Loading...
01 January 1979 Supplemental AgendaDATE January 11 February 8 March 8 April 12 May 10 June 14 July 12 August 9 September 13 October 11 November 8 December 13 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 1979 MEETING CALENDAR* DAY - Thursday - Thursday - Thursday - Thursday - Thursday - Thursday - Thursday - Thursday Thursday - Thursday - Thursday - Thursday 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th LOCATION Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Floor Conference Conference Conference Conference Conference Conference Conference Conference Conference Conference Conference Conference Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room Room *May schedule meetings on the fourth Thursday of the month if there are items requiring action by the Commission. SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Barry Beck, Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Corona Transit TIP Amendment The City of Corona has requested that its transit operating project for FY 1979 be amended. The amendment would delete UMTA Section 5 funds as a revenue source and instead all re- quired operating subsidies would come from TDA funds. Corona requests this change since its UMTA Section 5 grant funds are not likely to be received for a number of months and in the meantime local general funds are having to be internally "borrowed" to meet the transit system's cash flow requirements. There are two problems with Corona's request. First, by de- leting UMTA Section 5 funds as a revenue source, UMTA will not approve Corona's grant at the time they make a TIP correlation check. Therefore, the TIP would have to be amended later to again show UMTA Section 5 revenues. Corona should recognize that this bureaucratic paper juggling may cause a delay in receiving their UMTA grant. The second problem is: what happens when Corona receives its Section 5 funds? They would have been paid twice (with both state TDA funds and UMTA funds) for the same project. This can be handled by considering the TDA funds as a "loan" to be repaid when the UMTA funds are received. The funds would be repaid to Corona's TDA Local Transportation Fund (LTF) account held by the County Auditor. RECOMMENDATION Approve Corona's request for a TIP amendment subject to receipt of a letter from Corona that: 1) Acknowledges that the TIP will have to be amended again in order to receive federal grant approval and that this process may in fact delay grant approval; and, 2) That Corona agrees to repay TDA funds to their LTF upon receipt of their federal grant. g/3 BB:nk T 1 STATE. OF CALIFORNIA Chairman Norton Simon Malibu Vice Choirmon judith•Soiey Fresno Members: Robert Batinovieh San Francisco Claude Fernandez San jose Ivan Hinderaker Riverside Dean Meyer iyfork Frances Mossman Santa Ana Carole Onorato Olympic Valley Charles Reid San Diego Ex Officio Members: Senator james R. Mills Assemblyman Walter M. Ingalls Executive Secretory 140MM SMRSer M. Evanhoe EDMUND G. BROWN jR. Governor Taltfi ritttt Ernttspmttttimt Tmmittissintt 1120 N STREET, P.O. BOX 1139 SACRAMENTO 95805 WHO 445-1890 December 8, 1978 Air. Barry Beck Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 3616 Main St., Suite 230 Riverside, C. 92501 Dear Mr. The Southern California Association of Governments has proposed that various project substitutions be made in the Proposed 1979 State Transportation Improvement Program, in conjunction with implementing AB 3020. Should these proposed changes be accepted, it may result in the removal of certain projects in your region from the adopted STIP. Attached you will find a letter from SCAG, specifying these proposed trade-offs, and a memorandum from Caltrans setting forth the Department's recommendation. The Program Committee of the California Transportation Commission will be considering SCAG's proposed changes at its December 14 meeting in Fresno, to be held at: State Building - Auditorium 2550 Mariposa Fresno, California 1:30 p.m. Given the possible consequences for your region, you may wish to attend this meeting. Attachments Sincerely, MICHAEL P. EVANHOE Executive Secretary State' of California Business and Transportation Agency • Memorandum C' To : Mr. Norton P. Simon, Chairman California Transportation Commission From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Director's Office Subiect: AB 3020 Project Trade -Offs Gate = December 7, 1978 File No.: AB 3020 appropriates $66 million from resources in the State Highway Account to augment the 1978-79 Highway Budget in District 07. The Commission is required to allocate these funds to projects and to make a progress report to the Legislature by April 1, 1979. In response to this Bill, the Department has recommended that the Coriassion advance work on the Century Freeway (I-305). • 549.4 miiiion, anJ the NDute 91/11 Interchange, 516.E +aillion, into the 19/8/79 bud7et year. Thr southern California t.Lsint.ion of Governments, working with the three cr,unty organirntic.,ns -within District 07, has nominated a list cif projects not presently in the proposed STIP or 1977 Highway Pro-jram for this :66 million. Because the $66 million is not additional money and since all forecasted revenues have been programmed through 1983/84, budgeting any of these new jobs in the 1978/79 fiscal year would mean projects now in the pro- - posed STIP would have to be dropped. To maintain the. statutory North/South split, the trade-offs would have to come from the South.portion of the Program. It is also necessary to maintain the statutory minimums and use a similar type of funding (Interstate, Primary, State -only funds). A summary of projects proposed by SCAG is: No. of Fund Total Pro'ects Type ($1,000) 1 Interstate (I) $ 26,000 2 Primary (F) 5,850 23 (Urban System) *State -Only. (ST) 34,150 TOTAL $ 66 Million *Federal Urban funds are allocated by local officials; therefore, these projects require State -Only funding if budgeted. Mr. Norton Page 2 December 7; P. SimoJ 1978 The programmed South HE1 (New Facilities) projects that would be dropped to permit the addition of the above projects are summa- rized below and the specific projects are described on the attached list. The lowest priority projects in the Department's proposed ST,IP have been selected for the three categories of funds required. # of Projects____ Fund Type 3 Interstate (I) 6 Primary (F) 2 (Primary *State -Only (ST) Eligible) Total ($1,000) $ 26,473 6,542 34,150 * Because Primary Eligible projects exceed the available Primary Funds, the lowest priority projects not required to meet statutory minimums will be State -only funded. Although we have indicated the trade-offs required by budgeting new projects (SCAG proposal), we strongly recommend that the Commission bring the Century Freeway and the Route 91/11 Inter- change projects into the 1978/79 budget as a response to AB 3020., We look forward to discussing this matter in detail at the meeting of the Program Committee in Fresno on December 14, 1978. PETER R. OSWALD Deputy Director for Planning and Programming Attachment cc: MEvanhoe, CTC Statewide Priority No. 140 139 PROGRAMMED HE1 SOUTH PRO, :TS TRADE-OFFS tO PERMIT ADDING $66 MILLION OF NEW PROJECTS 1979 Dist-Co-Rte STIP PM/PM No. 11-SD-008 015.3 11-SD-067 000.OR .11-Imp-008 077.9 82 0.8-Riv-015 018..6 192 151 151 112 110 09-Ker-058 106.1 07-Ven-101 018.8 08-Riv-194 016.5R 09-Iny-190 068.3 09-Mno-006 018.2 Limits 30H Eastbound Route 8 to Northbound Route 67 Revise Interchange 2 4.4 miles E to 5.4 miles E Gordon's Well Road - not in FAI Estimate - Sand Hills Interchange 6 0.8 Mi. S of San Jacinto River to 0.5 Mi. S of Central Ave. Stage 1. Initial 4-lanes and 5 bridges Federal Funding I I Esc. Cost_ (Dollars) FY (1,000). 83/84 $10,116 , 83/84 . +.mo. 79/80 14,365 HE1 Interstate Subtotal $26,473 10 1.5 Mi. W Cache Creek Br to 1.7 Mi F 81/82 $ 1,681 W of N Jct Rte 14 (portions) widen to 4-lane conventional 248, At Beardsley Wash Br #52-164 RL 19F Haun Rd - between Garboni Rd and Holland Rd Construct 2-lane Frontage Rd OB 0.6 Mi. W to 6.1 Mi. E of W 8ndry. of Death Valley National Monument Minor Realignment; Dip corrections 17 7.6 Mi. S Jct Rt 120 to 0.6 Mi, N Jct Rte 120 at Benton (portions) Reconstruct and add 4 shldrs. F 79/80 F 79/80 8i/82 291 950 �` 81/82 1,572 • • 25B 08-Riv-079 18 0.6 Mi. N to 3. Mi. N of Gilman F 79/8C 1,918 e 034.5 Springs Rd Curve realignment and passing lanes AE1 Primary Subtotal $ 6,542 86 .07-Ora+005 203 0.4 Mi. -S/0.4 Mi. N of Santiago 80/81. 2,660 033.0 /5690 W/Santa Ana Construct Broadway Overcrossing 39 07--Ven-101 245 Conejo/0.2 M. E of Vineyard 80/81 31,490 r- 9.0/21.8. Widen to 6 lanes ` � 'O... . Programmed as Primary, but State only money must be used to make up deficit of primary money HE1 State Only Ponds Subtotal gE1 'Total • $34,150 $67,165 �f t k i ILA lOUTHERR CALIFORMA AIIOCIATIOA OF GOYERAMEM1 600 Louth Commonwealth Rvenue • Julie 1000 • Lot Angels/ • California • 90005.213/385-1000 November 30, 1978 Mr. Norton Simon Chairman California Transportation Commission 1120 "N" Street Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Chairman Simon: �� r�`'d by arc DEC 1070 We are today transmitting our recommended projects to your Commission pursuant to Assembly Bill 3020. As you know, this bill appropriated $66 million from the State Highway Account for allocation by the California Transportation Commission to highway projects in District 7. This appropriation was intended to prevent a projected short fall of highway expenditures in that district. The project lists have been approved by the County Transportation Commissions in Los Angeles and Orange County and the Ventura County Association of Governments. They were developed in consultation with SCAG, local agencies and Caltrans • District staff. We believe they satisfy the two requirements of AB 3020. first, they reflect local priorities for projects designed "to close gaps in the state highway system and to relieve traffic congestion" as required by the legislation. Second, the lead time necessary for project development will permit obligation of the funds within the three year period required under existing law. In this regard we are currently investigating procedures to permit Caltrans to contract out project development work in the event their staff limitations make such action necessary. We would therefore request the following action by Commission at your December 15 meeting: 1. That you approve the projects submitted by the for expenditure of the funds shown to meet the requirements for this District. the California Transportation local agencies in District 7 statutory minimum expenditure Mr. Norton Simon November 30, 1978 Page two 2. That you request Caltrans to work with our local agencies to investigate the possible need for contracting out project development activities and the procedures to carry this out if it appears necessary. We will appear before the Commission on December 14 and 15 to further discuss these issues and we join with Caltrans in urging an expeditious decision on .this matter. Sincerely, Kenneth Kahn Chairman, Los Angeles County Transportation Commission • `) Ralph Diedrich Vice -Chairman, Orange County Transportation Commission KH:JHW:RD:DD:DF/hms / • James H. Wilson President, Southern California Association of Governments Delores Day Chairman, Ventura County Association of Governments cc: Members, California Transportation Commission Michael Evanhoe, Executive Secretary, CTC Adriana Gianturco, Director of Transportation Phil Raine, Caltrans Bob Datel, Caltrans Honorable Frank Lanterman Honorable Charles Imbrecht Honorable Chester B. Wray. PROJECTS SUBMITTED TO CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FC'"j' FUNDING UNDER ASSEMBLY BUL 3020 LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION* Gap Closures and Right -of -Way Purchases Route Project Amt. (in millions) 91/11 Artesia/Harbor Interchange 26.0 (Phase 2) Right -of -Way (2.9) Construction (23.1) 47 Terminal Island Freeway 8.5 Right -of -Way Acquisition 2 Santa Monica Blvd. 2.3 Railroad Right -of -Way Acquisition Between La Cienega and Arden 50 Marina del Rey 2.0 Railroad Right -of -Way Acquisition Between Current End of Freeway and Lincoln Blvd. Congestion Relief 101 Kanan Road Overpass .6 (On Ventura Freeway) 5 Carmenita Avenue Overpass .9 (On Santa Ana Freeway) 126 San Fernando Road Widening 1.4 170 Saticoy St. Extension 1..5 Over Hollywood Freeway 605 Peck Road Overpass (On 1.0 San Gabriel Freeway) 7 First Street Overpass (On .3 Long Beach Freeway) 2 Glendale Blvd. On -Ramp .5 (On Glendale Freeway) 101 Barham Blvd. Overpass (On .5 Hollywood Freeway) SUBTOTAL 45.5 *LACTC has designated Route 7 as the highest priority project for substitution in the event of project slippage. This is contingen'r. ,on local agreement on route alignment which is currently under discussion at LACTC. Page 2 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Deficient Overcrossing Upgrading Route Project Amt. (in millions) 5 La Palma at Ora 5 2.0 405 Ward at Ora 405 1.0 405 Culver at Ora 405 1.0 405 Talbert at Ora 405 1.0 405_ Warner at Ora 405 2.5 405 Magnolia at Ora 405 1.0 40S Edwards at Ora 405 1.0 oveter nssin/ Lpgradinn to r..eet Pending Deficiencies 405 Moulton Pkwy at Ora 405 1.4 55 Fairhaven at Ora 55 1.0 5 Alton (new) at Ora 5 2.4 Roadway Widening to meet Existing Deficiencies l Newport Blvd. to 57th St. 1.7 1 MacArthur Blvd. to Jamboree 1.0 SUBTOTAL. VENTURA COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Route 16.0 Project Amt. (in millions) 118 Bridge across Santa Clara 3.0 River at Saticoy 101 Borchard Road/101 Bridge 1.5 Widening SUBTOTAL TOTAL 4.5 66 million PR7ENTATION OF THE RIVERSIDrOUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEES - DECEMBER %, 1_978 GOOD MORNING, I AM RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERVISOR NORTON YOUNGLOVE REPRESENTING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT. WE APPRE- CIATE THE OPPORTUNITY YOU HAVE GIVEN US TO EXPRESS OUR THOUGHTS ON THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND HOW ITS PROVISIONS EFFECT TRANSPORTATION IN RIVERSIDE AND OTHER COUNTIES. KNOWING FULL WELL THAT YOU ARE PROPERLY VERY CONCERNED ABOUT UNEXPENDED FUNDS FROM BOTH TRADITIONAL ROAD BUDGETS AND TRANSPOR- TATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS, LET ME OFFER MY THOUGHTS ON WHY THIS SITUATION EXISTS. ROAD DEPARTMENT FUNDS FROM STATE SOURCES ARE CRITICALLY SHORT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IN OUR COUNTY AND MANY OTHER PLACES, UNEXPENDED FUNDS DO EXIST. THIS DICHOTOMY EXISTS PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE.MASSIVE INCREASE OF BUREAUCRATIC PAPER- WORK REQUIREMENTS AND THE NECESSITY ALL T00 COMMONLY TO MATCH ONE SOURCE OF FUNDS WITH OTHERS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ALL T00 COMMONLY BEING IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO BUDGETARILY MAKE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR A GIVEN PROJECT WELL BEFORE STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE WILLING TO CONSIDER PROVIDING THEIR SHARE OF THE FUNDS. ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SOME MAJOR PROJECTS WHICH REQUIRE SAVING UP OVER A SEVERAL - YEAR PERIOD BEFORE SUFFICIENT FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE TO PROCEED. THE VERY BADLY NEEDED BRIDGE OVER THE WHITEWATER CHANNEL WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS. AS TO THE UNEXPENDED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS, YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT JUST AS "ROME WAS NOT BUILT IN A DAY," SO ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM IN AN AREA SUCH AS RIVERSIDE COUNTY, WHICH IS LARGER THAN THE ENTIRE STATE OF PRESENTATION - DECEML L 7, 1978 CONNECTICUT, IS NOT SENSIBLY DONE OVERNIGHT. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO SO AT ALL SOME BANKING OF FUNDS IS NECESSARY. IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO RECEIVE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUNDS, BUT WHEN OUR NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CHOSES TO PLAY 13C BLACKMAIL GAMES, THERE INEVITABLY EXISTS SOME LOCAL FUNDS HELD IN LIMBO AWAITING RESOLUTION. THE RECENT REDIFINITION AenvOF SE10N VIM REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE MAINTENANCE AS WELL AS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT WILL HELP MOST CITIES AND SOME COUNTIES. THAT THIS WAS NOT DONE SOONER HELPED BUILD THE FALSE SURPLUS THAT NOW CONCERNS YOU. THERE IS A THIRD IMPORTANT FACTOR WHICH SHOULD NOT BE OVER- LOOKED; AND THAT IS THAT LOCALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS THROUGHOUT MANY PARTS OF OUR STATE, MOST ASSUREDLY INCLUDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY, ARS FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND DO NOT LIKE TO SEE TAX MONIES FROM WHAT- EVER SOURCE EXPENDED UNNECESSARILY OR INEFFECTIVELY NO MATTER WHAT STATE OR FEDERAL MANDATES MIGHT EXIST. LET ME NEXT BRIEFLY REVIEW THE POSITIVE AND BENEFICIAL EFFECTS THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT HAS HAD ON THE MOBILITY OF THE CITIZENS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY. PRIOR TO THE ACT, THE ONLY ,PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AVAILABLE IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY � A COUPLE OF LINES OPERATED BY THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE. THESE TWO LINES CARRIED SOMEWHERE AROUND 1500 PASSENGERS PER DAY. THE ACT ENABLED US TO EXPAND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SO THAT RIDERSHIP IS NOW WELL OVER 10,000 PASSENGERS PER DAY AND COVERS BROAD AREAS OF THE COUNTY. CERTAINLY THE MAGNITUDE OF OUR RIDERSHIP IS SMALL RELATIVE TO WHAT IS NEEDED TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND REDUCE AIR POLLUTION; BUT, TO THOSE WHO RIDE OUR SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THE ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED (WHO PRESENTATION - DECEME 7, 1978 T MAKE UP ABOUT 20% OF OUR COUNTY'S POPULATION), THE POOR, THE YOUNG, AND ALL WHO DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE AUTOMOBILE, OUR TRANSIT SYSTEMS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THEIR MOBILITY AND THEIR ABILITY TO FUNCTION IN, AND CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY, SECTION 99268 OF THE ACT, THE 50% EXPENDITURE .LIMITATION, WILL, IF NOT REVISED, RESULT IN THE ABANDONMENT OF 90% TO 95% OF TRANSIT SERVICE 7N RIVERSIDE COUNTY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES, IF NOT THE PRIME PURPOSE, OF THE 50% EXPENDITURE LIMITATION WAS AS AN INCENTIVE TO ENCOURAGE LOCAL AGENCIES TO USE LOCAL GENERAL FUNDS AVAIL- ABLE FOR TRANSIT. NOW THAT THERE IS NO LONGER ANY LOCAL PROPERTY TAX ONLY THE MUCH MORE LIMITED STATE PROPERTY TAX, - THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS OBJECTIVE MUST BE REVIEWED AND QUESTIONED IN THIS POST-13 ERA. THIS OBJECTIVE MAY ONCE HAVE BEEN APPLICABLE IN LARGE DENSE URBAN AREAS, BUT NOT IN SUBURBAN OR RURAL COUNTIES. COUNTYWIDE, WE ARE SPENDING ABOUT HALF OUR TDA FUNDS FOR TRANSIT. MANY OF US ARE ALSO UTILIZING SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TRANSIT CAPITAL AND OPERATING PURPOSES. HOW COULD ELECTED OFFICIALS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY JUSTIFY THE SPENDING OF GENERAL FUNDS FOR TRANSIT WHEN TAX REVENUES THAT HAVE BEEN SPECIALLY EARMARKED FOR TRANSIT ARE RELATIVELY ADEQUATE? HOW COULD WE TELL OUR CONSTITUENTS THAT WE HAVE TO CLOSE A LIBRARY OR A FIRE STATION OR REDUCE POLICE MANPOWER IN ORDER TO FUND PUBLIC TRANSIT WHILE AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE UNUSED TRANSIT REVENUES AVAILABLE? WE UNDERSTAND THAT ANOTHER PURPOSE FOR THE 50% EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENT WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE STATE FUNDS WERE NOT WASTED ON EXTRAVAGANT AND UNDER-UTILIZED TRANSIT SERVICE. IF THE FAREBOX RECOVERY PERCENTAGE WAS LESS THAN 50% OF OPERATING COSTS, LOCAL FUNDS WOULD HAVE TO BE USED THEREBY RESULTING IN LOCAL OFFICIALS -3- PRESENTATION - DECET.ER 7, 1978 BEING MORE ACCOUNTABLE TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS. ACCOUNTABILITY IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE TODAY. WE FEEL THAT ACCOUNTABILITY ON THE USE OF TDA FUNDS CAN BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE SETTING OF MINIMUM FAREBOX RETURN STANDARDS, MINIMUM FAREBOX RETURN, MEASURED AS A PERCENTAGE OF GROSS OPERATING COSTS, WOULD BE A STRAIGHT FORWARD WAY TO CONTROL COSTS AND CONTROL PRODUCTIVITY; IT IS A FACTOR THAT THE PUBLIC CAN UNDERSTAND. HOW MUCH DOES THE USER PAY? HOW MUCH IS THE SUBSIDY? IF -A SYSTEM OR A PROGRAM IS NOT GENERATING SUFFICIENT FAREBOX REVENUE, THEN EITHER FARES WOULD HAVE TO BE RAISED, LABOR PRODUCTIVITY INCREASED, OR THE SERVICE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED. THE STANDARD WOULD HELP CONTROL AND ELIMINATE THE,RAPID GROWTH IN TRANSIT LABOR COSTS. LABOR COSTS COULD ONLY RISE SO MUCH BEFORE LABOR PRODUCTIVITY WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE OR PATRONAGE DECREASE SIGNIFICANTLY. THE OBVIOUS QUESTION AT THIS POINT IS: WHAT SHOULD THE MINIMUM FAREBOX PERCENTAGE BE? THE FAREBOX PERCENTAGE IS A FUNCTION OF THE COST OF OPERATION, FARE STRUCTURE, AND RIDERSHIP. THE COST OF OPERATION IS A FUNCTION OF THE OPERATORS EFFICIENCY, LOCAL LABOR COSTS, AND LEVEL OF SERVICE PROVIDED. OPERATING COSTS CAN BE CONTROLLED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE BY MANAGEMENT. FARE STRUCTURE CAN BE MANIPULATED TO A CERTAIN DEGREE. HOWEVER, RAISING FARES AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT MAY BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BY REDUCING RIDERSHIP AND THWART THE OBJECTIVES OF PROVIDING PUBLIC TRANSIT IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT VARIABLE IN EFFECTING THE FAREBOX PERCENTAGE IS RIDERSHIP. RIDERSHIP ITSELF DEPENDS ON THE LEVEL AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SERVICE PROVIDED, POPULATION AND POPULATION DENSITY AND LOCATION AND DENSITY OF TRANSIT TRIP ATTRACTORS. A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH HIGH EMPLOYMENT IS EASY TO SERVE WITH TRANSIT AND A HIGH RIDERSHIP LEVEL CAN BE ACHIEVED. ON THE -4- PRESENTATION - DECErTR 7, 1978 ANOTHER MAJOR CONCERN WE HAVE WITH THE ACT IS OUR CONTINUING ABILITY TO SPEND TDA FUNDS FOR STREET AND ROAD PURPOSES, RIVERSIDE COUNTY ALREADY HAS A POPULATION IN EXCESS OF 500,000; AND WHEN THIS IS CERTIFIED BY THE 1980 FEDERAL CENSUS, WE WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO SPEND TDA FUNDS ON STREETS AND ROADS. I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT COUNTYWIDE WE SPEND ONLY ABOUT HALF OUR TDA FUNDS FOR TRANSIT. IF THE PRICE OF GASOLINE INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY OR SUPPLY WAS REDUCED AND THERE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DEMAND FOR TRANSIT, THEN WE WOULD NEED A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THE TDA POT FOR TRANSIT. WE DO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL STREET AND ROAD NEEDS. PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY ARE GROWING RAPIDLY, THUS FACILITIES NEED TO BE IMPROVED TO HANDLE INCREASING TRAFFIC. EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, HOWEVER, IS THE NEED TO MAINTAIN AND REHABILITATE OUR EXISTING LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS. THE SHORTFALL IN NEEDED REVENUES TO MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS IS WELL DOCUMENTED IN STATE STUDIES. I WOULD ALSO MENTION HERE THAT THE ABILITY TO USE FUNDS ON STREETS AND ROADS ENSURES THAT THE TDA FUNDS ARE NOT SPENT CAPRICIOUSLY ON TRANSIT. WE WILL NOT WASTE TAX FUNDS ON TRANSIT AS LONG AS WE KNOW THAT AFTER MEETING REASONABLE TRANSIT NEEDS, THE FUNDS CAN BE USED FOR BADLY NEEDED STREET AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS. AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS CAN BE MET ONLY BY EXPENDITURES ON ROADS AND BRIDGES. OTHERS TODAY WILL SPEAK ABOUT PROVISIONS IN THE ACT DEALING WITH MINIMUM EXPENDITURES FOR CAPITAL ITEMS, LOCAL MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT, AND CONTRACTING WITH PRIVATE OPERATORS. I BELIEVE WE'RE - PRETTY MUCH UNITED ON OUR POSITIONS ON THESE ISSUES. I DID WANT TO TALK ABOUT A POSSIBLE PROVISION IN THE ACT THAT COULD FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION OF NEEDED INTERCOMMUNITY AND INTERCITY TRANSIT. 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Riverside County Transportation Commission Barry Beck, Executive Director Gas Tax and Transportation Development Act Fund Balances A recently completed study by the that statewide approximately $1.2 disbursed gas tax and TDA funds. was available in Riverside County State Auditor General showed billion was available in un- Of that amount, over $11 million as shown on the attached table. The explanations given by the Auditor General for the large amount of unexpended gas tax were: 1) funds were encumbered but not dis- bursed as of June 30, 1978; 2) monies were accummulated for future projects; and, 3) funds were held to match federal funds for major projects. The explanations for the large TDA fund balances were: 1) County Auditors under -estimated TDA funds which would be avail- able; 2) there are legal limitations on the expenditure of TDA funds; and, 3) funds were reserved for future capital projects. In reviewing the funds balances, all of the above explanations are -applicable in this County. BB:nk Attachment f GAS TAX AND TDA BALANCES FROM STATE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT GAS TAX BALANCE TDA FUND BALANCE AGENCY 6/30/78 6/30/78 Banning $ 30,940 $ -0- Beaumont 4,910 65,547 Blythe 77,528 197,563 Coachella -0- -0- Corona 568,889 1,209,680 Desert Hot Springs 38,255 -0- Hemet 398,521 303,134 Indian Wells 29,203 39,379 Indio 217,899 318,552 Lake Elsinore -0- 662 _•co 170,432 335,969 Palm Desert 78,318 262,805 Palm Springs 521,403 -0- Perris -0- 46,858 Rancho Mirage 24,625 2,559 Riverside 2,050,433 610,354 San Jacinto 109,750 28,838 Riverside County -0- 1,238,602 TOTAL $ 4,321,106 $ 4,660,902 TDA RESERVES HELD BY COUNTY AUDITOR IN LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND: $2,517,702