROEJACKSONALADDINCLINTONIN DIO BLV DJACKSONAVE 42 SHOWCASE PKWYCASPIAN DMV SunLine’s Indio FacilityFLOWERTOWNECIVIC CENTER Indio Transportation Center 35 3.3 Service Modifications and Adjustments In light of on-going challenges with reduced operating funding and declined revenues, staff plans to continue evaluating existing services for further modifications for approval by the Board of Directors. SunLine will also continue to use the PIP measurements and service warrants as guidelines to reduce inefficient trips, decrease duplicative service, and discontinue unproductive routes. Staff will concentrate on several areas, including evaluating early morning and late evening trips on most routes. In September 2011, SunLine plans to realign Line 80 to offer service north of I-10 in the city of Indio as recommended in the 2009 COA Update. In addition to realigning Line 80, a new route will also be implemented to serve the new transportation center in the city of Indio as well. 3.4 Marketing Plans and Promotion SunLine plans to promote and market existing service and new service routes implemented in FY 2011/12. The marketing plan will entail conducting more public outreach to businesses and schools along most routes as well as advertise service in bus shelters, on the buses and on our website. Furthermore, staff intends to work with businesses in the Coachella Valley to promote ridership, especially employees that use the Coachella Valley Employer Pass for their commuting needs. 3.5 Budget Impacts on Proposed Change In FY 2011/12, SunLine plans to realign Line 80 and introduce one new route, Line 81. Line 81 is a reconfiguration of some of the segments of the existing Line 80 to provide service to the transportation center, as well as offer service to retail and commercial stores located north of I-10 in the city of Indio. Based on the proposed changes to Line 80, staff does not anticipate any budgetary impact on the improvements to the route. 36 TABLE 3A - INDIVIDUAL ROUTE DESCRIPTION Line # Existing Routes Line 14 Serves the Cities of Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs Line 15 Serves residents of Desert Hot Springs Line 24 Serves the City of Palm Springs and Cathedral City Line 30 Serves the cities of Palm Springs and Cathedral City Line 32 Provides service to the Cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage and Thousand Palms Line 53 Service is provided to the City of Palm Desert Line 70 Service is offered to the Cities of La Quinta, Bermuda Dunes, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells Line 90 Offers service to the Cities of Indio and Coachella Line 91 Serves the Cities of Coachella and Indio, and the unincorporated areas of Mecca, Thermal and Oasis Line 111 Service is provided to the Cities of Indio, La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City and Palm Springs Line # Planned New Routes Line 80 Realign existing route and separate southbound segment of the existing route to continue servicing residents along the most populated areas on the route. Line 81 Realign the current northbound segment of Line 80 and rename clockwise segment as Line 81 to enhance service provided to residents of Indio. Line 81 will serve commercial and retail stores north of I-10. 37 TABLE 3B - FY 2011/12 NEW/EXISTING ROUTES EXEMPTION SHEET ROUTE # MODE SERVICE TYPE ROUTE DESCRIPTION DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION ROUTE EXEMPTION END DATE Line 15 FR Directly operated City of Desert Hot Springs September 2010 FY 2013 Line 53 FR Directly Operated City of Palm Desert September 2010 FY 2013 Line 81 FR Directly Operated City of Indio September 2011 FY 2014 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 CHAPTER 4 – FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS 4.1 Operating and Capital Budget For FY 2011/12, SunLine plans to use funding from various sources to operate its fixed route and paratransit services, including using Section 5307 funds apportioned by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for operating assistance and transit capital projects. Other funding sources will include Proposition 1B capital transit and transit security funds, State Transit Assistance [STA] funds, Local Transportation Funds [LTF], Measure A, Section 5311 operating assistance funding, and carryover STA and LTF funds. Other potential funding sources may consist of revenue from SunLine’s Bus Advertising program and rebates from the Alternate Fuel program. 4.2 Funding Plans to Support Proposed Operating and Capital Program For fiscal year 2011/12, the funding plan to support proposed operating and capital program will entail combining funding requested for the fiscal year and carryover funds from prior years. The funding plan for operating assistance will be funded using new and carryover LTF funding, Measure A, FY 11/12 Section 5307 and carryover funds, Section 5311, Section 5316, Section 5317, and revenue generated from the farebox. LTF and Section 5307 funds will be used for preventative maintenance. The funding plan for capital improvement projects will comprise of funding from Proposition 1B for transit capital and transit security projects, carryover and new Section 5307 funds, and STA carryover funds. The funding plans to support the proposed operating and capital program are outlined below. 4.2.1: Operating Budget: The estimated operating budget plan, outlined in Table 4, consist of funds from various funding sources that include: • Estimated Local Transportation funds [LTF] totaling over $10 million and an additional amount of $467,201 carryover LTF funding. • Estimated Measure A funds totaling $4,256,881 • A total estimate of $264,566 from the Section 5311 funding program • Estimated Section 5307 funds for operating assistance and Preventive Maintenance in the amount of $2,174,804, as well as carryover Section 5307 funds in the amount of $250,000 also for Preventive Maintenance. • Revenues from the Bus and Bus Shelter Advertising Programs estimated at $500,000 • Recommended JARC funds for implementing proposed commuter service to the Pass Area in the amount of $119,057 and New Freedom funds in the amount of $15,000 • Recommended New Freedom funds to implement Taxi Voucher Program in the Coachella Valley in the amount of $86,475 • A total of $3,784,774 in revenue estimated from the farebox recovery ratio. 45 4.2.2: Capital Improvement Program budget: The estimated capital improvement program budget shown in Table 4 includes funding from the following sources: • Over $2.4 million estimated in State Transit Assistance funds for FY 2011/12 • Estimated new Section 5307 capital assistance funds in the amount of $1,285,586 • Estimated amount of $394,927 in Prop 1B Transit Security funding to be used in funding transit safety and security enhancement projects. • Estimated amount of $9,870,868 in Prop 1B Capital Transit (PTMISEA) funds that will be used for construction of the new administration building • New Freedom carryover funds in the amount of $16,957 from the 2009 Call for Projects. 4.3 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements Americans with Disability Act (ADA) SunLine complies with ADA Regulations with accessible vehicles used for transit services.. Most supervisors’ vans are also equipped with wheelchair lifts and we continue to work with local jurisdictions to improve bus stops to ensure adherence to ADA guidelines. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) In FY 2008/09, staff submitted its bi-annual DBE report to Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which has been approved by FTA. Staff is working on gathering information to develop and submit its DBE report to the Federal Transit Administration in FY 2010/11. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) SunLine complies with federal regulations pertaining to employment and submits its EEO Report every other year to the Federal Transit Administration. Title VI SunLine’s Title VI Report was updated and submitted to the FTA for the three-year required mandate for updating the report. The Board approved FY 2010/11 Updated Report has been submitted to FTA for approval. Transportation Development Act (TDA) Triennial Audit In FY 2009/10, RCTC commissioned Mayer, Hoffman and McCann PC to conduct the Triennial Performance Audit as required by TDA with no findings from the audit that was completed. Federal Transit Administration Triennial Audit Staff completed the FTA FY 2010 Triennial Audit in June 2010. All recommendations and findings have been addressed and approved by FTA. National Transit Database (NTD) Report and Sampling Staff is currently working on the FY 2010/11 NTD Sampling which will be completed in June 2011. 46 Alternative Fueled Vehicles SunLine conforms to RCTC Alternative Fuel Policy with all vehicles in the fleet using CNG fuels. The current fleet consists of 68 40-foot CNG buses, ten 32-foot CNG buses, 31 22-foot paratransit buses plus and 39 non-revenue CNG vehicles. The fleet composition includes 1 new flyer H2 hybrid, 1 Van Hool H2 fuel Cell hybrid and 1 non- revenue hybrid. 47 48 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-01 PROJECT NAME Bus Rehabilitation PROJECT DESCRIPTION Funding would enable SunLine to rehabilitate old buses in its fleet due to fading of the painting and color scheme on the buses, as well as purchase other equipment to repair or rehabilitate buses. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Currently, there are a number of buses in the fleet with paint and colors on the exterior and interior that has faded. Rehabilitating the buses would restore the colors in the interior and on the exterior. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $ 128,000 STA $ 32,000 TOTAL $ 160,000 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 SunLine will be using carryover STA funds that was previously programmed but has been deferred. 49 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-02 ROJECT NAME Purchase seven (7) paratransit replacement buses PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase seven (7) replacement CNG buses to replace existing DAR vehicles in the fleet that have met their useful lives based on federal guidelines. In 2004, staff implemented a bus replacement plan to replace buses in the fleet with excess mileage of over 100,000 miles and more than 4 years. The buses to be purchased will be 25ft, 30ft and/or 35ft. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This continues SunLine’s goal of replacing buses in its fleet. As a result of the current buses having excess mileage of over 100,000, SunLine will replace DAR buses to ensure adherence to federal guidelines on useful life expectancy of vehicles. In FY 2007/08, SunLine purchased fourteen DAR buses, which are now over 4 years old and have over 100,000 miles. Purchasing the replacement buses during this fiscal year ensures that SunLine continues to replace older vehicles in the fleet to comply with federal and state laws in a timely manner. In FY 2012/13, SunLine also plans to purchase additional DAR replacement buses to make up for the bulk of buses that need to be replaced. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $100,000 STA $565,000 TOTAL $665,000 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. 50 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-03 PROJECT NAME Transit Enhancements PROJECT DESCRIPTION Enhance existing bus stops as recommended in the COA. Funding requested for transit enhancements will address FTA requirement to utilize 1% of the Section 5307 apportionment on Safety and Security, as well as the one percent requirement for transit enhancements. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Continued improvements to bus stops for the safety and comfort of passengers as recommended in the Comprehensive Operational Analysis. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $ 35,586 (Section 5307) STA $ 13,135 (STA) New Freedom $ 16,957 (NF) TOTAL $65,678 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 51 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-04 PROJECT NAME Transit Security Enhancement Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION SunLine plans to use these funds for a variety of transit security related projects, including purchasing replacement vehicles for staff in the Safety/Security Department and to enhance bus stops throughout the Valley. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The projects are needed to ensure the safety and security of SunLine employees and passengers. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) PROP 1B $394,927 (Transit Security) TOTAL $394,927 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 52 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-05 PROJECT NAME Facility Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION Funds requested in this fiscal year will enable SunLine to improve existing facilities, including roof repair, building roof, replacement of carpeting and blinds, and repair of parking facilities for staff use. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Project is necessary for facilities and ground improvements at Thousand Palms and Indio. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES FTA $100,000 (Section 5307) STA $450,000 (STA) TOTAL $550,000 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. 53 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-06 PROJECT NAME Administrative building PROJECT DESCRIPTION Funds requested in this fiscal year will enable SunLine to improve begin construction on the new Administrative offices. Staff is currently working on the environmental assessment, final engineering and the Master Plan. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION SunLine staff is currently housed in temporary mobile home trailers that are in various stages of disrepair. SunLine is located in Thousand Palms, California, with an average temperature of 103°. The useful life of these temporary fixtures is 20 years; however, the average age of the trailers used for agency businesses are 24 years; 4 years past their useful life. These facilities have a high repair and maintenance cost, with little possibility of any appreciation in value. These temporary facilities house staff from the Operations Department, including transit operators, planning staff, other Administrative staff, and the senior leadership team among others. SunLine currently employs approximately 284 Full Time Equivalent employees. These trailers are in a state of disrepair, including having a septic tank based plumbing systems, and have created a potentially unsafe environment that attracts various insects and rodents. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES FTA $ 400,000 (Section 5307) STA $ 500,000 (STA) Prop 1B (PTMISEA) $9,870,868 TOTAL $10,770,868 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. 54 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-07 PROJECT NAME Office furniture PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase new furniture to replace existing furniture for staff in various departments. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Continuation of the office furniture program to replace and add furniture as they reach the end of their cycle life. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $96,000 (Section 5307) STA $24,000 (STA) TOTAL $120,000 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 55 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-08 PROJECT NAME Purchase Ticket Vending Machine [TVM] for installation at a selected bus transfer location. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is continuation of the project begun in FY 2007/08; whereby, staff purchased new Odyssey fareboxes to replace existing CENTSaBill fareboxes installed on the buses as well as installed a TVM at the Indio transfer location. The TVM has been well received and staff plans to purchased and install another TVM for passengers’ convenience. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The additional TVM will make it easier for passengers to get their passes without going to Pass Outlets to buy their passes and will facilitate faster boarding. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA $75,000 TOTAL $75,000 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 56 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-09 PROJECT NAME Implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase various ITS equipment, software and hardware for existing and expansion service, as well as for service planning and development for new and existing routes, in addition to schedule adherence. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Use of ITS equipment is beneficial to the daily functions staff performs and helps to streamline operations and reports for SunLine services. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $200,000 STA $300,000 TOTAL $500,000 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 57 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-10 PROJECT NAME Technical Transit Planning and Facility Feasibility Studies PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conduct a transit planning study to determine the feasibility of implementing Bus Rapid Transit [BRT] as well as select the most viable corridor for BRT service. The Preferred Service Plan proposed as part of the findings in the 2005/06 Comprehensive Operational Analysis [COA] and 2009 COA Update recommends operating BRT service along the Highway 111 corridor; however, there is a need to complete an Alternate Analysis to define and select the most viable corridor in the Valley for implementation of BRT service. Furthermore, there is a need to evaluate the existing satellite facility in the City of Indio to determine and define the most cost effective use. Currently, the facility is used for maintenance, limited operations and administrative functions, and also used as a transfer location for four routes serving various segments of the Coachella Valley. SunLine is requesting funding to conduct both studies to select the most viable corridor for BRT service and to determine the best use for the satellite facility in Indio. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The requested funding will enable SunLine to work with selected consultants to conduct studies that will help staff in selecting a corridor for BRT service and in determining what might be the best use for the satellite facility in Indio. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $150,000 (Section 5307) LTF $ 167,201 (FY 2010/11) LTF $ 132,799 (Carryover LTF Funds) TOTAL $450,000 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 58 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-11 PROJECT NAME Miscellaneous Maintenance Tools & Equipment PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase major replacement tools, equipment and parts used in routine vehicle maintenance. The items to be purchased include multi-meters, torque wrenches, impact sockets, software updates, service jacks, miscellaneous air and hand tools, and drill bits. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Equipment must be replaced to ensure proper maintenance of revenue service vehicles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $80,000 (Section 5307) STA $20,000 TOTAL $100,000 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 59 TABLE 4A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-12 PROJECT NAME Enterprise Resource Planning PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase and install software that integrates internal and external management information and data across the Agency, automate a variety of activities in an integrated software application and to conduct these activities in real time. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The project will is intended to facilitate the flow of information between all departmental functions and to enable staff better manage the Agency’s business functions, as well as provide connections to external stakeholders. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) STA $500,000 TOTAL $500,000 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 60 61 TABLE 4.1A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 12-01.1A PROJECT NAME Coachella Valley Association of Governments Mobility Manager PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Mobility Manager will manage and administer program, and will coordinate with transportation providers in the Coachella Valley to enable CVAG to offer transportation services for their clients. The Mobility Manager will acquire vouchers for the clients, as well as work to determine how the vouchers will be used. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Due to federal regulations on accessing federal funds in TEAM, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Regional Office is requiring SunLine to act as a pass-through grantee for this project. This project is funded with Section 5316 funds and is in conjunction with the Universal Call for Projects issued by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2010. The funds requested will enable the Mobility Manager to manage the transportation program for CVAG. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $7,248 (Section 5316) CVAG $1,812 TOTAL $9,060 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 62 63 TABLE 5A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 13-01 PROJECT NAME Bus Rehabilitation PROJECT DESCRIPTION Funds requested will enable SunLine to rehabilitate old buses in its fleet due to fading of the painting and color scheme on the buses, as well as purchase other equipment to repair or rehabilitate buses. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Currently, there are a number of buses in the fleet with paint and colors on the exterior and interior that has faded. Rehabilitating these buses would restore colors in the interior and on the exterior. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $ 128,000 (FY 5307) STA $ 32,000 (STA) TOTAL $ 160,000 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 SunLine will be using carryover STA funds that was previously programmed but has been deferred. 64 TABLE 5A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 13-02 ROJECT NAME Purchase seven (7) replacement paratransit buses PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase seven (7) replacement CNG buses to replace existing DAR vehicles in the fleet that have met their useful lives based on federal guidelines. In 2004, staff implemented a bus replacement plan to replace buses in the fleet with excess mileage of over 100,000 miles and more than 4 years. The buses to be purchased will be 25ft, 30ft and/or 35ft. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This continues SunLine’s goal of replacing buses in its fleet. As a result of the current buses having excess mileage of over 100,000, SunLine will replace DAR buses to ensure adherence to federal guidelines on useful life expectancy of vehicles. In FY 2007/08, SunLine purchased fourteen DAR buses, which are now over 4 years old and have over 100,000 miles. Purchasing the replacement buses during this fiscal year ensures that SunLine continues to replace older vehicles in the fleet to comply with federal and state laws in a timely manner. In FY 2013/14, SunLine will purchase the remaining DAR replacement buses to make up for the bulk of buses that will be replaced. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $100,000 (Section 5307) STA $565,000 TOTAL $665,000 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. 65 TABLE 5A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL13-03 PROJECT NAME Transit Enhancements PROJECT DESCRIPTION Funding requested for transit enhancements will address FTA requirement to utilize 1% of the Section 5307 apportionment on Safety and Security, as well as 1% for transit enhancements. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Continued improvements to bus stops for the safety and comfort of passengers as recommended in the Comprehensive Operational Analysis. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $ 35,586 (Section 5307) STA $ 8,884 (STA) TOTAL $ 44,470 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 66 TABLE 5A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 13-04 PROJECT NAME Facility Improvements PROJECT DESCRIPTION Funds requested in this fiscal year will enable SunLine to improve existing facilities, including roof repair, building roof, replacement of carpeting and blinds, and repair of parking facilities for staff use. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Project is necessary for facilities and ground improvements at Thousand Palms and Indio. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES FTA $320,000 (Section 5307) STA $ 80,000 (STA) TOTAL $400,000 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. 67 TABLE 5A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 13-05 PROJECT NAME Administrative building PROJECT DESCRIPTION Funds requested in this fiscal year will enable SunLine to improve begin construction on the new Administrative offices. Staff is currently working on the environmental assessment, final engineering and the Master Plan. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION SunLine staff is currently housed in temporary mobile home trailers that are in various stages of disrepair. SunLine is located in Thousand Palms, California, with an average temperature of 103°. The useful life of these temporary fixtures is 20 years; however, the average age of the trailers used for agency businesses are 24 years; 4 years past their useful life. These facilities have a high repair and maintenance cost, with little possibility of any appreciation in value. These temporary facilities house staff from the Operations Department, including transit operators, planning staff, other Administrative staff, and the senior leadership team among others. SunLine currently employs approximately 284 Full Time Equivalent employees. These trailers are in a state of disrepair, including having a septic tank based plumbing systems, and have created a potentially unsafe environment that attracts various insects and rodents. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES FTA $1,000,000 STA $ 750,000 TOTAL $1,750,000 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. 68 TABLE 5A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 13-06 PROJECT NAME Office furniture PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase new furniture to replace existing furniture for staff in various departments. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Continuation of office furniture program to replace and add furniture as they reach the end of their cycle life. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $80,000 (Section 5307) STA $20,000 (STA) TOTAL $100,000 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 69 TABLE 5A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 13-07 PROJECT NAME Implement Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase various ITS equipment, software and hardware existing and expansion service, as well as for planning related activities for service improvement and schedule adherence. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Use of ITS equipment will be beneficial in the daily functions staff performs and will help to streamline both operations and reporting of SunLine service operations. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $320,000 STA $ 80,000 TOTAL $400,000 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 70 TABLE 5A – CAPITAL PROJECT JUSTIFICATION PROJECT NUMBER SL 13-08 PROJECT NAME Maintenance Tools & Equipment PROJECT DESCRIPTION Purchase major replacement tools, equipment and parts used in routine vehicle maintenance. The items to be purchased include multi meters, torque wrenches, impact sockets, software updates, service jacks, miscellaneous air and hand tools, and drill bits. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Equipment must be replaced to ensure proper maintenance of revenue service vehicles. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED) FTA $80,000 (Section 5307) STA $20,000 TOTAL $100,000 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 71 72 TABLE 6 FY 2010 TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT The FY2010 State Triennial Review completed by Mayer, Hoffman and McCann, PC did not have any findings. SunLine’s Federal Triennial Review for FY 2010 was also conducted during the same period and staff has addressed recommendations provided by Federal Reviewers. The corrective action approved by FTA addressed the areas of Technical, Satisfactory Continuing Control, and Maintenance deficiencies. 73 74 75 TABLE 9 HIGHLIGHTS OF FY 11/12 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN • Realign Line 80 based on comments received from City of Indio staff and residents to provide service to areas currently served. • Implement Line 81 in the City of Indio based on the reconfiguration of the current Line 80, which will offer transit service to new retail and commercial stores north of I-10. • Continue working with local jurisdictions on bus stop improvement issues as well as procure more bus shelters for installation. • Complete ARRA funded capital transit projects, i.e., ITS and Maintenance Building Capacity Upgrade projects. • Finalize environmental assessment, engineering, and Master Plan for new Administrative Building. • Conduct feasibility study to determine best use for the facility in Indio and also undertake Alternative Analysis study for BRT Implementation in Coachella Valley. • Implement Taxi Voucher Program in Coachella Valley. Operating & Financial Data FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 3RD Quarter Actual FY 11/12 System Ridership 3,690,117 3,713,752 3,069,687 4,108,202 Cost Per Revenue Hr. $93.32 $91.72 $87.24 $86.92 Comments: SunLine anticipates meeting all mandatory and discretionary targets for FY 2011/12. Commuter Rail Short Range Transit Plan FY 2011/12-2013/14 Final Report May 26, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – SYSTEM OVERVIEW ................................................................... 1 1.1 Description of Service Area ......................................................................... 1 1.2 Population Profile and Demographic Projections ........................................ 1 1.3 Fixed Route Services .................................................................................. 2 1.4 Current Fare Structure and Proposed Fare Structure ................................. 2 Ticket Types ................................................................................................. 3 Fare Increase ................................................................................................ 4 1.5 Revenue Fleet ............................................................................................. 5 1.6 Existing and Planned Facilities .................................................................... 5 Commuter Rail Station Management ......................................................... 5 CHAPTER 2 – EXISTING SERVICE AND ROUTE PERFORMANCE ................. 8 2.1 Fixed Route Service .................................................................................... 8 Riverside Line .............................................................................................. 8 Inland Empire Orange County (IEOC) Line ................................................ 9 91 Line ........................................................................................................ 10 2.2 Key Performance Indicators ...................................................................... 11 Riverside Line ............................................................................................ 11 IEOC Line.................................................................................................... 11 91 Line ........................................................................................................ 11 2.3 Productivity Improvement Efforts ............................................................... 11 2.4 Trip Generators and Projected Growth ...................................................... 12 2.5 Equipment, Passenger Amenities and Facility Needs ............................... 13 Implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) ..................................... 13 Construction of New Facilities ................................................................. 14 Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension Project ....................................... 14 CHAPTER 3 – PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES AND IMPLEMENTATION ..... 15 3.1 Recent Service Changes ........................................................................... 15 3.2 Recommended Service Changes and Modifications ................................. 15 3.3 Marketing Plans and Promotion ................................................................ 16 CHAPTER 4 – FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS .......................................... 17 4.1 Operating and Capital Budget ................................................................... 17 4.2 Funding Plans to Support Operating and Capital Program ....................... 17 4.3 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements ............................................... 17 Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VI .................................................. 17 TDA Triennial Audit, FTA Triennial Audit, NTD ....................................... 18 Alternative Fueled Vehicles ...................................................................... 18 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification .......................................................... 23 Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification ....................................................... 29 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS BNSF Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad CETAP Community & Environmental Acceptability Process CMAQ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Funds EOM Extra-Ordinary Maintenance FTA Federal Transit Administration IEOC Inland Empire-Orange County Line LACMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LAUS Los Angeles Union Station LTF Local Transportation Funds MOW Maintenance-of-Way OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority PTC Positive Train Control PVL Perris Valley Line RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission RTA Riverside Transit Agency RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program SANBAG San Bernardino Associated Governments SB Senate Bill SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority SJBL San Jacinto Branch Line SR State Route SRTP Short Range Transit Plan STA State Transit Assistance Funds STIP State Transportation Improvement Program STP Surface Transportation Program Funds TVM Ticket Vending Machine UP Union Pacific Railroad VCTC Ventura County Transportation Commission RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 1 CHAPTER 1 – SYSTEM OVERVIEW 1.1 Description of Service Area Currently, five of the 57 Metrolink stations are located in Western Riverside County. These five stations, Riverside-Downtown, Pedley, La Sierra, West Corona, and North Main Corona, are owned and maintained by RCTC. 1.2 Population Profile and Demographic Projections Whether traveling to work, school, or one of Southern California’s great recreation destinations, Metrolink trains provide a viable alternative to driving alone. Every day, thousands of Southern California residents park their cars and choose Metrolink to commute. The average Metrolink commute from Riverside County is 37 miles. Metrolink trains are also popular with schools throughout the region both taking students to classes and for field trips. The Metrolink rider profiles are updated every two years. The latest socio-economic data, collected in 2010, is listed below. RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 2 Line Riverside Line IEOC Line 91 Line System-wide Gender: Male Female 46% 54% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Ethnicity: Black Hispanic Asian Native Hawaiian American Indian Caucasian (non-Hispanic) Other 19% 27% 21% 2% 0% 27% 3% 11% 21% 10% 1% 1% 54% 3% 12% 26% 17% 2% 1% 39% 4% 15% 24% 15% 1% 1% 41% 3% Median Income (2010) $85,526 $74,999 $82,895 $76,470 Full-Time Employed 85% 86% 86% 80% Automobile Available 92% 87% 83% 83% 1.3 Fixed Route Services Metrolink regularly operates Monday through Friday. Weekend service operates on a reduced frequency on the IEOC, Orange County and San Bernardino Lines on Saturdays and Sundays with extensions to the Riverside-Downtown Station. IEOC Line Weekend service began July, 2006. There is limited service on New Year’s Day on the San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Lines. Trains do not normally operate on the following major holidays: Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. 1.4 Current Fare Structure and Proposed Fare Structure Since July 2005, Metrolink ticket prices are distance-based and calculated on the shortest driving miles between stations. Each station combination is uniquely priced, based on how many driving miles it is from one station to the other. The distance charge is currently capped at 80 miles. This pricing program offers a fair and equitable pricing policy. Over time, Metrolink customers traveling the same distances will pay the same price, and short trips will cost less than longer trips. This year, due to board adjustments ticket types, including proposed discontinuation of the 10-Trip Ticket, the system-wide average fare increase is 0%. The Metrolink ticket price consists of three elements: a base boarding charge, an additional increment related to the number of miles traveled, and finally a modest increment to permit Metrolink passengers to transfer without cost on selected connecting transit operators and a reduced rate on others. A ride from Downtown Riverside to Los Angeles Union Station is a 59 mile one-way trip; a ride from Downtown Riverside to Irvine is a 40 mile trip. RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 3 Weekday: Monday – Friday Adult Weekend: Saturday & Sunday Ages 19 to 64 Regular fare Youth Weekend: Saturday & Sunday Ages 6 to 18; 50% off Adult Fare on one- way/round-trip tickets purchased and used during weekend Student: 10% discount on 10-trip tickets and monthly passes with proper ID Children: Three children, age 5 or under, rides free with an adult using a valid ticket Senior: Age 65 and over with valid driver’s license or photo ID with date of birth; 50% off regular adult fare on one way and round trip tickets, 25% off monthly and 10-Trip tickets Disabled: With proper ID, 50% off regular adult fare on one way and round trip tickets, 25% off monthly and 10- trip tickets Military: 10% discount on all fares with valid ID School Groups: Discount tickets for ages 5 to 18 in school or youth groups; restricted for non-rush hour travel only Group Discount: Discount tickets for groups of 15 or more persons, not to exceed 50 FF4P: Groups of up to four persons may travel together on the weekend with the Friends and Family 4-Pack (FF4P) for $29 Ticket Types There are seven types of regular Metrolink tickets. One Way Tickets One-way tickets are valid for one trip only, defined as continuous travel away from the origin station to the destination station specified on the ticket. One-way trips must be completed within three hours after purchase of ticket on the day of purchase. The expiration time and date is displayed on the ticket. Types of One Way Tickets sold: Weekday, Adult Weekend, Youth Weekend, Military, and Senior/Disabled. Round Trip Tickets Round trip tickets are valid for two trips only, from and to the origin station and the destination station marked on the ticket. The first leg of a round trip ticket is valid for three hours from purchase. The return ticket is valid for travel anytime on the same day as the first leg of the trip. Types of round trip tickets sold: Weekday, Adult Weekend, Youth Weekend, Senior/Disabled, and Military. 10-Trip Tickets 10-Trip Tickets are valid for ten one-way trips within 45 days of purchase for travel between the origin station and the destination station printed on the ticket. The 10-Trip ticket is valid until the expiration date printed on the ticket and must be validated before each boarding. The trip must be completed within three hours of validation. Multiple riders may use the ten-trip ticket, provided there is one validation for each person who uses the ticket. Types of 10-Trip Tickets sold: Adult and Senior/Disabled (sold through the TVMs, the mail, and sales outlets) and Student (sold only to participating schools through Metrolink’s administrative office). Monthly Pass Monthly Passes are valid for unlimited travel between the origin station and destination station printed on the pass during the calendar month. Types of monthly passes: Adult, Senior/Disabled, and Student (sold only to participating schools through Metrolink’s administrative office). Group Tickets and Vouchers RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 4 Group Tickets are sold through Metrolink administrative offices on a reservation basis for non-rush hour and weekend trains. Metrolink distributes either tickets or vouchers to the group traveling. Tickets/vouchers are valid for travel on the day printed on the ticket/voucher only, between the specified origin and destination stations. School Group Tickets School group tickets are available by reservation through the Metrolink administrative office. The tickets are provided to the school group in voucher form, indicating the boarding and alighting stations, the date, time and specific trains for the school group. Friends and Family 4-Pack (FF4P) Beginning June 1, 2009 Metrolink began sales of the "Friends and Family 4-Pack" from all ticket vending machines. Selecting the "Friends and Family 4 Pack" button on the ticket vending machine dispenses four individual round trip tickets allowing: • Groups of up to four persons to travel together for only $29 • Advance purchase tickets are also available • Weekend systemwide travel on date specified • Available for Thanksgiving, Thanksgiving Friday and New Year's Day • Valid for Saturday or Sunday travel only • Up to four persons may travel together, as a group, not separately • Not transferable to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains • Not valid for free transfer to EZ Transit Pass operators Fare Increase Since Metrolink began operations in 1992, fares have increased as indicated in the following chart: 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 0% 5% 0% 4% 4.5% 5.5% 3.5% 5.5% 3.0%6.0% 0% TBD Historically, these fare increases have been across-the-board with all ticket types incurring the same price increase. For FY 2011/12 fares are not set to increase. In addition to adjusting fares in 2004 to keep pace with inflation, member agencies, including RCTC, also sought a rationalization of the fares charged for travel between the existing Metrolink zones. Over the years, unusual anomalies evolved where stations were placed into zones not necessarily based upon mileage issues but on other local issues. Zone fares were eliminated in July 2005 and replaced by a new fare structure that results in passengers being charged based upon the highway driving mileage between stations. Implementation of this structure was spread over 10 years to minimize financial impacts on individual riders whose particular trip may have been artificially kept low. RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 5 1.5 Revenue Fleet The Metrolink fleet is composed of 52 in service locomotives and 150 commuter rail cars. 15 passenger cars have been leased; the remaining equipment within the fleet is owned by SCRRA. 117 new cars are being delivered with incremental integration into the fleet through spring 2013. 1.6 Existing and Planned Facilities In planning for a successful commuter rail program in Western Riverside County, RCTC has acquired properties for current and future passenger rail service. Commuter Rail Station Management Unlike the other SCRRA county agencies, the Commission owns and operates six current and planned rail stations serving Riverside County: • Riverside-Downtown • Pedley • Riverside-La Sierra • North Main Corona • West Corona; and • Perris Multimodal Facility (joint RTA/RCTC facility) Station operation and maintenance costs are included in the rail program budget with services coordinated by the Commission’s staff. Parking is currently free at the stations. RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 6 FY 2011/12 RCTC Station Budget Communications 1% General Supplies 1% Equipment  Maintenance 4% Cleaning Internal  & External 5% Grounds  Maintenance 7% Administration 7% Utilities 9% Repairs 11% Other  Maintenance 12% Security Guards 43% The station operating and maintenance FY11/12 budget totals $2,294,000 funded by Western Riverside County Rail Local Transportation (LTF). The average budget including administration and management overhead is $458,800 per station. The Measure A program provides for Riverside County’s participation in the creation of a regional commuter rail system. Though the primary goal was to provide service from Riverside to Los Angeles and Orange counties, the Measure A map included a possible RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 7 internal element along the former Santa Fe Railroad’s San Jacinto Branch Line (SJBL). The SJBL corridor extends 38.3 miles between Highgrove and Hemet within Riverside County. The alignment roughly follows the Interstate 215 to Perris where it veers east, parallel to State Route 74 to Hemet and San Jacinto. As part of the regional acquisition of Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) properties and use rights, RCTC purchased the 38-mile SJBL and adjacent properties in 1993 for $26 million using Western County Rail Measure A and state rail bonds (Prop 108 of 1990). BNSF retained exclusive freight operating rights, serving its customers along the line and will continue to maintain the right-of-way until such time as passenger service is implemented. Engineering is currently underway for the Initial Operating Segment (IOS) of the SJBL for the Perris Valley Line. This Line would provide a connection from Moreno Valley’s March Air Reserve Base and Perris to mainline rail services in downtown Riverside (see Section 2.5 for more details). RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 8 Riverside Line Line Opening: June 1993 Route miles: 59.1 Avg Trip Length (miles): 39.3 Trains Operated/Day: 12 Avg FY10/11 Weekday Ridership: 5,069 FY11/12 Budget Operating Subsidy/Passenger Mile: $0.12 Farebox Recovery: 58.5% Revenue Recovery (MOW/ROW): 60.4% Current Stations Served Riverside-Downtown 4066 Vine Street Pedley 6001 Pedley Road East Ontario 3330 E Francis St Downtown-Pomona 101 N Main Street Industry 600 S Brea Canyon Rd Montebello/Commerce 2000 Flotilla St LA Union Station 800 N Alameda St CHAPTER 2 – EXISTING SERVICE AND ROUTE PERFORMANCE 2.1 Fixed Route Service The SCRRA operates seven commuter rail lines. Three routes, the Riverside, Inland Empire-Orange County (IEOC), and 91 Lines, directly serve Western Riverside County, with connecting service available to destinations on the other four lines. Riverside Line This line extends 59.1 miles between the city of Riverside and the Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) along the Union Pacific (UP) Railroad alignment. The route roughly follows the Pomona Freeway corridor (SR60) through the cities and communities of Pedley, Mira Loma, Ontario, Pomona, Walnut, Industry, La Puente, Montebello, and Commerce. Existing stations include Riverside-Downtown, Pedley, East Ontario, Downtown Pomona, Industry, Montebello, and LAUS. RCTC, SANBAG, and the LACMTA jointly fund the line. Currently, five peak-period round-trips and one off-peak round-trip operate Monday through Friday. Daily peak-period a.m. boardings have averaged 2,170 during November 2010. Approximately 29.6% of the morning boardings occur at Riverside County’s two stations on this line, Riverside-Downtown and Pedley.1 The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) fixed routes and Amtrak provide connecting transit service in Riverside County. The scheduled peak-direction trip time between downtown Riverside and LAUS varies between 83 and 88 minutes, including dwell time at intermediate stations. 1 Source: AM Peak-Period (Peak Direction) Boardings, November 2010 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 9 IEOC Line Line Opening: October 1995 Route miles: 100.1 Avg Trip Length (miles): 33.8 Trains Operated/Day: 14 Avg FY10/11 Weekday Ridership: 3,835 FY11/12 Budget: Operating Subsidy/Passenger Mile: $0.35 Farebox Recovery: 31.3% Revenue Recovery (MOW/ROW): 34.0% Current Stations Served: San Bernardino 1204 West 3rd St Riverside-Downtown 4066 Vine Street Riverside-La Sierra 10901 Indiana Ave North Main Corona 250 E Blaine St West Corona 155 S Auto Center Dr Anaheim Canyon 1039 N Pacificenter Dr Orange 194 N Atchison St Santa Ana 1000 E Santa Ana Bl Tustin 2975 Edinger Ave Irvine 15215 Barranca Pkwy Laguna Niguel 28200 Forbes Rd San Juan Capistrano 26701 Verdugo St San Clemente 1850 Avenida Estacion San Clemente Pier* Avenida del Mar Oceanside 235 S Tremont Ave *Weekends only Inland Empire Orange County (IEOC) Line This line extends 100.1 miles between the city of San Bernardino, in San Bernardino County, and Irvine and San Juan Capistrano, in Orange County, with limited extensions in Oceanside. The alignment roughly follows the Riverside Freeway (SR91) along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) San Bernardino Subdivision in Riverside and Orange County. This commuter rail service to Orange County provides a transportation alternative in one of the busiest corridors in Southern California. The Line is a jointly funded project of the RCTC, SANBAG, and OCTA. When the service began in October 1995, it was the first suburb-to-suburb commuter rail line in the country. One station in San Bernardino County, four stations within Riverside County, eight within Orange County, and one station in San Diego County now serve the line. Currently, four peak-period round-trips, and three off-peak round-trips operate Monday through Friday. Morning boardings averaged 1,711 during November 2010. Approximately 88.7% of the morning boardings occurred at Riverside County’s four stations on this line, at Riverside-Downtown, Riverside- La Sierra, North Main Corona, and West Corona.2 IEOC weekend service began on July 15, 2006. This route was modeled after the successful RCTC chartered Beach Trains. The service has been reduced to one round trip leaving from San Bernardino to Oceanside in the morning and returning in the afternoon on Saturday and Sunday. The trains make all IEOC stops, plus the San Clemente Pier. The current running time between downtown Riverside and Irvine is approximately 68 minutes. RTA, Corona Dial-A-Ride, and the Corona Cruiser provide connecting transit service. 2 Source: AM Peak-Period (Peak Direction) Boardings, November 2010 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 10 91 Line Line Opening: May 2002 Route miles: 61.6 Avg Trip Length (miles): 36.6 Trains Operated/Day: 9 Avg FY10/11 Weekday Ridership: 2,178 FY11/12 Budget: Operating Subsidy/Passenger Mile: $0.22 Farebox Recovery: 49.7% Revenue Recovery (MOW/ROW): 50.9% Current Stations Served: Riverside-Downtown 4066 Vine St Riverside-La Sierra 10901 Indiana Ave North Main Corona 250 E Blaine St West Corona 155 S Auto Center Dr Fullerton 120 E Santa Fe Ave Buena Park Lakeknoll Dr & Dale St Norwalk 12700 Imperial Highway Commerce 6433 26th St LA Union Station 800 N Alameda St 91 Line This route officially began operating peak-period service on May 6, 2002. The route extends 61.6 miles between Riverside and Downtown Los Angeles. The alignment roughly follows the Riverside Freeway (SR91) along the BNSF San Bernardino subdivision through Riverside County to Fullerton in Orange County where it continues northwest to downtown Los Angeles. Existing stations that serve this line include Riverside-Downtown, Riverside-La Sierra, North Main Corona, West Corona, Fullerton, Buena Park, Norwalk, Commerce, and LAUS. RCTC, OCTA, and the LACMTA jointly fund the Line. The service levels on this route are still developing. Currently, there are two AM peak-period trips from Riverside to Los Angeles with two PM peak period returns. There are two AM peak period trips from Los Angeles to Riverside with one PM peak period return and one mid day off-peak round-trip. This service operates Monday through Friday. Morning boardings averaged 1,036 during November 2010. Approximately 68.9% of the morning boardings occur at Riverside County’s four stations on this line, at Riverside-Downtown, Riverside- La Sierra, North Main Corona, and West Corona.3 The peak-period running time between downtown Riverside and Los Angeles is approximately 90 minutes. RTA, Corona Dial-A-Ride, and the Corona Cruiser provide connecting service in Riverside County. 3 Source: AM Peak-Period (Peak Direction) Boardings, November 2010 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 11 2.2 Key Performance Indicators RCTC will use the following performance indicators provided by SCRRA to measure the effectiveness of the Riverside, IEOC, and 91 Lines: Riverside Line Indicator FY09/10 Audited FY10/11 Projected FY11/12 Plan Unlinked Passenger Trips 1,290,405 1,302,958 1,356,687 Subsidy/Passenger Mile $0.13 $0.13 $0.12 Farebox Recovery Ratio 57.2% 58.8% 58.5% Operating Expense/Passenger Mile $0.30 $0.31 $0.31 Operating Subsidy/Passenger $4.79 $4.88 $4.78 Operating Expense/Train Mile $77.65 $81.72 $84.35 Revenue Recovery 60.6% 61.2% 60.4% Passenger Miles per Revenue Car Mile (Assumes 5 car set) 54.23 64.97 57.89 IEOC Line Indicator FY09/10 Audited FY10/11 Projected FY11/12 Plan Unlinked Passenger Trips 1,073,344 1,083,785 1,110,973 Subsidy/Passenger Mile $0.41 $0.41 $0.35 Farebox Recovery Ratio 28.0% 29.1% 31.3% Operating Expense/Passenger Mile $0.57 $0.58 $0.52 Operating Subsidy/Passenger $12.97 $13.02 $11.73 Operating Expense/Train Mile $53.31 $59.89 $61.44 Revenue Recovery 33.2% 31.8% 34.0% Passenger Miles per Revenue Car Mile (Assumes 4 car set) 28.70 29.26 26.40 91 Line Indicator FY09/10 Audited FY10/11 Projected FY11/12 Plan Unlinked Passenger Trips 547,569 552,896 579,250 Subsidy/Passenger Mile $0.21 $0.21 $0.22 Farebox Recovery Ratio 49.4% 51.6% 49.7% Operating Expense/Passenger Mile $0.42 $0.44 $0.45 Operating Subsidy/Passenger $7.74 $7.72 $8.06 Operating Expense/Train Mile $59.43 $61.62 $64.09 Revenue Recovery 52.1% 53.4% 50.9% Passenger Miles per Revenue Car Mile (Assumes 4 car set) 39.17 35.18 29.17 2.3 Productivity Improvement Efforts Since the first three lines opened in October 1992, the system has experienced tremendous growth with operating levels and ridership greatly exceeding initial projections. However, forecasts for the coming fiscal year show the system’s average RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 12 daily ridership will decrease due to extraordinary economic circumstances. Specifically, ridership has decreased significantly on the Inland Empire Orange County Line, while operating costs have increased slightly. The overall effect is a reduction in performance in the short term. Category Goal FY 11/12 Targets Farebox Recovery Ratio 40% or higher >=40.00% Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour CPI increase <= $2,907.47 Subsidy Per Passenger $7.50 >= $6.93 and <= $9.37 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile $0.20 or less >= $0.20 and <= $0.26 Subsidy Per Hour $1,450 or less >= $1,407.05 and <= $1,903.65 Subsidy Per Mile $7.50 or less >= $7.48 and <= $10.12 Passengers Per Revenue Hour 180 >= 172.55 and <= 233.45 Unlinked Passenger Trips Min 2% growth >= 2,212,078 Passenger Miles Per Rev Car Mile 30 or more >= 30.52 and <= 41.30 2.4 Trip Generators and Projected Growth Feeder services to stations are vital to the success of commuter rail in Western Riverside County. Coordination and consultation with transit providers and local agencies is an ongoing process. Connecting transit to stations in Western Riverside County is provided by RTA, Corona Dial-A-Ride, and the Corona Cruiser. Once again, RTA, RCTC, and Metrolink continues to work together to increase awareness of the RTA bus connections at the RCTC Metrolink stations. Ads regularly appear in the RTA Ride Guide promoting free RTA transfers from Metrolink stations. The Ride Guide includes the five Metrolink stations in its Route Directory Listing. Additionally, Metrolink occasionally helps promote the RTA CommuterLink service in materials at the stations. In addition to its fixed routes, RTA developed CommuterLink as a contracted service to address the needs of commuters. This express service provides transit to and from Riverside Metrolink stations and transit centers during peak commuting periods. The aim of the program is to provide a viable transit alternative for commuters, helping mitigate congestion and pollution. The Corona Cruiser, run by the City of Corona, provides a fixed route schedule but offers some route deviation with advance reservation. Buses run Monday through Saturday and serve most Metrolink trains at the North Main Corona Station as well as stops throughout Corona. In 2003, RCTC negotiated a master agreement with SCRRA covering all connecting transit services at Riverside County stations. Under the agreement, SCRRA agreed to reimburse connecting carriers for all arriving and departing Metrolink passengers using RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 13 the connecting services. With the agreement, Metrolink ticket holders can ride both fixed route and Dial-A-Ride services for free as they travel to and from a station in Riverside County. RCTC is assessing direct assumption of at least a portion of the share of connecting transit costs attributed to Riverside County transit operators. Feeder buses and transit services are also critically important at the destination end. For the IEOC route, dedicated OCTA shuttle buses meet all peak-period trains at Anaheim Canyon, Orange, Santa Ana, Tustin, and Irvine. Some OCTA buses meet trains at all these stations as well as Laguna Niguel, San Juan Capistrano, and San Clemente. Forecasts for the coming fiscal year show the system’s average daily ridership will increase by 4.1%. 2.5 Equipment, Passenger Amenities and Facility Needs Commuters boarding at RCTC Metrolink stations are provided with amenities that assist with their daily travel needs. Vending machines stocked with beverages and snacks are available at each station. Station facilities also include wireless internet access, bike lockers, designated parking for motorcycles and carpools. Furthermore, all stations are staffed 24 hours by contracted security guards, closed circuit television, and various safety and security enhancements such as fencing and gates. Amenities are also available onboard the train. All train cars are equipped with restrooms, and some of the newer cars contain hook-ups for laptop computers. Metrolink has developed the website www.metrolinktrains.com. This site provides passengers with enhanced features allowing for greater content functionality. Improvements include regular service updates on the homepage, improved content management functions, enhanced usability and a more consistent look and feel with features expected by our increasingly web savvy passengers. Additionally, passengers can now subscribe through Twitter to obtain service updates and plan their trips using Google Transit. Major needs, which continue to be the focus of RCTC attention for the SRTP FY 2011/12–2013/14, include the following: • Implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC); and • Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension Project. Implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) In light of operational safety issues at Metrolink, staff determined that the best use of limited capital funds was to further fund Metrolink’s expanded safety efforts. These funds will be dedicated to three projects at Metrolink. PTC will continue to be a priority for Metrolink and RCTC to the extent it affects operations within the Commission’s jurisdiction and related projects. RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 14 Construction of New Facilities In order to meet the capacity needs of current and future system growth and expansion, the following facilities will be completed or commenced in the upcoming fiscal year: • Downtown Layover Facility: accommodating Metrolink’s new equipment that will allow for expanded system capacity; and • Operations Control Center: This facility will accommodate expanded video surveillance and security operations upon integration of the Perris Valley Line. Perris Valley Line Metrolink Extension Project From 1999 to 2000, funding commitments to the SJBL were sporadic. Working with Congress, RCTC was successful in having the SJBL identified in the Federal Transportation Efficiency Act for the Twenty-First Century (TEA-21) as an eligible FTA New Start rail project. In 1998, Congress appropriated $500,000 to the SJBL. These funds have since been drawn down to conduct an Alternatives Analysis, “The San Jacinto Branch Line/I-215 Corridor Study.” Through prior action, the Commission has allocated $20 million for the implementation of passenger rail service between Riverside and Perris on the SJBL. In June 2003, the Commission re-adopted the Locally Preferred Alternative as an IOS of the SJBL, the Perris Valley Line (Riverside-Moreno Valley-Perris) Metrolink extension of the 91 Line. This extension will consist of four peak-period round trips supplemented by a midday round trip. All trains will operate from Perris to Los Angeles via Riverside. The estimated cost to completely re-build the Branch Line, construct new stations and connection track is $232 million, for a start up of service by late 2012. Staff is aggressively seeking additional federal, state, and private sources to fund this project. RCTC has received approval from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to initiate project development. Under the Small Starts Program, this phase of the project will be funded by a combination of federal Section 5309 and local funds available to RCTC. At the conclusion of final design, RCTC will be seeking a Project Construction Grant Agreement (PCGA) from FTA to provide up to $75 million for the project. Of this $75 million, $45 million was set aside for RCTC in the FY 08/09 Federal Budget. RCTC has identified sufficient local funds for its share of the project. The FY 2011/12 capital activities associated with this project, estimated at $22,358,000, include initiation of preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and completion of the environmental assessment. Funding for additional rail capital projects for the SRTP period are outlined in Tables 4 and 5 of this document. RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 15 CHAPTER 3 – PLANNED SERVICE CHANGES AND IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 Recent Service Changes New Metrolink schedules went into effect on May 9, 2011. This schedule change incorporated service adjustments approved by the SCRRA Board of Directors and included new express service on the San Bernardino and Antelope Valley Lines and prior approved changes to weekend trains in response to seasonal demand. 3.2 Recommended Service Changes and Modifications The RCTC rail program consists of planning, programming, advocacy and implementation elements. This SRTP incorporates a variety of activities which support these elements. The FY2011/12 Capital and Operating Plan reflects the efficiencies implemented since Metrolink’s inception. Proposed service maximizes the use of existing rolling stock and leased cars to relieve overcrowding. The FY 2011/12 proposed budget is under review by all of the member agencies and concurrence is anticipated by June 2011. Riverside Line Service Level Changes No change. IEOC Line Service Level Changes No change. 91 Line Service Level Changes No change. RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 16 OPERATING SERVICE ASSUMPTIONS FOR FY2011/12 Line/Route Weekday Trains Saturday Trains Sunday Trains Riverside 12 Riverside-LA (UP) 4 Riverside-LA* 4 Riverside-LA* IEOC 3 San Bernardino - Irvine 1 San Bernardino - Laguna Niguel 2 San Bernardino - San Juan Capistrano 2 San Bernardino - Oceanside 1 Riverside - Irvine 3 Riverside - Laguna Niguel 2 Riverside - Oceanside 1 San Bernardino - Oceanside (1 addtl. during the summer season) San Bernardino - Oceanside (1 addtl. during the summer season) 91/Riv-Ful-LA 9 Riverside-LA (BNSF) *Trains run via the San Bernardino Line The Commission’s goal in participating in a regional commuter rail system is to provide useful transportation alternatives to its residents. To a large degree, this goal has already achieved great results. Each morning, over 3,000 Riverside residents board one of 11 Metrolink trains headed for jobs in Orange and Los Angeles counties. These rail commuters also contribute to reduction in freeway traffic, removing more than 1.5 lanes of peak hour traffic each morning and each afternoon. Notwithstanding this success, a commuter rail service is unlike most of the projects funded by the Commission. The complete benefits of the project are not fully realized upon completion of construction or initial implementation of service. The commuter rail service must increase frequency as the demand increases over time. This increase in service is constrained by the availability of rail vehicles, capacity on the railroad, and available funding. Currently, not all of the Riverside County routes operate at optimal service levels. Two of the three Metrolink lines do not even offer minimum basic coverage during peak travel times. The IEOC and the 91 Line do not yet provide half- hourly headways and thus, their attractiveness to residents and, ultimately, their ridership and revenue performance are compromised. 3.3 Marketing Plans and Promotion Metrolink will continue outreach to new residents through direct mail campaigns to homeowners within the system’s sphere of service within Riverside County. Additionally, Metrolink is developing a targeted marketing strategy with all its member agencies. RCTC has budgeted for targeted promotion of additional summer service starting July 1, 2011 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 17 CHAPTER 4 – FINANCIAL AND CAPITAL PLANS 4.1 Operating and Capital Budget This SRTP reflects the Commission’s commitment to the commuter rail goals in the FY 2011/12 RCTC Budget: • Improve utilization and increase efficiency of commuter rail lines serving Riverside County; • Extend commuter rail service to Moreno Valley and Perris via the San Jacinto Branch Line; and • Maximize opportunities for public use of rail-related investments. Specific highlights of the FY 2011/12 Budget include: • Continue preliminary engineering and final design of the Perris Valley Line (Riverside - Moreno Valley – Perris) Metrolink extension project; • An increase in operating subsidy since last year’s SRTP due to declining revenue and ridership. 4.2 Funding Plans to Support Operating and Capital Program With the passage of Measure A in 1988, $100 million was identified and committed to the development and implementation of a commuter rail system to serve Riverside County residents. The Rail Department uses LTF for operation as well as federal 5307, 5309 and state Proposition 1B funds for capital. RCTC holds two voting positions on SCRRA’s eleven member Board. RCTC staff members serve on the five-county Technical Advisory Committee which negotiates service and funding levels based upon the counties’ established priorities. Staff also provides technical assistance, coordination between various SCRRA and RCTC departments, and linkages to local communities. 4.3 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements Public participation regarding service levels is largely garnered through the bi-annual on-board survey. Public hearings are held prior to any service changes. Daily receipt of feedback from the public is sought through Metrolink’s 1-800-371-LINK (5465) and website www.metrolinktrains.com. Additionally, RCTC maintains a customer service number (951) 778-1092, provides service updates through Twitter and receives comments through the www.rctc.org website. Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VI SCRRA is responsible for the regulatory and compliance requirements governing the use of federal and state funds in accordance with ADA and Title VI. Accordingly, RCTC is responsible for additional compliance requirements as relates to station facilities. All Metrolink trains and stations are accessible to persons with disabilities. RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 18 TDA Triennial Audit, FTA Triennial Audit, NTD The RCTC TDA Triennial Audit was completed in September, 2010. The last audit resulted in no findings as pertained to the Rail Program. The FTA Triennial Audit completed in August 2009 resulted in no findings for RCTC. NTD is reported annually by both SCRRA and RCTC. Alternative Fueled Vehicles Metrolink is currently converting its locomotives to low emission diesel after taking delivery of 15 new locomotives. These state of the art high efficiency and low emission locomotives will greatly expand and enhance the existing fleet. RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 19 TABLE 1 - FLEET INVENTORY RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 20 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 21 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 22 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 23 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 12 - 1 PROJECT NAME: SCRRA Rehab/Renovation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The RCTC share of Rehab/Renovation Projects for FY12 include: • Rail Bridge Program – River Corridor • Rail Grinding Program - Systemwide • Passenger Signage Rehabilitation Program – Systemwide • MOW Facility – Systemwide • Augment On-Rail Equipment – Systemwide • R/W compliance with new PUC rule – Systemwide • Vehicles Non-Fed – Systemwide • Vehicles Fed – Systemwide • Rolling Stock – Systemwide • Complete Communication Plan – Systemwide • Pay half of lease for 4 cars to support Rehab Program – Systemwide • Rehab TVMs; plus related support and security systems – Systemwide PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: SCRRA rehabilitation/renovation projects are those projects that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus extending the useful life of these capital assets. These recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal & manageable risk of failure. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): FTA 5307 $1,256,000 Total $1,256,000 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 24 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 12 - 2 PROJECT NAME: Rail Station Surveillance and Security Upgrades PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This Project will provide the following: • Enhanced remote video surveillance capabilities to allow security personnel, law enforcement and first responders to better monitor and assess incidents at all stations existing and planned. • Limited and controlled access to stations and platforms in the event of a catastrophic accident or disaster. • Improved lighting and visibility to mitigate the potential of personal injury and criminal activity at the stations. • Battery backup systems to ensure visibility in the event of equipment failure or power outage. • Equipment to assist with evacuation and response in the event of a major incident or disaster. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: This project is funded by FY 2009 and FY 2010 Proposition 1B Safety and Security funds to improve safety and security at all existing and planned Riverside County Metrolink stations. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Prop 1B (FY 10/11 Security Funds) $150,280 Total $150,280 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 25 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 12 - 3 PROJECT NAME: Perris Valley Line PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This FTA 5309 Small Starts project seeks to extend Metrolink service from Riverside to Moreno Valley and Perris via the Commission-owned San Jacinto Branch Line. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: In June 2003, the Commission re-adopted the Locally Preferred Alternative as an extension of Metrolink service from Riverside to Perris. This project cost is for engineering and construction. Start up of the service is projected for 2012. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): FTA 5309 $25,000,000 Total $25,000,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE: FTA Grant # RCTC Grant # Description Unexpended balance Measure A $5,000,000 FTA 5307 $10,000,000 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 26 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 12 - 4 PROJECT NAME: Rail Capital Support PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Funding for all capital support services of RCTC rail projects. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Due to the substantial capital expenditures and intensity of short term capital activity within the rail program, funding is required for the array of services required to support the engineering and construction costs otherwise funded through federal sources. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Measure A $5,000,000 Total $5,000,000 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 27 Table 4A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 12 - 5 PROJECT NAME: Perris Valley Line CCTV PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Enhanced remote video surveillance capabilities for all planned Perris Valley Line Metrolink Stations. This includes increasing video surveillance capacity required for additional stations planned for construction within the next two years. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: Improved Security Monitoring and Response will ensure security personnel are better equipped to conduct regular security operations, rapidly respond to incidents and provide enhancements to ensure better continuity in the event of a major incident or disaster. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): Prop 1B (FY 10/11 PTMISEA) $1,900,000 Prop 1B (PTMISEA Carry over) $2,049,975 Prop 1B (Security Funds) $200,000 Total $4,149,975 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE: FTA Grant # RCTC Grant # Description Unexpended balance Prop 1B La Sierra FY 10-7 $817,010 Prop 1B PVL Multimodal FY 10-9 $587,846 Prop 1B Green Rehab FY 10-6 $645,119 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 28 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 29 Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 13 - 1 PROJECT NAME: Perris Valley Line – Construction PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This FTA Small Starts project seeks to extend Metrolink service from Riverside to Moreno Valley and Perris via the Commission-owned San Jacinto Branch Line. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: In June 2003, the Commission re-adopted the Locally Preferred Alternative as an extension of Metrolink service from Riverside to Perris. This project cost is for Preliminary Engineering. Start up of the service is projected for 2013. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): FTA 5309 $46,500,000 Measure A $21,000,000 Total $67,500,000 PRIOR YEAR PROJECTS OF A SIMILAR NATURE WITH UNEXPENDED BALANCE: FTA Grant # RCTC Grant Description Total CA-90-Y637 FTA 5307 $6,157,453.00 CA-90-Y152-00 CMAQ $3,637,392.17 CA-03-0799-00 FTA 5309 Earmark $2,450,000.00 CA-95-X069-00 STP $564,780.30 Measure A $ 3,308,498.00 Property Revenues $10,100,000.00 FTA 5309 Small Starts $75,000,000.00 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 30 Table 5.1A – Capital Project Justification PROJECT NUMBER: FY 13 - 2 PROJECT NAME: SCRRA Rehab/Renovation PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The RCTC share of Rehab/Renovation Projects for FY13 include: • Rail Bridge Program – River Corridor • Rail Grinding Program - Systemwide • Passenger Signage Rehabilitation Program – Systemwide • MOW Facility – Systemwide • Augment On-Rail Equipment – Systemwide • R/W compliance with new PUC rule – Systemwide • Vehicles Non-Fed – Systemwide • Vehicles Fed – Systemwide • Rolling Stock – Systemwide • Complete Communication Plan – Systemwide • Pay half of lease for 4 cars to support Rehab Program – Systemwide • Rehab TVMs; plus related support and security systems – Systemwide PROJECT JUSTIFICATION: SCRRA rehabilitation/renovation projects are those projects that replace worn out assets with like or improved assets and thus extending the useful life of these capital assets. These recommendations are based upon tolerating only the most minimal & manageable risk of failure. PROJECT FUNDING SOURCES (REQUESTED): FTA 5307 $2,750,000 Total $2,750,000 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 31 TABLE 6 – STATE TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT Recent Audit Recommendation (Covering FY 2006/07 – FY 2008/095) Completion Details No findings N/A 5 Triennial performance audit for FY 2006/07 through FY 2008/09 was conducted in FY 2009/10 and completed 8/6/09. RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 32 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 33 RCTC COMMUTER RAIL SRTP FY 2011/12-2013/14 34 TABLE 9 – SRTP HIGHLIGHTS Specific highlights of the FY 2011/12 Commuter Rail Plans include: o Plan to maintain current Metrolink service levels in Riverside County; o Board will not raise systemwide fares. o Continued delivery of new rail coaches to allow for future expansion of service; o Continued engineering and possible start of construction of the Perris Valley Line (Riverside - Moreno Valley – Perris) Metrolink extension project; Operating & Financial Data FY06/07 Audited FY07/08 Audited FY08/09 Audited FY09/10 Audited FY10/11 Estimate FY 11/12 Plan Systemwide- Riverside Ridership 2,987,023 2,996,389 3,120,423 2,939,587 2,939,639 3,046,910 Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $471 $523 $630 $2,906* $3,035* $2,613* *Calculation is now based upon train revenue hours only, not the previous combined car/train hour figure. 6/8/2011 FY 2011/12 Short Range Transit Planning Process for Riverside County Public Transportation Services h__ What is a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP)? RCTC • Is a planning tool with a three year horizon. • Identifies all financial resources proposed to be used by each operator to support current and proposed levels of service. • Addresses performance measures set by the Commission via PIP as required by Transit Development Act (TDA). • Allows the Commission to exercise its fiduciary duty for oversight of TDA funds during the budget process. 1 6/8/2011 Who is Affected? RCTC SRTP covers three apportionment areas in Riverside County with eight public operators affected. • City of Banning • City of Beaumont • City of Corona • City of Riverside • Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency • Riverside Transit Agency • SunLine Transit Agency • RCTC Commuter Rail/MetroLink Fund Estimate RCTC LTF 2008 $62.9 million 2009 $56.1 million 2010 $49.1 million 2011 $56.7 million STA 2008 $4.9 million 2009 $0 2010 $12.9 million 2011 $10.6 million Measure A 2008 $131.6 million 2009 $122.6 million 2010 $106.0 million 2011 $114.7 million 2 6/8/2011 • Short Range Transit Plan process started alt - Highlights by Operator for FY 2011/12 RCTC • City of Banning *Provide modified Sunday Service. • Install two new shelters and monitor new service to Mt. San Jacinto College. • City of Beaumont *Increase peak period buses. *Extend customer service hours of availability and perform system wide route analysis for potential restructuring. • City of Corona *Purchase and take delivery of nine new dial a ride buses. • Purchase and take delivery of five new "Cruiser" buses. City of Riverside * Begin construction of new CNG maintenance facility. • Install additional slow fill stations at Corporate yard. 3 6/8/2011 Highlights by Operator for FY 2011/12 • Riverside Transit Agency "Implement three year capital bus purchase program "Implement Consolidated Operational Analysis (COA) report No federal_ assistance expected soon! Riverside Co. is a self help coun — Local Transportation Fund (LTF) — reserve. Commission policy is to utilize STA for Capital rather than operating. — State Transportation Assistance (STA) — reserve. Flexible purchasing plan with separate contracts staged over three years. Highlights by Operator for FY 2011 12 • Riverside Transit Agency • Implement three year capital bus purchase program. `Implement Consolidated Operational Analysis (COA) report. • Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency "Add new Route 5 to serve deviated fixed route service to Ripley, Mesa Verde and Ehernberg. "Complete upgrades to newly purchased transit facility. • SunLine Transit Agency `Finalize environmental assessment, engineering and master planning work to support new administration facility. `Implement new commuter express service and taxi voucher program funded through specialized transit. • RCTC Commuter Rail/MetroLink *Continue engineering and project development for Perris Valley Line extension. `Maintain current levels of service without a fare increase. *Continue delivery of new rail cars (Guardian Fleet). 4 6/8/2011 •Staff recommendation for approval of the 2011 transit funding allocation 5 " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 8, 2011 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Tanya Love, Goods Movement Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Allocation of Funds to Interstate 215/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Allocate $7,589,337 in Surface Transportation Program (STP) federal funds from unallocated grade separation funding, and reprogram $2,410,663 in STP project savings from the 1-10/Date Palm Drive interchange to the county of Riverside (County) to complete a funding shortfall for the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project; 2) Replace unobligated STP grade separation funding with federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds; 3) Reallocate $10 million in Measure A Economic Development funds from the Jurupa Road grade separation project to the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project to front unallocated Transportation Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) funds; 4) Approve Agreement No. 08-31-124-01, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 08-31-124-00, with the County to reflect the $10 million of additional Measure A funding from the Jurupa Road grade separation for the I-21 5/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project; 5) Approve Agreement No. 11-67-130-00 with the County for repayment of the fronted TCIF funds, and that the Commission receive priority for repayment in the event there are project savings on the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange; and 6) Authorize the Chair, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute agreements on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The 1-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project was awarded $10 million in Proposition 1 B Trade Corridor Improvement Funds (TCIF) in January 2008. In addition, $10 million in Measure A Economic Development Funds was awarded in support of the project in June 2008. The I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange Agenda Item 10 242 expansion is an important mobility project in the County as it will provide needed capacity for the completion of the Meridian Business Park . and greatly improve mobility throughout the corridor. The project is in the final right of way phase and will be ready to list in July 2011. Unfortunately, the project cannot proceed to the construction phase due to a funding shortfall coupled with a lack of available TCIF funds. Project Benefits The I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project involves the complete reconstruction of the bridge overpass and will allow for the future widening of 1-215 to four mixed flow and one high occupancy vehicle lane in each direction without further need to lengthen the bridge. This interchange project will also raise the overhead structure on Van Buren Boulevard over the Perris Valley Line to provide 24 feet of clearance. As a result, there will be cost savings to these future regional projects if the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project proceeds as scheduled. Funding Shortfall As detailed on the table in the attached letter, the County estimates construction costs to be approximately $52 million and has secured funding of approximately $42 million. The estimated funding shortfall is $10 million. 1n addition, the $10 million in TCIF funding is not available at this time due to the lack of Proposition 1 B bond sales. The California State Treasurer announced that the bond sale will not commence this spring as planned due to the state budget situation. TCIF funding availability is dependent on such bond sales, and as a result, the County is unable to proceed with the construction phase of the project unless alternative funding is available to rep►ace the TCIF funds. Pursuant to AB 672, effective January 1, 2010, and the California Transportation Commission ICTC) Proposition 1 B LONP guidelines, the County can request CTC authorization to proceed with the project by using local and federal funds in place of the TCIF funding with the possibility of reimbursement when TCIF funds are available. At this time, the County does not have any local funding available and has requested Commission assistance in filling the $10 million funding gap and fronting the $10 million of TCIF funding. CMAQ/STP Funding for Grade Separations/Goods Movement Projects for Funding Shortfall In April 2007, the Commission approved an "off the top" allocation of 25% of CMAQ and STP federal funds for Alameda Corridor East (ACE) grade separation projects, contingent upon a "use it or lose" it provision. Although the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project is not on the ACE corridor, it is an important goods movement project. In addition to the approximately 800 construction jobs Agenda Item 10 • • 243 " that this project will create, it provides the key infrastructure component to deliver the single -largest job center in the County at the March Joint Powers Authority re- use area, estimated to create 38,000 jobs in the industrial, logistics, and medical sectors. As detailed on the table, approximately $28 million in STP funding is available for grade separation projects. Staff is requesting approval to replace unobligated balances of STP funding with CMAQ funding on the Iowa Avenue and Clay Street grade separations, which are both eligible for CMAQ funding and to allocate $7,589,337 in STP funds from the grade separation funding category to the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project: STP ESTIMATED BEGINNING BALANCE 125% "off the top") $27,724,194 Grade Separation/Goods Date Approved by Movement Project Amount Allocated Commission Action Estimated Balance Iowa Avenue* $400,000 12/2007 $27,324,194 Streeter Avenue 7,500,000 12/2007 19,824,194 Clay Street* see below 12/2007 19,824,194 Riverside Avenue 5,000,000 12/2007 14,824,194 Quiet Zone (City of Riverside) 7,000,000 3/2011 7,824,194 I-215/Van Buren IC 7,589,337 6/2011 (Pending) 234,857 CMAQ ESTIMATED BEGINNING BALANCE 125% "off the top"�% $43,393,793 Grade Separation/Goods Date Approved by Movement Project Amount Allocated Commission Action Estimated Balance Magnolia Avenue $15,000,000 12/2007 $28,393,793 Auto Center Drive 16,000,000 6/2011 (Pending) 12,393,793 Avenue 66 350,000 11/2011 (Pending) 12,043,793 Iowa Avenue* 3,550,000 6/2011 (Pending) 8,493,793 Clay Street* 7,500,000 6/2011 (Pending) 993,793 * Requesting approval to replace unobligated allocations of STP with CMAQ on Iowa Avenue and Clay Street grade separation projects. Staff is also requesting that $2,410,663 in STP bid savings from the County's 1-10/Date Palm Drive interchange project be applied to this project from the non -goods movement funding category. If approved the total STP funding will be $10 million: $ 7,589,337 STP funds: STP/CMAQ swaps from unobligated grade separations $ 2,410,663 STP bid savings from from 1-10/Date Palm Drive interchange $10,000,000 Total STP allocation to I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project Agenda Item 10 244 Reallocation of Measure A Economic Development Funds to Front TCIF Funds In December 2007, the Commission approved $10 million in Measure A Western County Economic Development Funds for the Jurupa Road grade separation project. Currently, the Jurupa Road project is estimated to cost $108 million, however, only $12 million in funding is secured. As a result, staff is requesting that the $10 million in Measure A Economic Development funds allocated to Jurupa be reallocated to the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project. If approved, Agreement No. 08-31-123-00 with the County will be amended to reflect the additional $10 million in Measure A Economic Development Funds for the project. Staff also recommends that this funding source be considered the "last funding in" so that if actual construction bids for the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project are lower than anticipated, the Measure A funding can be retained for future projects. Commission and County staff will need to monitor this closely as TCIF funding is contingent on CTC's match requirements as well as proportionality. Agreement No. 11-67-130-00 with the County will stipulate that bid savings, if any, from the I-215/Van Buren Boulevard interchange project will be repaid to the Commission. The CTC recommends that local agencies request an allocation when their project is ready to begin construction as that reinforces the need for a bond sale. The next bond sale is scheduled for fall 2011. The Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) guidelines allow for the conversion of LONP's once bonds are sold. For example, if bonds are sold in fall 2011, CTC can allocate approved LONP's thereby replacing the LONP funds with the allocated TCIF funds. This would result in the LONP funds (Measure A) reverting back to the local agency (RCTC). It should be noted that there is no guarantee that the $10 million in Measure A funds will be reimbursed through the LONP process; however, CTC staff has indicated that all LONP requests to date have been approved and payments are being made, and that there is a high likelihood that LONP repayments will continue to be made. Commission staff will continue to work with County staff to seek funding for the Jurupa Road grade separation project. a Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: 2012/13 Amount: $10,000,000 Measure A Economic Development Funds Source of Funds: and debt proceeds (STP and CMAQ funds will flow directly to Budget Adjustment: N/A the project lead agencies) GL/Project Accounting No.: 268 31 81301 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i/a4,4„,v Date: 05/17/11 Attachment: I-215/Van Buren Boulevard Interchange Project Funding Request Agenda Item 10 • 245 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Transportation Department May 3, 2011 Anne Mayer Executive Director RCTC 4080 Lemon St — 3rd Floor Riverside CA 92501 L - R r• L� _�. Hi!) it i, MAY r 4 2011 RIVLRSIGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION CCM1.MESSIO 90838 AM, JSt, SM, CB, GA, AZ �sr oc gr�Fq ,,, o° .: ° )•N. r Juan C. Perez. P.E., TE. Director of Transportation Subject: Request for additional funding for the Van Buren/I-215 Interchange Expansion Dear Anne: Thank you for your continued courtesies in meeting with Lori Stone and I to discuss this project and its last remaining funding challenges. The March Joint Powers Authority (JPA) has designated the County Transportation Department as the lead agency for the design and construction of this critical project. "Tremendous progress has been made, due to the efforts of the project team and Caltrans in their review role. We are projecting that the project will be ready to advertise In July 2011. In addition to the approximately 800 construction jobs that this project would create, it provides the key infrastructure component to deliver the single -largest job center in the County at the March JPA re -use area, estimated to create 38,000 jobs in the industrial, logistics, and medical sectors. The corresponding benefits to increased economic activity by creating more jobs in the heart of Riverside County, which would translate to increased Measure A sales tax being generated by this expanded job base, plus the transportation benefits of helping to reverse the out -of -county job commute trends are potentially enormous. The attached exhibit details the anticipated project construction -phase cost and the available funding. Through the support of RCTC, this project has been designated to receive $10 million of Trade Corridors Improvement Funds (TCIF) and $10 million in Measure A Economic Development Funds. The March JPA has sold bonds for $20 million in redevelopment funds and has spent approximately $1.9 million in environmental and design costs. The master developer (LNR) has pledged $3.1 million in hard construction dollars, in additional to $7 million of in -kind right-of-way of donations and approximately $3.8 million that was spent on the environmental approval phase. We are also grateful to WRCOG for pledging $1.46 million towards this project, which is being used to complete design. Unfortunately the iUMF revenues have declined so drastically over the last 3 years that we are not able to make use of additional anticipated TUMF revenues to fully fund this project. 4080 Lemon Street, 8th Floor • Riverside, California 92501 • (951) 955-6740 EO. Box 1090 • Riverside, California 92502-1090 • FAX (951) 955-3198 A_01.03 246 We have a limited window of opportunity, given the extremely favorable bid prices that we have seen and can hopefully achieve if we get this out to bid soon, to deliver this project at well below the total estimate of $97 million from 3 years ago. Due to collective efforts to reduce costs through re -design and the favorable bid market, we are now optimistic that we can deliver this project for a total of $68 million (induding costs spent on design and environmental). The projected shortfall is anticipated to be $10,372,000. Our request then is that RCTC commit in concept for an allocation of up to an additional $10.5 million towards this project. The project is Federalized and eligible for Federal dollars. Should RCTC be able to conceptualiy commit to this additional funding for this project, our plan would be to bid it out as soon as we can and then see what the actual shortfall would be, perhaps in this bid environment it would even be less, and use this additional funding pledge as the last - used funds to help fully fund this project. We also would like to submit this project for CTC approval in the near future to obtain allocation of the $10 million in TCIF, since that program is over -subscribed. Given the current State budgetary uncertainty, it is our understanding that the timing of the TCIF bond sale may be delayed. This would impact not only this critical project but also other projects in Riverside County. We ask that this project be considered in any and all avenues, including loans and other mechanisms, that RCTC may chose to explore to keep TCIF projects that are ready to go moving forward to construction. I also note that this project, which involves the complete reconstruction of the bridge overpass over I-215, will allow for the future widening of I-215 to 4 mixed flow and 1 HOV lanes (each direction) without further need to lengthen the bridges. This interchange project will also raise the overhead structure on Van Buren over the Perris Valley Line (PVL) to provide 24 feet of dearance. There will be cost savings to these future regional projects then as a result of the County moving forward to construct the interchange first. We sincerely appreciate your consideration of our request to place this request for an additional commitment not to exceed $10.5 million on the Commission's agenda for their review. Juan C.Perez Director of Transportation Cc: Supervisor Buster, 1' District Supervisor Ashley, 5t District Lori Stone, JPA Patty Romo, Deputy Director of Transportation Glenn Higa, Engineering Division Manager Khalid Nasim, Engineering Division Manager Roy Null, Project Manager John Marcinek, Project Manager 247 " Van Buren/I-215 Interchange Expansion Project Project Funding Summary To Complete Project as of March 2011 Estimated Construction Costs Construction $46,000,000 Construction Support $ 5,500,000 Utilities/Right-of-Way $ 1,000,000 $52,500,000 Funding Sources March RDA Bond Proceeds RCTC Measure A LNR Riverside, LLC Prop 1B TCIF Funds Estimated Shortfall $20,000,000 $ 9,000,000 $ 3,128,000 $10,000,000 $42,128,000 $10,372,000 Other project costs to date: Environmental Approval (PA/ED) $4,333,792 (LNR/March JPA); Right -of -Way $7,000,000 (LNR in -kind); Design $1,463,347 (WRCOG), $1,910,000 March JPA, $1,000,000 Measure A 248 Projects - Contracts Awarded Projects Receiving Savings 1-10 Bob Hope IC 1-10 Palm Drive IC, I-10 Indian IC SR-60 Nason IC (Ph 1) SR-60/Nason Overcrossing 60-215 East Junction TBD through 2012 STIP cycle Date Palm IC I-215/Van Buren IC SR-60/Valley Way IC Magnolia Ave GS, SR-79 Widening, SR-74/I-215 IC 1-215, Scott to 1-15 CTC determines reprogramming SR-74/215 I-215/Ramona Expressway 1-15 Cal Oaks IC TBD through 2012 STIP cycle SR-91/La Sierra & Van Buren ICs Quiet Zones 1-10/Palm Drive IC 1-10/Indian Avenue IC Contract Award: $247,539 Savings at Contract Award: $112,616 Valley Way IC Magnolia Av GS Quiet Zones i Van Buren IC La Sierra IC 60-215 East Junction RamonaExpwy Mason Overcrossing Moreno New IC Valley Van Buren IC Canyon Lake Calilornia Oaks IC Perris SR 742151C Menitee 1-215 / Scott !/ to I-15 v O DONOR PROJECTS Yucaipa SAN BERNARDINO CO. :RIVERSIDE CO. Calimesa Diamond Valley Lake SR-79 Widening 0 r RECIPIENT PROJECTS Des<r, Indian Av IC Palm Dr IC Date Palm IC Bob Hope IC