Loading...
06 June 21, 1999 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00102 RCTC Meeting Agenda June 2, 1999 Page 2 6C. STATE AND FEDERAL UPDATE Page 78 Approve the staff recommended bill positions.as indicated and receive and file the Legislative Update. 6D. EVALUATION/SAVINGS OF RCTC/SANBAG DUE TO SHARED DIRECTOR OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Page 41 Approve continuation of the shared position. 6E. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR THE PEDLEY STATION SECURITY SYSTEM DESIGN Page 45 Direct staff to reject the proposals received and reissue the RFP. 6F. NOTICE OF INTENT (N01) TO START THE PROCESS TO ACQUIRE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS (TCE'S) BY EMINENT DOMAIN REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUND WALL #98 ALONG AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 91, BETWEEN JACKSON STREET & MONROE STREET IN THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE Page 47 The Commission authorized staff to advertise for bids for construction of Sound Wall #98. The project was advertised on May 22 and bids are due on June 17, 1999. Anticipated start date is early September 1999. 6G. AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT NO. RO-9970 TO PRODUCE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FUTURE NORTH/SOUTH CORRIDORS BETWEEN 1-10 AND SR-60 BETWEEN 1-15 AND 1-215 Page 51 To award Consultant Contract No. RO-9970 to produce a Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215 for the amount of $99,867. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used and reviewed by Legal Counsel. 6H. SUPPLEMENT TO AMENDMENT #10 TO AGREEMENT RO 9337 WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR STATE ROUTE 74 SHOPP PROJECTS Page 66 Approve $195,610 for the County of Riverside to acquire the 40 additional SHOPP project parcels. RCTC Meeting Agenda June 2, 1999 Page 3 61. RESOLUTION NO. 99-005, "RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MEASURE A FUNDED COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROJECTS AS PART OF ITS COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM" Page 69 To approve Resolution No. 99-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending guidelines for the Administration of the Measure A Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as part of its Commuter Assistance Program." 6J. SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS FY 99/00 COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACT Page 78 To: 1) approve the SANBAG/RCTC contract to continue implementation and management of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program for FY 99/00; 2) authorize the Chairperson to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) approve the incorporation of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program consultant costs in the Commission's TDM consultant to perform the work. 6K. FY 99/00 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RIDESHARE AGREEMENT FOR REGIONAL RIDESHARE CORE SERVICES Page 83 To: 1) approve the Southern California Rideshare FY99/00 Riverside Regional Rideshare Services Work Program, 2) authorize the expenditure of Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds in an amount not to exceed $253,141 pursuant to adoption of_RCTC's FY99/00 budget, and 3) pursuant to legal counsel review and approval, authorize the RCTC Chairman to execute an agreement with SCR. 6L. FY 99/00 MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE BUSPOOL SUBSIDY FUNDING CONTINUATION REQUESTS. Page 95 ' To approve, pursuant to its existing Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Policy: 1) payment of $1,175/month for the period July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 to the existing Riverside/Fullerton, Riverside/EI Segundo, and Moreno Valley/EI Segundo buspools, and one additional buspool upon receipt of a written request for a subsidy support; and 2) continuation of the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. RCTC Meeting Agenda June 2, 1999 Page 4 6M. MINIMUM FARE REVENUE RATIO FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY Page 103 Staff recommends that the Plans and Programs Committee 1) approve the FY 1999-2000 minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio of 18.35% for the Riverside Transit Agency and 16.56% for the SunLine Transit Agency;.2) reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; and, 3) request Caltrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for FY 1999-2000. 6N. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR OPERATIONAL AND STATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DOWNTOWN RIVERSIDE METROLINK STATION Page 107 Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids. 60. AWARD OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR CALL BOX SUPPORT SERVICES Page 110 Award contract for call box support services to TeleTran Tek Services in the amount of $62,924 for fiscal year 1999-20000 along with four (4) one-year options to renew. 6P. MONTHLY COST & SCHEDULE REPORTS Page 112 Receive and file 6Q. QUARTERLY CALL BOX UPDATE Receive and file 6R. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORTS Receive and file 6S. SINGLE SIGNATURE AUTHORITY REPORT Receive and file 6T. GFOA DISTINGUISHED BUDGET AWARD Receive and file Page 116 Page 124 Page 133 Page 135 RCTC Meeting Agenda June 2, 1999 Page 5 7. PUBLIC HEARING 7A. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY ENDING JUNE 2000 Approve Proposed Budget - FY Ending June 2000 8. FY 2000-2006 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN 5 Minutes Page 137 10 Minutes Page 157 Approve the FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside and the SunLine Transit Agency as presented. 9. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PILOT PROJECT EVALUATION 10 Minutes Page 160 Approve the requested allocation of $500,000 of State Transportation Improvement Program funds for the purchase of additional "Smart" Call Boxes on the Congestion Management Program network. A short presentation on the Pilot Project will be made by VRPA Technologies. 10. TEA 21 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) LOCAL PROGRAM 2 Minutes Page 177 Approve TEA 21 STP for FY 99/00 - 02/03. 11. SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ANALYSIS FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 10 Minutes Page 179 Approve the Western Riverside County Specialized Transit Strategic Plan as presented in the attached report. A presentation on the analysis completed will be made by the consultant's team, AMMA. 12. FINDINGS REGARDING MEASURE A SPECIALIZED TRANSIT SERVICES OPERATED BY FAMILY SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 5 Minutes Page 196 Approval of the suggested improvements for Family Services' Measure A supported service in the Jurupa area. 13. PRESENTATION 13A. STATUS - CETAP ACTIVITIES 10 Minutes An oral presentation will be made by Mel Placilla of Sverdrup on CETAP activities. RCTC Meeting Agenda June 2, 1999 Page 6 14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT. 15. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR. 16. ADJOURNMENT The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, July 14, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. in Corona. RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON MINUTES May 12, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER. Chairman Jack van Haaster called the meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 10:00 a.m. at the Hemet Neighborhood Center, 205 E. Devonshire Avenue, Hemet, California 92543. Commissioners/Aitemates Present Stan Barnes Gene Bourbonnais Bob Buster Percy L. Byrd John M. Chlebnik Alex Clifford Frank Hall John Hunt Dick Kelly Jan Leja* Stan Lisiewicz Tom Mullen Kevin W. Pape John J. Pena Gregory S. Pettis Robin Reeser Lowe Ron Roberts Doug Sherman* Chris B. Silva John F. Tavaglione Jack van Haaster James A. Venable Frank West Roy Wilson • Donald F. Yokaitis* * Arrived after start of meeting 2. COMMISSIONERS SELF INTRODUCTIONS A roundtable self introductions followed. Commissioners Absent Robert Crain Juan M. DeLara Al Landers Andrea M. Puga Jim Smedley RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 2 3. WELCOME REMARKS BY HEMET MAYOR LYLE ALBERG. On behalf of the Hemet City Council, Mayor Alberg welcomed the Commission to Hemet. Meeting in Hemet will provide the Commissioners the opportunity for a first hand look at the needs of the area. They are looking to the Commission to again come forward with a program that will meet the changing needs of the County which currently undergoing great change. He noted that a shift in the population demographics has occurred and that there are more people using the road system. In addition to the population change, the Eastside Reservoir will have a large impact on the road system leading to the valley. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Garry A. Grant, 27068 Jarva Street, Perris, presented testimony in opposition of extension of Measure "A". B. Chairman van Haaster called the Commissioners attention to a Press Release that had been distributed that Moody's has announced an upgrade on RCTC's bonds from Al to AA3; junior bonds have been upgraded from A2 to Al . Last quarter, he, Eric Haley and Dean Martin made a trip to New York and made a presentation on RCTC's financials and new structure. This plays well into the next possible measure because it shows the confidence in the investment community in RCTC's ability to handle its funds. He then commended Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer, for job well done. 5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 14, 1999 and April 26, 1999 M/SIC- (Buster/Silva) approve the minutes of the April 14, 1999, and April 26, 1999, meetings as submitted. Abstained 4/14/99 Minutes: Mullen, van Haaster 6. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS. • 1. Eric Haley requested the addition of SCA 3 (Burton) Amendment and the State Infrastructure Loan, as latebreaking items as they arose after the agenda was posted. M/S/C (Leja/Chlebnik) to add the SCA 3 (Burton) Amendment and State Infrastructure Loan to the agenda as late breaking items that arose after the agenda was posted. 2. It was requested that Agenda Item No. 763, "State and Federal Legislative Update", be pulled from the Consent Calendar. RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 3 7. CONSENT CALENDAR. M/S/C (Mullen/Kelly) to approve the following Consent Calendar items, with the exception of Agenda Item 763 - State and Federal Legislative: 7A. CONSENT CALENDAR - PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE ITEMS 7A1. RESOLUTION NO. 99-04 REQUIRING LOCAL AGENCIES SEEKING CALTRANS STIP FUNDING TO OBTAIN PRIOR COMMISSION CONCURRENCE Approve Resolution No. 99-04 requiring local agencies seeking STIP funding allocations to obtain prior Commission concurrence. 7A2. MEASURE A COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEY Authorize staff to: 1) Approve the award of contract to Strategic Consulting & Research for an amount not to exceed $17,961 from the FY 98/99 Measure A Commuter Assistance Program Budget to perform a study pursuant to the proposal (Attachment B) to evaluate the effectiveness of Advantage Rideshare Local, Advantage Rideshare Freeway and Club Ride Programs; (Note: As part of this study, SANBAG's Option Rideshare in County and Out of County Programs will also be evaluated at SANBAG's expense); and 2) Execute the contract, pursuant to Legal Counsel review, on behalf of the Commission. 76. CONSENT CALENDAR - BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 7131. ROUTE 91 SOUND WALL FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK CONSTRUCTION BIDS 1) Approve Construction Contribution Agreement No. 8-1097 with the State for Construction of Sound Wall #98 on Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe; and, 2) Authorize staff to Advertise for Constructions Bids for SW #98. 762. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT NO. RO-9932 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING STRUCTURE AND SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS AT THE EXISTING LA SIERRA AND WEST CORONA METROLINK COMMUTER RAIL STATIONS 1) Authorize the reprogramming of CMAQ funds and Local Match funds as noted in the staff memorandum; and, 2) Award Contract No. RO-9932 to construct the La Sierra and West Corona Pedestrian Overcrossing Structures and Security Systems, to Mallcraft Inc., for the amount of $3,459,000, with RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 4 a 10% contingency of $341,000 to cover RCTC shared flagging costs and potential change orders encountered during construction. The award is contingent on the recertification of. WC Brown as a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. 764. SB 821 PROGRAM EXTENSION REQUESTS FROM THE CITIES OF MURRIETA AND TEMECULA Grant extensions to the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula to complete their respective SB 821 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities projects. 765. .ROUTE 74 - 1-15 TO 7T" STREET, AMENDMENT #10 WITH COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND AMENDMENT #1 WITH SC ENGINEERING FOR FINAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING OF RIGHT OF WAY SERVICES Authorize: 1) A new Amendment #10 to Agreement RO 9337 with the County of Riverside at an estimated cost of $400,000; and, 2) Amendment #1 to SC Engineering Contract (RO 9954) for a total amount of $2,662,915. 7B6. SELECTION OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS Select Ernst & Young as the Commission's independent auditors. 7B7. MONTHLY COST AND SCHEDULE REPORTS Receive and file. 768. INVESTMENT REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDING MARCH 31, 1999 Receive and file. 769. UCLA FALL 1999 ARROWHEAD SYMPOSIUM SPONSORSHIP Approve co -sponsoring the annual UCLA Symposium, "The Transportation, Land Use, Air Quality Connection," scheduled for October 24-26, 1999 at the Lake Arrowhead Conference Center in the amount of $5,000. 7B10. CITY OF HEMET'S REQUEST FOR A LICENSE AGREEMENT That the Property Development Subcommittee, comprised of Commissioners • Alex Clifford, Juan DeLara, John Hunt, Jim Smedley, John Tavaglione and Jim Venable review the request and bring back a recommendation to the Commission. RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 5 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8A. AMENDMENT TO FY 1998-99 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AND SECTION 5307 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AMENDMENT - RIVERSIDE/SAN BERNARDINO U2A Jerry Rivera, Program Manager, informed the Commission that at their February 25, 1999 meeting, the RTA Board took action to amend their Short Range Transit Plan and capital budget to include the addition of nine full size coaches and nineteen paratransit vehicles, with an estimated total cost of $4.175 million. There are sufficient federal funding and local match to permit RTA to include the replacement of these units in their SRTP and Federal Program of Projects. The Federal Transit Administration requires that a public hearing be held to receive any comments on the proposed program projects. When this item was reviewed by the Plans and Programs Committee, they discussed the Commission's and RTA's policy relating to new purchase and whether the vehicles should be alternative fueled vehicles. He noted that in January 1993, the Commission took a position to encourage transit operators to purchase clean fuel vehicles for vehicles with less than 40 seats. The Committee, when they reviewed this item, recommended that the Commission adopt a policy mandating purchase of all replacement and/or new vehicles be made with alternative fueled vehicles. Eric Haley, Executive Director, stated that he discussed this item with Susan Hafner, RTA General Manager, and she informed him that of the last three or four acquisitions, RTA has secured 33 CNG buses. 100% of the acquisition of the full size buses has been alternative fuel-. RTA intends to adhere to that policy, but expect continued fiscal support from RCTC and others. There is difficulty in the paratransit vehicles, in that their life is about one half of the useful life of the full sized vehicles. He felt that the RTA policy was consistent with the Commission's intent. Commissioner Bob Buster stated that it is apparent that RTA cowers a much broader geographic area than the SunLine Transit Agency so refueling facilities become a major factor in conversion to alternative fuel vehicles and so there must be a plan as well as a unified approach for refueling stations, not only for the bus services, but for public fleets, where possible, and for large and small vehicles. Commissioner John Hunt said that as a member of the RTA Board and RTA utilizes the cleanest fuel available when purchasing vehicles when funds are available, Otherwise, the operations focus on providing service in the most efficient way possible as to minimize the overall emission of the existing vehicles. Additionally, RTA has exclusively purchased CNG 40 foot buses and has a fleet of 33 CNG buses and trolleys. All large buses in upcoming budgets and plans are considered to be CNG fuel. He then informed the Commission of the satellite facility being built located at Lincoln and 2' Street in Banning, which will improve refueling of RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 6 vehicles. Commissioner Mullen asked if there is any way to appropriately tighten the policy as there is a tremendous amount of latitute when an operator looks at the amount of funds available and purchasing small vehicles in lieu of a large bus. There may be only enough funding for five buses when RTA wants 10 buses, and will they go to non -clean fuel buses. Susan Hafner noted that the main limitation that RTA has when it comes to acquiring CNG minibuses or dial -a -ride vehicles, is the fueling infrastructure. RTA only has one facility located atThird Street and Chicago Avenue in Riverside. There are fueling limitations with CNG buses which would prohibit them from serving the entire 2500 sq mi of service area from one location. The RTA Board is currently working on a satellite facility program which would have multiple smaller satellites which would have the fueling infrastructure. They are working on an acquisition in the Hemet area and are working cooperatively with the City and County to establish that CNG fueling infrastructure. Currently they do not have the fueling infrastructure to fuel all of the dial -a -ride vehicles that they currently have that serve the outlining areas. Commissioners Percy Byrd asked about the time frame for the proposal to be in place, and Susan Hafner said that the time line for having a CNG infrastructure is probably about 1 % years outside the acquisition (1 %2 years after the end of this summer). Commissioner Jan Leja stated that it was important to note that SunLine has a different situation as the cities that the provide service for are closer together whereas RTA has an expansive area and it takes time, additional planning and acquisitions. She is not aware of any cities in Western Riverside County purposely staying away from fuel efficient, clean fuels. However, the fueling stations must be put in place first. Commissioner Buster suggested that RCTC work on a refueling station plan; a plan with coordination between public agencies as well as private agencies. This item should be presented to the Commission's. Plans and Programs Committee. Eric Haley indicated noted that Commissioner Will Kleindienst sits on the Mobile Source Review Committee. RTA will be encouraged to participate in the process to obtain Mobile Source Review Committee grants. Those grants include fueling infrastructure; one avenue to provide RTA assistance. He will be happy to work with WRCOG, and CVAG to develop a CNG fueling network. Commissioner Dick Kelly asked, if RTA has 60 paratransit buses, is there a possibility to purchase alternate fuel vehicles in the area where they do have fueling stations and use the vehicles that are currently not equipped that are not being RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 7 replaced in the outlining areas. Susan Hafner noted that, currently, it would be a problem because the City of Riverside operates their own dial -a -ride system. Aal of the dial -a -rides are utilized and provided in the outlining areas. The focus of RTA's dial -a -ride efforts are in the Hemet and San Jacinto area. They are working very hard to acquire a.facility, in this area so in the future, they will be able to serve the area with CNG. Commissioner Kelly stated that the Commission established its policy in 1993 and we may be remissed in not revising that policy since that time or at least establish a different policy. There will always be100 reasons for not being able to go to alternate fuel. This problem is here today because we were not doing what we were suppose to be doing 2-3 years ago. Until there is a firm policy in place, the Commission will be faced to make these decisions in the future. Before the •Commission approves not purchasing alternate fuel vehicles, there ought be a firm policy established. Commissioner Leja added and Commissioner Mullen agreed that there needs to be a transition date. Commissioner Mullen suggested to continue this item and direct staff to come back with a policy regarding alternate fuel vehicles in Riverside County as without a firm policy, there will always be excuses not to get there. Commissioner Robin Reeser Lowe iterated that the San Jacinto Valley is experiencing a shortage of acceptable levels of dial -a -ride service. It is impacted with the number of seniors and handicapped people residing in the valley. The ADA has dramatically cut into the effectiveness of their local dial -a -ride program. She is a proponent of alternate fuel, however, to have 1 %2 year delay on delivery of CNG vehicles is not acceptable. She encouraged the Commission to move forward with this, allow RTA to buy the vehicles, have the Plans and Programs Committee look at a plan or perhaps a task force to come forward with a policy. Commissioner John Tavaglione agreed that in the smaller cities in the Western Riverside County, there is a great demand for a short and long-term strategic plan for alternate fuel vehicles which is currently not in place. It is dependant on this Commission, with RTA, to setup a task force as Commissioner Buster proposed to come up with a strategic plan so that the Commission knows which facilities to move towards for the public sector as well as for the private sector. Commissioner Chris Silva asked about the time frame and Eric Haley indicated that the proposal will be referred to the Commission in sixty days. The Chair opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, the public hearing was closed. RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 8 M/S/C (Mullen/Hall) to: 1) approve the amended Program of Projects as proposed, and 2) amend Riverside Transit Agency's FY 1999 Short Range Transit Plan to reflect these changes, and 3) direct staff, in coordination with public and private sectors, develop an alternative fuel strategic plan for presentation to the Plans and Programs Committee and to the Commission in 60 days. 8B. DRAFT FY 1999/2000 BUDGET Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer, provided an summary of the proposed budget was for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. The total budget expenditures are $103 million. Measure "A" revenues makeup 75% of the Commission revenue. Chairman van Haaster opened the public hearing. There being no no input from the public, the Chair declared that to continue the public hearing to the next month's meeting. M/S/C (KELLY/WILSON) to continue the public hearing on the Commission's draft FY 1999/200 Budget to the June meeting. 9. PROPOSED METROLINK BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/00 Susan Cornelison, Program Manager, stated that RCTC is one of the five member agencies that compose the agency known as the Southern California Regional Rail Authority or Metrolink. The budget must be approved by all five county agencies. In effect, this is a reauthorization of the member agencies for. Metrolink to continue to operate. The full budget totalling $172 million is included in the agenda packet. Funding sources are varied. RCTC's contribution this year over last year is 2.8% 'greater. The recommendation is to approve the preliminary estimated Metrolink budget and to .authorize RCTC's payment to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in an amount not to exceed $3.3 million over the next fiscal year. She then informed the Commission that last Friday, Metrolink administration received information that Ventura and Orange Countias wanted to defer maintenance on some of their right-of-way over which Metrolink traffic passes. Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC).not only wants to defer their maintenance and therefore reduce some of the maintenance costs reflected in the budget, but desired to increase the level of service and expand their operating territory. Commissioner Will Kleindienst (one of RCTC representative to SCRRA) expressed concerned that any reduction of the right-of-way would result in a lower class of service than what Metrolink is generally able to provide. There are very high standards within the five county region, proud of the quality of our infrastructure and how that provides for safe and smooth operating trains. Metrolink staff and engineering would not allow deferred maintenance to compromise safety, but in order for that not to occur we would have to probably issue "slow orders" and other things that could reduce the quality of service. Consequently the recommendation is that RCTC's adoption and approval of the Metrolink budget is contingent upon no county deferring maintenance to the point that the Metrolink high RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 9 standards or quality of service be affected. Even though the impact is not in Riverside County, it is a reflection of the system. In response to Commissioner Buster whether controls are in place as a result of the internal audit that Metrolink had .undergone, Susan Cornelison said that Metrolink has provided assurance and they are in the process of redefining their role. Commissioner Ron Roberts asked if other counties were taking the same stance and if they were aware of the issue, and Susan Cornelison stated that the David Solow, Metrolink Executive Director, was given a copy and is aware. It is not generally the practice to interfere in the budgetary controls of its sister agencies. It was never brought up during the 7'/s months it took to develop the budget, that Ventura would reduce part of the maintenance level in order to increase frequency of service. An additional challenge is that the current Chair of Metrolink is the VCTC representative. Commissioner Alex Clifford indicated that he felt very strongly about the issues of maintenance but it will be helpful for the Commission to understand at the extreme what this language will mean. It seems to say that RCTC's funding of its share of the system is contingent upon these issues identified. Metrolink has yet to have a discussion about some type of standard in order to participate in the system. If a policy was developed wherein the Board ultimately approved Ventura to do what they desire in their county, would it mean that RCTC not pay its share and shut down Riverside County service. Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director, stated that the language as written is intended for the RCTC representatives to SCRRA to have approval of the budget if they have the comfort level that any deferral of maintenance wilE not cause a major problem. If they do not -have that comfort level, they could vote against the adoption of the budget. The intend was so that the budget could move on if RCTC representatives have that comfort level and they do not need to come back to the Commission. If in negotiations at SCRRA, the RCTC representative did not have that comfort level, then it should be brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Clifford stated that is what was needed, but collectively the representatives to the Metrolink Board believe very firmly •that there needs to be a policy regarding the minimal level of service. It may take a year or two to develop a policy. Commissioner Mullen stated that RCTC should not be part of an organization that puts people's lives in jeopardy. Commissioner Clifford clarified that as it relates to safety, Metrolink will not allow any county to degrade their level of funding on maintenance to the extent that it jeopardizes safety. What this is, is the next increment of maintenance -of -way that then impacts the ability to provide the number of trains that is needed and to provide those trains on time, as scheduled. When you start running into issues of maintenance -of -way, and it begins having problems or cannot provide on -time service, even if it only occurs in Ventura or RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 10 Orange County, it is a reflection of the system as a whole. Your representatives believe that they ought to force all of the counties to provide that next increment of maintenance consistently year in and year out because what .they do in their county does reflect upon on us. Commissioner Tom Mullen concurred and did not believe that what Ventura or Orange were proposing would rise to the level of a real safety concern, but it is that incremental thing, and he didn't think that should be allowed. M/S/C (Mullen/Venable) approve the preliminary 1999/00 Metrolink combined budgets and authorize RCTC's annual allocation to the Southern California Regional Rail Authority in FY1999/00 ,for an amount not to exceed $3.3 million, provided that: 1) Maintenance -of -way will not be deferred in any county to the extent that Metrolink's high standards of safety and quality performance will be effected; and, 2) No county which seeks to defer the proposed maintenance -of -way shall instead extend operating territory or increase levels of service. 10. RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY'S FINANCIAL POLICIES Jerry Rivera stated that in January the RTA Board passed the Financial Policies for the agency. Normally the Commission would not get involved in establishing any operating policies for transit operators. However, this particular policy would set precedence by using reserves for the general fund and for their capital improvement fund. Originally, RTA proposed to set aside 33.3% of their operating budget for the general fund and $5 million for their capital fund. The RTA Finance Committee and representatives from the Commission met to discuss their proposed policy. Because of major concerns whether this was allowed- by RTA, and whether it would be financially responsible to set aside funds for reserves while cutting back services in some areas or not providing a service in some areas. It was agreed that RTA would be allowed to maintain a reserve of 20% of the operating funds. Based on their current budget, it would be approximately $4 million. The capital reserve fund would be set at $800 thousand, and that would allow RTA to have funds regularly available for any unforseen capital expenditures cr lack of immediate funding. M/S/C (Pettis/Buster) adopt the Riverside Transit Agency Financial Policies. 11. AMENDMENT TO FY 1998-99 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Jerry Rivera said that this item amends RTA's current operating plan to establish new • services that were included in RTA's Comprehensive Operational Analysis. Their approved plan had set aside $778,000 towards service demonstration programs. After analysis of their Comprehensive Operational Analysis, they have decided to increase services on various routes adding almost 4000 hours, increasing vehicle service miles by over 42,000 and adding an additional route in the southern quarter for the Welfare to Work project. The RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 11 estimated cost on the increase of services is $361,000. RTA has been awarded two discretionary grants in the current fiscal year which will require some additional local . matching funds. M/SIC (ReeserLowe/Hunt) to: 1) Approve the amendment to the FY 1999 Riverside Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan to reflect service changes totaling 7,801 revenue vehicle hours and 165,250 revenue miles; 2) Authorize the transfer of $8,000 from RTA's current LTF reserves as local match for the Section 5313(b) Mountain Communities planning study; and, 3) Authorize the transfer of $12,000 from RTA's current LTF reserves as local match toward the Mountain Communities Section 5311(f) Intercity Bus Program demonstration project for the purchase of one additional paratransit vehicle. 12. STATUS OF STRATEGIC PLAN Sean Boyea, Boyea Capital Markets, presented a brief overview of the progress in compiling the Strategic Plan. The update of the Strategic Plan is divided into two phases: 1) Phase One is an update to the existing plan; and, 2) Phase Two is a broader county- wide transportation solutions beyond Measure "A". Phase One is divided into several different components such as funding. There will be an update on funding sources, the magnitude of funding, timing, and the eligible uses of federal, state and local funding. There will also be a project status update, as well as, proposed projects. The cash flow model will further enhance the Commission's ability to plan programs and fund projects. 13. 1998 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CONFORMITY SUSPENSION Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst, stated that this issue was presented directly to the Commission because it arose just prior to the agenda mailing. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) contain transportation improvement projects were approved on June 8, 1998 and July 31, 1998 respectively. These documents are required to be prepared by the metropolitan planing organization, SCAG, in conjunction with the regional transportation agency within the SCAG region. The RTP is required to be updated every 3 years and the RTIP is updated soon after. The federal government requires all plans and programs be in conformance with the state implementation plans, also known as STIP. There are three tests required to receive funding: 1) emissions test; 2) timely implementation transportation control measures (TCM's); 3) financial constraints. On March 2, 1999, the Unites States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in the case of the Environmental Defense Fund v. the Environmental Protection Agency. One of the provisions that .was struck down was use of the PM 10 emissions budget for the conformity determinations made by SCAG for the 1998 RTP and RTIP. SCAG conducted the modeling analysis over the past few weeks and released the analysis for a 30-day public comment period as of May 7, 1999. Hopefully after the public comment period RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 12 there will no unforseen issues or problems and FHWA and EPA can go ahead and update the conformity status. In the meantime, under conformity suspension, the FHWA cannot approve projects that are capacity enhancements. Shirley Medina then reviewed the list of projects affected by the ruling. In response to Corky.Larson's, Executive Director of CVAG, question regarding projects on the list in her area, Shirley Medina indicated that there did not appear to be any CVAG projects on the schedule within the time -frame. The Commissioners looked to RCTC's representatives on SCAG to monitor the status on this issue. 14. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Chairman van Haaster informed the Commission that the Executive Committee reviewed this item and recommended that the Public Information Officer position be an at -will position for two years. In addition, it was recommended that an executive search agency be hired to search for the best qualified candidates for this position. The Commission determined to authorize the Executive Director to hire a recruitment firm for this position. 15. PRESENTATION 15A. GAS PRICE INCREASE AND ITS BENEFITS David --Shepherd, RCTC/SanBAG Director of Legislative Affairs, informed the Commission that the California Energy Commission puts out monthly reports on the national and state average. Nationally the cost per gallon for gasoline is at $1.23, and $1 .53 statewide. Last year there was decline of gas price due to a large supply situation. OPEC then reduced the total supply of gas that they offered by about 30%. These led to the gas price increase. In addition, in California, there were refinery fires which impacted the price. The price has gone up because the supply and demand scale is tipped right now in the favor of the suppliers. Assemblyman Jim Battin has recommended that California Air Resources Board put forth 120 day suspension on the requirement for cleaner fuel which will result in a cheaper cost to the producer and, therefore, result in a reduction in the price of gas. However, there is not support in Sacramento or statewide. Governor Gray Davis has stated that this is an indication that we need to find alternative fuel sources that are cleaner and more readily available to be produced at a lower cost. FTC is reviewing a proposed merger between Exxon, Mobile, BP (which is Amco & Arco) and the supply issue and the OPEC decision. Senator Barbara Boxer has made the request to the FTC to require that as part of the condition of that merger that they reserve a reasonable supply for the independent owners. There has not been a lot said our of the Attorney General's Office, but he is looking into the issue and is RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 13 working with the FTC on the merger reviews and those issues. Unwillingly, there is an effect on entities like ourselves and the State because of the additional sales tax dollars on the gas tax. 15B. ANNUAL INLAND EMPIRE ECONOMIC SURVEY Barbara Sirotnik, Inland Empire Research Consortium, stated that a press conference was held last week on the survey. This effort is a partnership between Max Neiman at UC Riverside and the Institute of Applied Research at Cal State San Bernardino. One of the major findings is that there were not that many differences between the two counties. The survey objectives are to look at a variety of issues, issues about private/public sectors, services/activities, crime, pollution, immigration, etc. About 2,000 people were surveyed. Most of the Inland Empire residents consider their County: 1) as a good place to live; and, 2) is strong economically and their family finances have either improved or stayed the same as last year. Most of the respondents spend less than 1 hour commuting to and from work each day and most commute to work within their own county. However, respondents are least satisfied with the upkeep of streets and roads. She noted that Inland Empire respondents are confident that their elected officials adopt policies which benefit their community. Shel Bockman, Inland Empire Research Consortium, continued the presentation and said that with the findings came some policy recommendations in order to improve the quality of life in the Inland Empire: 1) policy makers must work on reducing the crime factor in the area; 2) improve the quality of entertainment and cultural activities; 3) transportation is an intra-regional problem and they believe that it will get worse over time unless some consideration is given to this problem; 4) maintenance of local roads; and, 4) improve air quality. Some policy makers believe that increased regulatory laws may hamper economic development in the area, but in the contrary, better air quality control can be used as a means of bringing more firms into the area. In our findings, the two county area should be treated as a region, not as separate entities. Chairman van Haaster stated that there may be pockets that do not quite fit into this model. In the southwest county, there was a similar statistical survey relating to the question of commute time and whether they would be willing to take a lesser amount of pay, which contradicts these findings. There may be pockets throughout the two counties where there are not only differences, but extreme differences. Shel Bockman indicated that was an excellent point. In San Bernardino County, their charge has been to break the survey down into four different regions of interest to SanBAG. He suggested that RCTC consider having a breakdown by regions within the Riverside County for next year which could be done by zip code. RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 14 15C. SCA 3 (BURTON) AMENDMENT Eric Haley informed the Commission that there is a memorandum included in the packet dated May 11, 1999, asking all the entities in the State to support this proposal and to meet with Senator John Burton next week. He then reviewed the constitutional amendment proposal. Gas tax is favored by 13%, bonds 17%, and the extension of local sales tax 62%. The statewide approach on sales taxes was looked at in six regions in the state, no region was under 50% support. He noted that we could be in the position of fine tuning a new work program ,moving it out to the cities and counties for ratification and actually getting engaged in refinancing and extending our measure as early as within 24 months. This is an acceleration of the process of reauthorizing our measure. The only current transportation funding programs in the State of California that enjoys substantial support are the self-help counties and the existing sales taxes. This is a state sales tax effort, locally collected, locally controlled, locally planned and programed and the constitutional amendment will guarantee all of the local facets of it, but it is as every other sales tax has been on the state ballot, it is a 50% issue. This does not affect 2/3 threshold for Propositions 218 or 13 at all. MIS/C (Mullen/Venable) support amending SCA 3 (Burton) to allow a statewide ballot measure for a statewide transportation sales tax collected locally and authorize the Executive Director to attend meetings with the coalition to move this process forward. 15D. STATE INFRASTRUCTURE LOAN Eric Haley stated that this was an initiative by the Senate Republican Caucus that fits with the bill that RCTC is.sponsoring, which is the State Highway Account, AB 1012. Senator James Brulte is proposing to create an infrastructure bank which would allow agencies to have access to funds with little or no interest and essentially borrow from ourselves and eliminates the transaction cost that goes with the bonds, as well as the interest, which is a beginning of a real infrastructure bank proposal and to think in tandem with reauthorizing the sales taxes, this kind of model is where we should be going. Commissioner Bob Buster asked if this proposal was better than the State Gas Tax Loan bill that the Commission was endorsing, and Eric Haley said that it was not as there is a much larger amount of money available with the Highway Account Loan Program. But in the long run, Senator Brulte's proposal creates a revolving fund in an infrastructure bank which will go long beyond the period of time that the State Highway Account balance is artificially high. This is a two fold process. M/S/C (Leja/Wilson) support the Senate Republican proposal to provide for infrastructure loans. RCTC Minutes May 12, 1999 Page 15 16. ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR 763. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATE I n response to Commissioner Bob Buster's question on AB 1012, David Shepherd, RCTC/SanBAG Director of Legislative. Affairs, explained that the bill is moving forward. It has passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0. It went through very quickly. A large number of people came up to support the bill, including Eric Haley and myself testified in favor of the bill. It is in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date has been set, there are some issues related to the loan bill for the State Department of Finance because the interest is helping the general fund. Commissioner Buster requested a monthly update on this matter. M/S/C (Buster/Mullen) to support AB 1425, SB 481 with Amendments, SB 1043, and Seek Amendments AB 1571, and receive and file the State and Federal Legislative Update. 17. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Chairman van Haaster announced that the June Commission meeting will be held on June 2', rather than June 9' at 9:00 a.m. 18. ADJOURNMENT There being -no other items before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 p.m. The next meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission is scheduled to be held on Wednesday, June 2, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. at the University of California Chancellor's Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, C2-V OJ` Nat Ko Clerk of t e Board NAME ;/1- RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON J ?Nd Gif i Egnl i K CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507 e - e%/4 a / 5 i /.A'D %r l l y C f Tv-r� .-, WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1999 9:00 A.M. SIGN -IN SHEET AGENCY ryvrf 94-3, " 7 ( LA l UP C7/ 1%i,tC /1/' CME>A C/?✓vN K 1 rii r),/4ti- 427= l S • / _ 6/6-6 e // /3 7-74 6- -7-L/ 17-k- C r/ �,6,e //if� GvE_s T f=i�,uK �igLc Signing is not required e(•.?-;bC. tam/7.>144-2-rd a"eAV. /l cg TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER fl%y' 67 ?-111Yt / • U% I ( l 70 ` / GP' /mac q / '77 — ( 2.7n f _3 /y i. 9G5'- 795- e973 / 7u / '143 g4-3 i1 DS - 777. 7(-7)Z - '1-17 -7I6 fire S733- szcam/ %-3-2/-02. 7 `tc'S-7Y2-S"'/G1/1 Lic9 „}t, Naccv (9o9) 73ss_A/9D / •-/ '7`- , •?2• �: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1999 SIGN -IN SHEET (Page 2) SFY(z-Ne-S Signing is not required AGENCY Co- o- ALYel n 5 A94/14 SPR1n96a Ceo wt� -7,41\' C (42 r, �.:. wN. CAL" TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER (c1Ucl)3P3-yU) D / g)P' -3f.3 - 6a37 7 VI 766-gas-R- oc / 760-32.3-$zo7 W?-?,(7-- /0/ l gsf-��S=�oi9 76C '3.)- I - !Z 3S/ 787-7/4-/l 7S7-mac / RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON CHANCELLOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE 1201 University Avenue, Suite 207, Riverside, CA 92507 WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1999 9:00 A.M. PLEASE SIGN IN IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION NAME f i13C)(b c".7 r /10 /-7/) A/ / C 4 r ac-� , }V Signing is not required AGENCY TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER R. C ..6 • C. 7!Zi • frRr. 2309 / Y2 33 1 gevy/e ,�i��iz��:�� 9J 923 -S,,25"/ 932 -s�,zs 6e�- ao / 6E3v /�� 7/' ?0 C/S 9("7 qv7 A VT A VT (<./ /764-(1-4 �r c 06 /V t -C'z 4 � 0vc7 9 - 761,?,ye) /�/ 9 o c-1 1)63/ 96 6 17( 7N 7 - -7ie r / 74'�r / / ‘ 77a Y?i f' l / RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1999 SIGN -IN SHEET (Page2) IF YOU WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COMPLETE AND SUBMIT A TESTIMONY CARD TO THE CLERK OF THE COMMISSION NAME Old( DCyle /21%6/c ( r�6) f{)a,y- r L .J Cl Signing is not required AGENCY S cG TELEPHONE /FAX NUMBER (9C9>>33-1-1147/ 353-6z�S� 9'0? 7P-/-352.6 / 7,- 4 3527 .1-/ (6)(5))_?96- 2 a 98 efa,9) ,?c4 - 3633 78-7--7y/ -7-2 7coo 'CL— 77.7J/76o- Sc � 14/,e L G' cc,-- c C, 4)0(1 y/33/ cr y/ 3 3 ( yt 77v qs--- 2;t75- / �6 2445, '26''2-'91 yl / / / / / / / / / / RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING 2:30 p.m. Monday, May 24, 1999 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER. Vice Chairman Tom Mullen called the special meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission to order at 2:30 p.m. at the offices of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Conference Room "A", 3560 University Avenue, Riverside and by video conference at the City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta. Members/Altemates Present: Members Absent: Eugene Bourbonnais John M. Chlebnik Alex Clifford Jeff Comerchero Juan M. DeLara* Frank Hall John Hunt William Kleindienst Al Landers Michael Landes Tom Mullen Frank Parrot John Pena* Gregory S. Pettis Andrea M. Puga Robin Reeser Lowe Jim Smedley John Tavaglione Jim Venable Donald F. Yokaitis *Video Conference Site 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS. There were no comments from the public. Bob Buster Robert Crain Chris Silva Jack F. van Haaster Frank West Roy Wilson 3. EMERGENCY AMENDMENT TO THE FY 1998-99 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FOR THE SUNLINE TRANSIT AGENCY TO PURCHASE 19 PREVIOUSLY OWNED CNG EXPANSION BUSES. In response to Commissioner Andrea Puga as to where funding will come from to purchase the vehicles and whether or not the action will affect funds allocated to Western Riverside County, Eric Haley, Executive Director, responded that funding are reserves that are sub -allocated to the Coachella Valley area. Commissioner Kevin Pape asked if SunLine representatives have actually seen the vehicles and. Bill Maier, Chief Financial Officer for the SunLine Transit Agency, replied that they have been to Texas and where they were able to thoroughly examine the seven vehicles they were originally going to purchase and have been assured that the remaining vehicles are in similar condition with less than 3,000 hours on the CNG engines. M/SIC (Hunt/Kleindienst) approve an emergency amendment to the FY 199-99 Short Range Transit Plan for the SunLine Transit Agency to purchase 19 previously -owned CNG expansion buses. 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to be held at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 2, 1999, at the UCR Chancellor's Conference Room, 1201 University Avenue, Riverside. Respectfully submitted, tY Clerk o he Bo RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring Funding Agreement At the March 10, 1999 meeting, the Commission approved the use of STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring (PP&M) funds to support three projects in the Eastern County: Project Master Plan in the Palo Verde Valley, 1-10 lane addition Project Study Report, and CVAG Staff Project Monitoring. Since the Commission retains fiduciary responsibility for the funds received through the State for these PP&M activities, a funding agreement is necessary for RCTC to allocate these funds to CVAG. The attached agreement requires that CVAG accept and follow the requirements placed by the State on RCTC for receipt of these funds. The draft agreement was developed by Legal Counsel and has been reviewed by CVAG staff. Financial Assessment Project Cost $317,297 Source of Funds STIP 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed 98/99 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 98/99 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve and execute the attached funding agreement between RCTC and CVAG for the use of STIP Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds. l; U 1 STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING PROGRAM FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 1. Parties and Date. This Agreement is made and entered into this day of , 1999, by and between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (hereinafter referred to as "RCTC") and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (hereinafter referred to as "CVAG"). 2. Recitals. 2.1 RCTC has entered into Agreement No. PPM98-6054-001 ("RCTC-State Agreement") with the California Department of Transportation ("State"), under which State has agreed to provide State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program (PPM) funds to RCTC for the monitoring of project implementation for projects approved in the 1998 STIP and in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program ("RTIP"). 2.2 RCTC has allocated certain of the PPM for use by CVAG on three transportation - related projects. 2.3 RCTC and CVAG wish to enter into this Agreement in order for RCTC to pass PPM funding on to CVAG so that CVAG may implement the three transportation -related projects. 3. Terms. 3.1 Relation to RCTC-State Agreement. This Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the RCTC-State Agreement, attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. CVAG agrees to accept, be bound by and perform all duties, responsibilities and obligations which RCTC has assumed under the terms of the RCTC-State Agreement, including, but not limited to, the reporting and auditing provisions. CVAG also agrees to take any action requested by RCTC that is necessary or conducive to assisting RCTC in fulfilling RCTC's obligations under the RCTC-State Agreement. CVAG acknowledges that any failure on its part to comply with this section 3.1 may result in a reduction or elimination of reimbursement under this Agreement. To the extent that this Agreement and the RCTC-State Agreement are inconsistent, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern as between RCTC and CVAG. R V PUBIPBC1507767 1 , r vvU :s i+ 3.2 Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective from the date first above written until June 30, 2001, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. 3.3 Projects. As used throughout this Agreement, the term "Projects" shall mean the three transportation projects described in more detail in Exhibit "B," incorporated herein, also known as CVAG Project Monitoring, the Master Plan for Palo Verde Valley, and the I-10 Project Study Report. 3.4 General Scope of Grant. CVAG shall use the funds granted hereunder exclusively to implement, staff, manage and operate the Projects. CVAG shall be solely responsible for implementing, staffing, managing and operating the Projects in the manner described herein. As such, CVAG agrees to furnish all labor, materials, equipment, required licenses, permits, fees and other appropriate legal authorization from all applicable federal, state and local jurisdictions necessary to perform and complete the Projects. The funds provided under this Agreement are specifically for the Projects and are the entire amount that RCTC shall to provide to the Projects, unless this Agreement is amended in writing by RCTC and CVAG. Any use of funds granted hereunder shall be subject to the review and approval of RCTC. 3.5 Responsibilities of CVAG. 3.5.1 Indemnification. CVAG shall defend, indemnify and hold RCTC, its officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers free and harmless from any and all liability from loss, damage, or injury to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to any acts, omissions or willful misconduct of CVAG or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers arising out of or in any way connected with this Agreement or the Projects, including without limitation the payment of attorneys' fees. Further, CVAG shall defend at its own expense, including the payment of attorneys' fees, RCTC; its officials, officers, employees, agents and volunteers in any legal action based upon such acts, omissions or willful misconduct. 3.5.2 Financial Contributions. CVAG shall expend RCTC financial contributions entirely on the Projects, as allocated in Exhibit "B" and shall comply with any requirements and restrictions imposed by RCTC and/or the State on the use of the financial contributions made pursuant to this Agreement. 3.5.3 Invoices. CVAG shall prepare, and submit to RCTC, in a form that RCTC can then submit to the State as described in the RCTC-State Agreement, an original and three copies of signed invoices for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by CVAG for the Projects. 3.5.4 Timely Use Of Funds. In order to comply with the State requirement for timely use of State funds, CVAG agrees that it shall enter into any contracts required to complete the Projects by December 31, 1999 and shall complete the Projects by December 31, 2000. R VPUB\PBC\507767 0Gj6u� 3.6 RCTC's Responsibilities. RCTC shall disburse up to a total of $ 317,297 in STIP PPM funds provided under the RCTC-State Agreement for the Projects. RCTC will make disbursements to CVAG not more often than monthly in arrears, once the funds are received from the State and upon proper documentation as described in the RCTC-State Agreement. In no event shall RCTC be obligated to disburse funds to CVAG before RCTC has received the funds from the State. Any action or failure to act by CVAG that causes, or contributes to, the State's failure to reimburse RCTC for any costs under this agreement or the RCTC-State Agreement will result in a proportionate reduction or elimination of reimbursement to CVAG under this Agreement. 3.7 Accounting Records. 3.7.1 Retention of Records. CVAG shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to costs incurred and other records generated under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. CVAG shall allow a representative of RCTC during normal business hours to examine, audit and make transcripts or copies of such records. CVAG shall maintain all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the expiration of this Agreement and shall allow inspection hereunder during such time. 3.7.2 Accounting of Funds. When requested by RCTC, CVAG shall within ten (10) days provide RCTC with a full reporting and accounting of all STIP PPM funds received during the term of this Agreement. 3.7.3 Project Reports. CVAG shall prepare quarterly written project status and accounting reports regarding the Projects. These reports shall be provided to RCTC for review and comment. 3.8 General Provisions. 3.8.1 Termination of Agreement. RCTC may, by written notice to CVAG, terminate the whole or part of this Agreement at any time for cause by giving written notice to CVAG of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof. Cause shall include, but not be limited to, any action by the State to suspend, terminate or cancel the RCTC-State Agreement. Upon notice of termination, CVAG shall cease expenditure of STIP PPM funds and promptly return all such unexpended funds to RCTC. Upon termination, RCTC may require CVAG to provide to RCTC all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, drawings, reports, etc. provided by CVAG in connection with the performance of this Agreement. 3.8.2 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or to other such address or addresses as may hereafter be designated in writing for this purpose: Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director R VPUBTBC\507767 GvvtiU4 Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Dr., Ste. 200 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or three days after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address, whichever is earlier. 3.8.3 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such Iitigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suits. 3.8.4 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 written instrument signed by both parties. 3.8.5 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, with venue in Riverside County. 3.8.6 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 3.8.7 Assignment Prohibited. This Agreement shall not be assigned by CVAG without the prior written consent of RCTC. R VPUB\PBC\507767 Obj605 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: OF GOVERNMENTS: By: By: Councilman Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Its: REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: By: Eric Haley, Executive Director REVIEWED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: By: Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Best Best & Krieger LLP Counsel to the Riverside County Transportation Commission R VPUBWBC1507767 Ol.+J6u6 EXHIBIT "A" RCTC-State Agreement R VPUBTBC\507767 06Juu7 STIP PLANNING, PROGRAMMING 8,- MONITORING PROGRAM FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT Agreement No. PPM98-6054 (001) Location: 08-RIV-0-RCTC Project Number: PPM98-6054(011) EA: 08-46860G THIS AGREEMENT entered into on , 199_ is between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as STATE, and Riverside County Transportation Commission, a local public agency, hereinafter referred to as AGENCY. WHEREAS the Califomia State Budget Act of 1998 appropriates State Highway funds under local assistance for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program (PPM), and WHEREAS PPM is defined as the project planning, programming and monitoring activities related to development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program and the State Transportation Improvement Program required by Govemment Code Section 14527, et. seq. and for the monitoring of project implementation for projects approved in these documents, hereinafter referred to as PPM PROJECT, and WHEREAS the Department of Transportation is tasked to apportion these funds in accordance with the amounts approved in the 1998 STIP in accordance with section 14527 (h) of the California Government code: NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: SECTION I STATE AGREES: 1. As authorized by Section 14527(h) of the Govemment Code.and the California Transportation Commission Interim STIP Guidelines, Section 12, dated January 15, 1998 and included in item 2660-101-0042 of Chapter 324 of the Statutes of 1998, to reimburse AGENCY for its PPM PROJECT in an amount not to exceed $1,376,000 from moneys appropriated in Fiscal Year 1998/99 for the local assistance. For Caftans Use Oni I hereby Certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance l/ (//zi 0 Accounting Officer Date 947(91 $/, 3740. e00.0C Chapter Statutes I Year Program BC Category Fund Source $ 324 1998 2 • • •. 61-0042 •499 20.30.600.670 N 262040 102-042-T 0.00 % 3* C61( 324 1998 2660-101-042 98/99 20.30.600.670 S 262040 102-042-T .DO 98/99 PPM 9/15/98 — 0 v �U U C! 2. To make reimbursements to AGENCY as promptly as state fiscal procedures will permit. but not more often than monthly in arrears. upon receipt of an original and two copies of signed invoices in the proper form of covering actual allowable costs incurred for the period of the Progress Payment Invoice. When conducting an audit of the costs claimed under the provisions of this Agreement. to - rely to the maximum extent possible on any prior audit of AGENCY pursuant to the provisions of State and federal laws. In the absence of such an audit. work of other auditors will be relied upon to the extent that work is acceptable to STATE when planning and conducting additional audits. _ SECTION 11 AGENCY AGREES: To use all state funds paid hereunder only for eligible PPM PROJECT specific work activities as defined Attachment A to this Agreement. To use all state funds paid hereunder only for those transportation purposes that conform to Article XIX of the California State Constitution. To prepare and submit to STATE an original and two copies of signed invoices for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred by Agency. 4. To repay to State any costs for which AGENCY receives payment that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable within thirty (30) days of AGENCY receiving notice of audit findings. Should AGENCY fail to reimburse moneys due STATE within (30) days of demand, or within -such other period as may be agreed between both parties hereto, STATE reserves the right to withhold future payments due AGENCY from any source, including, but not limited to, the State Treasurer and the State Controller. 5. To maintain all source documents, books and records connected with its performance under this Agreement for a minimum of three years from the date of Final Report of Expenditures submittal to State or until audit resolution is achieved and to make all such supporting information available for inspection and audit by representatives of the STATE. Copies will be made and fumished by AGENCY upon request. 6. To establish and maintain an accounting system conforming to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) to support reimbursement payment vouchers or invoices which segregate and accumulate costs of PPM PROJECT work elements and produce monthly reports which clearly identify reimbursable costs, matching costs, and other expenditures by AGENCY. E 3Gud 98/99 PPM 9/15/98a 3 7. To prepare a Final Report of Expenditures including a final invoice reporting actual costs expended in accordance with Attachment A and submit that Report and invoice no later than 60 days following the completion of expenditures or August 31. 2001 whichever is earlier. The Final Report of Expenditures must state that the PPM funds were used in conformance with Article XIX of the California State Constitution and for PPM:purposes as defined in this Agreement. Three copies of this report shall be submitted to STATE. To obtain an audit for PROJECTS in excess of $300,000. The AGENCY and its subcontractors may fulfill the audit requirement by either contracting with an accounting firm to do a project specific auditor arrange to have the project audited concurrently.with its independent annual audit. fi performed. The audit must state that project funds were used in conformance with Article XIX of the California State constitution. Three copies of this report shall be submitted to STATE. SECTION III 1T IS MUTUALLY AGREED: 1. All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the availability of the state funds encumbered under this Agreement. 2. In the event that AGENCY fails to implement or complete the PPM PROJECT commenced under this Agreement, fails to perform any of the obligations created by this agreement or fails to comply with applicable State laws and regulations, STATE reserves the right to terminate funding for the PPM PROJECT or portions thereof, upon written notice to AGENCY. An audit may be preformed as provided in Section 11, Article (4) of this agreement. 3. Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury, damage or liability occurring or arising by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY under or in connection with any work,. authority or jurisdiction delegated to AGENCY under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, AGENCY shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the State of Califomia, its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Govemment Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AGENCY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to AGENCY under this Agreement. 0 6 J. 0 98/99 PPM 9/15/98a 4 4. As a condition of acceptance of the State funds provided for under this Agreement, AGENCY will abide by all State policies and procedures pertaining to the PPM PROJECT. 5. This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2001. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation By: Chief, Office of Local Programs Project Implementation Date: 06361I. • Riversid my Transp tton Commission By: /7, Title: Eric Haley, Executive Director Date: '`IL= /q � Attest: l (Ltk Title: Na y Kenhav r Director of Administrative Services 98/99 PPM 9/15/98 RESOLUTION NO. 98-010A RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING A FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the California State Budget.Act of 1998 appropriates. State Highway funds under local assistance for . the. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program (PPM)., and WHEREAS, PPM is defined as the project planning, programming and monitoring activities related to development of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program and the State Transportation Improvement Program required by Government Code Section 14527, et. seq. and for the monitoring of project implementation for projects approved in these documents, hereinafter referred to as PPM PROJECT, and WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation is tasked to apportion these funds in accordance with the amounts approved in the 1998 STIP in accordance with Section 14527(h) of the California Government Code, and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission is responsible for the development and monitoring of the local State Transportation Improvement Program Planning, Programming and Monitoring Program and is desirous to receive funding available to support these efforts, and WHEREAS, the State requires that a fund transfer agreement be executed to allow the reimbursement of cost for the development of our PPM Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the Riverside County Transportation Commission an agreement with the State of California and all other necessary documents to implement and carry out the purposes of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, this 14' day of October, 1998. ATTEST: _ Naty K1ppenhaver, ,C.J5rik of the Riverside Cat:nty Transportation Commission Supervisor Bob Buster, Chairperson Riverside County Transportation Commission 000012 RCTC STIP PLANNING, PROGRAMMING AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES PLAN RCTC STAFF ACTIVITIES TIME FRAME FY 199E-99 Review Project Study Reports 7/01/98 to 6/30/99 S17,120 STIP Development/Amendment(s)/Monitoring Local Agency Coordination CTC/Caltrans Coordination Development and Processing 7/01/98 to 6/30/99 7/01/98 to 6/30/99 7/01/98 to 6/30/99 S17,120 S17,120 S8,560 RTIP Amendment Is) 7/01/98 to 6/30/99 Including: Local Agency Coordin. SCAG Caltrans Coordin. Project Monitoring and Implementation Western County Eastern County 7/01/98 to 6/30/99 7/01/98 to 6/30/99 S21,400 S25,680 S42,297 !Staff Costs 1 $149,297 Planning Funds Committed to Date CETAP Route 79 Project Study Report CVAG-Project Master Plan for Palo Verde Valley CVAG-I-10 Project Study Report 7/01/.98 to 6/30/00 7/01/98 to 6/30/00 :7/01/98 to 6/30/01 7/01/98 to 6/30/01 S751,703 S200,000 S100,000 5175,000 'Total t 1userwpreDnnt4f)12%PLANto. wk4 000015 I $1,376,000 EXHIBIT `B" Description of Projects, with Funding Allocations A. Staff Overhead $ 42,297 Participation in regional transportation planning as related to projects included or proposed for the STIP; monitoring the implementation of STIP projects; coordination of project delivery, timely use of funds and compliance with State law and RCTC guidelines, during FY 1999-2000. B. Palo Verde Valley Transportation Master Plan $100,000 Development and refinement of several transportation issues in the Palo Verde Valley area as part of the Riverside County country -wide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, including the alignment/re-alignment of State Route 78, defining the transportation related impacts of recreational traffic to Colorado River and desert recreational areas, defining the impacts of commercial truck and rail traffic and assessing the needs for Interstate 10 interchange improvements. This project will be ready for bid in the Summer/Fall of 1999. C. Interstate 10 Lane Addition Project Study Report $175,000 Determine the impact of current and future traffic, particularly commercial truck traffic, on the capacity of Interstate 10 between Monterey Avenue and the Blythe Turnoff, near Dillon Road, and prepare a Project Study Report for the addition of a third traffic lane in both east and west directions. This project will be ready for bid in the Summer/Fall of 1999. R VPUB\PBC\507767 000014 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Program Extension Requests from the Cities of Banning, Cathedral City, Corona, Moreno Valley, Palm Springs, Riverside and the County of Riverside In August 1998, the Commission approved the allocation of $676,757 in SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities funding for the completion of 21 projects by 14 local agencies. When the funds were approved, the recipients were informed that it is Commission policy that if project funds are not claimed prior to the end of the fiscal year, the project will be deleted from the program and funds will revert back for reprogramming in the next year. Funds can be claimed once the agency awards a contract for completion of the project or local agency staff has begun construction. Commission policy allows for extension of time beyond the June 30t deadline if substantial progress has been made on the project. A letter was mailed to the local recipient agencies on April 26, 1999 reminding them of their need to claim funds under this project. We have received the following requests for time extensions. City of Banning The City of Banning was allocated $10,431 for the Nicolet Street Sidewalk project:' Due to staff turnover, the project has been delayed. The City is requesting a six month extension to December 31, 1999 to complete the project. City of Cathedral City The City of Cathedral City was allocated $7,000 for the design and engineering of a pedestrian bridge in the downtown area. This work is ongoing but is not expected to be complete until after June 30, 1999. Therefore, the City is requesting a 9-month extension to March 31, 2000. 000015 City of Corona The City of Corona was allocated $52,000 for construction of the South Corona Bikeway Project. To date, plans and specifications have been completed and a notice inviting bids for construction has been released. Bids are due in on June 2 and contract award is anticipated in late. June or early July.- Just in case there is a delay, the City is requesting a six month extension to December 31, 1999. City of Moreno Valley Moreno Valley was allocated $26,500 for sidewalk improvements on Sunnymead Boulevard and Heacock Avenue as well as accessibility enhancements on Village Road and Alessandro Boulevard. Plans and specifications have been completed for all three locations and the City is currently preparing to advertise for the construction contract. Contract award is anticipated by late August, so the City is requesting a three-month extension to September 30, 1999. City of Palm Springs The City of Palm Springs was allocated $46,437 for pedestrian safety improvements in nine locations around the City. The plans and specifications for the project are complete and the project will go out for bid later this month with award expected in June or July. The City is requesting a three-month extension to September 30, 1999 for this project. City of Riverside The City of Riverside was allocated a total of $98,950 for the completion of pedestrian improvements on Arlington Avenue, California Avenue, and Sierra Vista Street. Requests for bids to complete the construction are currently being advertised and contract award is expected in June. Just in case the contract award is delayed, the City is requesting a four -month time extension to October 31, 1999. County of Riverside The County was allocated $31,000 for pedestrian improvements along Mayberry Avenue in the Hemet area. Preliminary design and revised cost estimates have been completed. Work is currently underway to relocate or remove several trees, fences and mailboxes which currently encroach on the needed right-of-way. However, it is unlikely that the construction contract will be awarded until Spring of 2000, so the County is requesting a time extension to June 30, 2000. 000016 An additional S48,000 was allocated to the County for sidewalk improvements along Fred Waring Drive in the Indio area. This project is a joint effort with the City of Indio. The project is currently being advertised for construction and award may be made in June. However, there is a possibility of delay in completing some right-of- way acquisition, so the County is requesting a three month extension to September 30, 1999. Financial Assessment Project Cost $320,318 Source of Funds TDA Article 3/Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed 1999 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 1999 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission grant the Cities of Banning, Cathedral City, Corona, Moreno Valley, Palm Springs, Riverside and the County time extensions, as requested, to complete their respective SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities projects. O00017 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee David W. Shepherd, Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: • State and Federal Legislative Update State Update As Delaney Hunter and D.J. Smith's monthly report (attached) states, committees have been meeting regularly and legislative proposals are rapidly moving or dying as the deadline for bills to leave policy committees (April 23`d) passed and as the budget deadline approaches. The Governor's "May Revise" to the fiscal year 1999/2000 State Budget released May 15; after the wring of this report. Early indications are the Legislature and the Governor will have $3 to $4 billion surplus. Options for financing future transportation needs are under consideration and certainly will be part of the budget negotiations. Staff has analyzed and recommends the following bill positions: AB 74 (Virginia Strom -Martin, D. - Eureka) - State Rail Freight Study. Staff recommends: Change from OPPOSE to WATCH. The staff analysis is attached. AB 923 (Robert Hertzberg, D - Sherman Oaks) - Increases fines for rail right-of-way violations. Staff recommends: SUPPORT. The staff analysis is attached. AB 1475 (Nell Soto, D - Pomona) - Designates certain federal funding to school safety programs. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached. AB 1612 (Dean Florez, D - Shafter) - Allocates $300 million in State Highway Account Funds to local street repair. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached. SB 1277 (Tom Hayden, D - Los Angeles) - Prohibits road construction on lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game and state conservancies. Staff recommends: OPPOSE. The staff analysis is attached. 00001t3 Federal Update Activities in Washington, D.C. are largely consumed with the appropriations process and Kosovo. Nevertheless, Senator Kit Bond ° - MO) had indicated a desire to give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grandfathering powers the courts have recently ruled it cannot assume on its own. The grandfathering device was invented by the EPA as an administrative work -around for projects that otherwise, under the terms of the Clean Air Act, could not .receive funding for a subsequent state of planning or constructiononce a "conformity lapse" occurred. The court ruling threatens an undetermined number of projects nationwide. It not only blocks federally - funded projects from advancing from one state to another, but prevents local metropolitan planning organizations from approving significant non-federal projects until an area's transportation plan is back in conformity with the state's clean air plan. This is critical for California and particularly the South Coast Air Basin as several projects in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are under threat of being frozen. Summary With the policy deadline passed and the budget deadline approaching, the State Legislature begins to turn its attention to fiscal matters which include options for financing future transportation needs. In Washington, D.C. appropriations discussions continue and grandfathering of projects by the EPA may be restored. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission adopt the following bill positions: Change from Oppose to Watch - AB 74; Support - AB 923; Oppose - AB 1475, AB 1612 and SB 1277. 000019 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMIVi ,ION/SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVLRNMLiv PS POSITIONS ON STATE LEGISLATION Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 38 (Washington) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $l vehicle license fee for air quality programs. . Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 11-5 on 3/22/99. Passed the Senate Appropriation Committee 16-5 on 4/14/99. To Assembly Floor. SUPPORT J SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 44 (McClintock) Would require Ca!trans and local authorities to redesignate all existing HOV lanes as mixed flow. . Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee. Hearing canceled at the request of author. OPPOSE . SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 71 (Cuneen) Would permit inherently low- emission vehicles (ILEV) to travel in High Occupancy Vehicle lanes regardless of the number of occupants in the 1 LEV. Passed Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0 on 4/19/99. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/ 14/99 AB 74 (Strom -Martin) - Would permit a private rail freight operation to compete for State Intercity Rail funding. Referred to Assembly Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. CHANGE FROM SUPPORT TO WATCH SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC' 3/ 10/99 MALEGMAT.DWS.WPD 0 v O I .egislat ion/Aulhor Description Bill Status Position Date of board Adoption AB 102 (Wildman and llertzberg) Would fund the 1989 Priority Soundwall Retrofit list off -the -lop of the Stale Highway Account. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 10-7 ON 4/12/99. Referred to Assemble Appropriations Committee, No hearing date yet. SEEK AMENDMENT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 AB 276 (Longville) • Would redirect a portion of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the Public Transportation Account Referred to Assermbly committees on Revenue, Ta.x and Transportation. No hearing date yet. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 283 (I.ongville) Would allow a resolution of necessity to he approved by a County Board of Supervisors, rather than the California Transportation Comtnission. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 19-0 on 4/19/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet.. SPONSOR - ADOPTED AS PART OF THE STATE. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SANBAG 1/6/99 RCTC 1/13/99 AB 308 (Longville) Would require a review and analysis of the Public Transportation Account expenditures and a review of the account's needs Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 12-3 on 4/19/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 f ' ,gislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Dale of Board AL tition , AB 521( McClintock) Would redirect that portion of sales and gas taxes currently going to the General Fund to the State l lighway Account. Set for hearing on 4/19/99 in the Assembly Transportation Committee. !-tearing canceled at the request of author. Canceled by Author , NO RECOMMENDATION SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 872 (Alquist) Would allow reimbursement of local funds used to advance STIP programmed projects. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 17-0 on 4/12/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT SANDAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 923 (Hertzberg) Would increase the fines for Rail Right of Way violations. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 15-0 on May 10, 1999. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Cornm. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT 1 i C C. � � c ry MALECIAAT nws wnn cam._ CD_ i\D W t Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 1012 (Torlakson) A comprehensive' transportation reform package intended to enhance Caltrans' operating environment; includes the ROTC/SANBAG generated" loan' concept. Passed Assembly 'transportation Committee 18-0 on 4/12/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 AB 1425(Runner) Provides Statutory Direction To Caltrans to Insure More TEA21 Funds Flow Directly to Regions.. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 16-1 on 4/12/99. Referred to Assembly Appropriations Committee. No Hearing Date Yet. SUPPORT . SANI3AG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/11/99 AB 1475 (Soto) Would Designate a Portion of Federal Transportation Safety Funding to School Safety Programs. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 12-5 on April 13, 1999. Placed on Assembly Appropriations Suspense File. OPPOSE AB 1571 (Villaraigosa) Creates the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Standards Attainment Program. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 18-0 on 4/12/99. Referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. No Hearing Dale Yet. SEEK AMF.NDMENTS SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/11/99 l l:uA P mot twin fislalion/Author it Description Bill Status Position Date of hoard A lion AB 1612 (:lorcz) Would Allocate S300 Million of State Highway Account Dollars to Rehabilitate Streets and Roads. Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 12-3 on April 13, 1999. Referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee - No Hearing Date Yet. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED S13 14 (Rainey) Would require extensive study prior to construction of future HOV lanes. Referred to Senate "Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. OPPOSE UNLESS, AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 17 (Figueroa) Would permit employers to receive a tax credit for purchasing transit passes for their employers. Set for Ilearing in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee on 4/21/99. From Committee author's amendments, referred to committee. No healing set yet. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 63 (Solis) Would reduce the minimum occupancy for the El Monte Busvvay from 3 plus to 2 plus. Set for hearing with the Senate Transportation Committee on 4/26/99. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 65 (Murray) Would appropriate $20 Million to support welfare to work transportation projects Placed on Senate Appropriations Committee. Suspense file on April 19, 1999. SEEK AMENDMENT SANBAG 4/7/99 RCTC 4/14/99 O C: O O •iJ C� I Legislation/Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption Sl3 98 (Alarcon) Extends SCAQMD Authority to collect $1 vehicle license fee for air quality programs. Passed the Senate Transportation Committee on 4/15/99. To Senate Floor. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RC I C 3/10/99 SB 117 (Murray) Makes the State Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation fund permanent. Passed the Senate Transportation Committee 10-0 on 4/21/99. Referred to Senate Environmental (Quality Committee, No hearing date yet. SUPPORT SANBAG 3/3/99 RCTC 3/10/99 SB 481(Baca) Establishes a Study of the Economic Benefits of an inland Port. - Passed Senate Governmental Organization Committee 8 - 1 on April 12, 1999. Passed the Senate Appropriations Committee 11-1 on 4/12/99. To Senate Floor, SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS SANBAG 5/5/99 RCTC 5/11/99 SB 1043 (Murray) Requires the California I ligh Speed Rail Authority to Submit it's Financial Plan to the Legislature for Approval, Passed Senate Transportation Committee on 11-1 on May 11, 1999. Re -referred to the Senate Transportation Committee. No hearing date yet. SUPPORT SANBAG 5/5/99 RCI'C 5/11/99 /cM AT_nwS. vein mum .wrrrJy n- t.:.. n: r-j a .-.- d O o - f- '6661 'L I AeIN aamtuuio0 suopepdotuldv aseuag alp u! Supeall Joi PS '6661 if! Xelnl c-S aall!wtuo0 aJ!IPI!M Pun saainosa211eJn1eN ' . •sa!nueniasuoa ams aye pue pump pun ysyjoluawiledao aye `uo!lealaali pun slam jo luauiuedac acp jo uopo!psun f ow aapun spue-1 u! speo21 :15041d0 Mews passe,' Jo uo!laniisuo0 'mold pinoM (uap,ttill) LLZI FIS snlelS i uoi1!' / mon jo aro uoil!sod MEI uo!id!lasan lotlhV/uo!lels!9:, . 1 MEMORANDUM To: RCTC/SANBAG Board of Directors From: D. J. Smith and Delaney Bunter - Date: May 12. 1999 Sukject: Legislative Report and Update Transportation Finance Proposals Senator Burton's transportation package continues to move forward --- . Senate Bill 315 passed out of the Senate on May 10`' on a 32-8 vote. Senator Burton pledged to send SB 315 to conference committee to be considered as part of an overall transportation funding proposal. • Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 will be heard in the Senate Transportation Committee on May le'. • • The California Transportation Commissntln submitted their needs assessment as required by Senate Resolution 8, on May 10. The CTC estimates California's need at about S116 billion (sec attached article from the Sacramento Bee). Senator Burton's Working Group continues to meet on transportation infrastructure issues. The next meeting will be on Wednesday May 19 and is likely to focus on the needs assessment reported by the CTC (see above) and the Department of Transportation. Assembly Bill 521 (McClintock) was not heard before the policy committee deadline and is effectively dead for this year. However, there are eismissions around the Capitol that florae part of the McClintock plan may be used to help with the crisis in transportation funding we are currently facing. Senate Constitutional Amendment 9 (Peace and McPherson), the California Business Roundtable proposal, will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 17. The second part of the rrilifornia Business Roundtable's proposal, Assembly Bill 1473 (Hertzberg), passed out of the Assembly Consumer Protection Committee on a 6 to 0 vote on April 66. AB 1473 heads next to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and will be heard on May 19. O00027 Assemblyman John Longville's bills on transportation financing continue to move. Assembly Bill 276 was amended on May 10 in Assembly Transportation Committee and now appropriates a one- time amount of S60 million to public transit. Assembly Bill 477, which would revise the state's method for taxing the distribution of gas from the current rate of 18 cents per gallon to instead become 15 percent of the retail price per gallon of gasoline, is now a two year bill. Assemblyman Longville will use that time to work on refinements with the Board of Equalization to allow for the best collection method for the tax. AB 283 (Lont'ville) — County Resolution of Necessity Bill Assembly Bill 283 introduced by 'Assemblyman John Longville, on behalf of SANBAG, will allow Caltrans CO use the County's condemnation process and resolution of necessity. AB 283 will speed up the process and help with project delivery. We arc exploring the idea of amending the bill to include an urgency clause, which will make the change in law effective immediately upon signature by Governor Davis. AB 283 passed out of the Assembly Transportation Committee on a vote of I7-0 and is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 12. AB 1012 -- Project Delivery Streamlining Bill Assembly Bill .1012, which will streamline transportation project delivery and set up a process to allow short term "loans" (originally an RCTC idea), is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 19. We continue to work with all parties, including the Department of Transportation, to come to agreement on language. Governor Davis' Commission on the 21' Century The Governor's Commission has set up special subcommittees — Technology Issues, Facilities Issues, Transportation Issues and Resources Issues — to heal with all those issues facing California in the coming years. The Transportation Issues -Subcommittee held its first meeting on April le. The meeting opened with general introductions and featured reports from several state agencies. The Department of Finance gave a demographics projection. The bottom line was that there will be many more people in our state and an even greater need for highways and transit. Tony Harris of the Department of Transportation followed reinforced the increasing travel demands of the state and gave a great report on the need to extend local sales taxes. The next Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for June 1. Transportation Poll The results are in from the statewide poll on transportation issues. The overriding results are: • There is great support for the extension of local sales taxes for transportation. • Increasing taxes on gasoline is not supported, most likely due to the recent spike in gas prices statewide. 000028 2 There is support for bonds for transportation, most likely in the $4 to S billion range. While transportation issues are on the state "radar screen" education still dominates the list of voter concerns. 3 �0 002 t Sacramento Kings guard Jason Williams boogies on the sidelines as the Kings regain Be* photograph/no* Pooch the lead after halftime in Monday night's sec- ond playoff game against the Utah Jazz. .y e announcement, w lc the state news programs, was widely understood here as a ges- ture intended to accelerate nego- tiations on a peaceful settlement on Kosovo that would bring an end to NATO's widespread bomb- ing of Yugoslavia. The partial withdrawal is in- tended to be "one more positive step forward" toward a negotiat- ed peace settlement, a senior Yu- goslav official, Goren Matic, said in an interview Monday. lie added, "But we cannot al- ways make such steps without a response." - President Clinton said he was encouraged but said the gesture fell short of what is needed to end NATO airstrikes. NATO °Ukiah immediately said bombing would continue, and Secretary of Slate Madeleine Albright called the an- nouncement "a half measure." Matic said the Yugoslav gov- ernment had decided to reduce its forces in Kosovo to peacetime Please see KOSOVO, back page, AI! e ep o James Sasser, who has not 4 the embassy since the prole' broke out Saturday, Be(jing i mended a formal apology for l U.S. attack, a thorough invetrtif Lion and punishment for %dee t sponsible for the attack. Chine also broke off milita Lies and other contacts with d United States and did not si when they might resume. At the same time, howeve Chinese officials triad to resew jittery American companies tit their investments and business would be protected from the ant American backlash. President Clinton already hi written a letter of regret to .Cb nese President Jiang Zemin ar. expressed his condolences Stu day to the families of the Ihn Chinese killed in the airatrik Clinton called the bombing as isolated, tragic mistake." US.* ficials blamed it on misinform' tion from CIA planners, erb Please see CHINA. back pat% Al State's transit costs put at $116 billion By Steven A. Capps and Jon Matthews Bee Capitol Bureau A new state survey sets the price tag for patching up Califurnla'e outdated transportation network — and expanding it to meet future needs — at a whopping $116.5 billion over the next 10 years. The report from the California Trans- portation Commission tells the slate's commuters what most already know: There are a lot more drivers on the road, and they're driving a lot more miles. Over the last three decades, Califor- nia's population Ilan grown twice as quickly as the capacity of ita highways and local roads, the report says. And the total number of miles driven by Califor- nians ie growing even faster than the slate's population. "We all agree that there is an enor- mous need, not only for our constituent - who are stuck in traffic jams far to much but for the future of the eoononr t' of the state of California," said Sena(' 8 Republican leader Nose Johnson of Ir vine as the report was delivered to tie g Legislature on Monday. Of the $ 116.5 billion for everythini n from repairing elate higliwsys to build ' u Please see ROADS, back page, All u New weight -loss drug ave been trapped in steel jaw Luke Mont- ag -hold traps." gomety, lead- ' Now Brunson wants to give or of rho 1.." - INSIDE 0-00031 y+aw+a. In the letter. whose text was made public Monday, Albright repeatedly ex- pressed regret for the embassy bombing. But she also told the Chinese authori- ties. that they have an obligation "to en- sure the safety of all Americans in Chi- na and protection of American proper- ties." Tens of thousands of protesters, spurred on by the government, have marched in 20 cities in the past three days in the biggest protests since the Tiananmen Square pro -democracy dem- onstrations in Beijing 10 years ago. Protesters' emotions were inflamed by government -run media reports that the attack on the. Chinese Embassy that sna►cen between we u.o. ana rsnuan embassies and shooed away onlookers. Sasser, the ambassador, said the weekend protests got almost completely out of hand. The low point of the ordeal. he said, came Sunday =ruing when he and other employees began destroying sensitive documents in preparation for abandoning the building, fearing that raging protesters were about to over- whelm the double row of police officers and stream through the gates. 'The crowd was pushing the police back — they looked tired — and these Young police were frantically calling for reinforcements," Sasser said. "We thought the odds were 50-50 they were corning in." Roads: Light -rail system expansion is on local list Continued from page Al ing bike paths and expanding rail systems, about $26 billion would be needed just to bring the state's current transportation system up to date, according to the Transpor- tation Commission. . Senate President Pro Tern John Bui-ton, D-San Francisco, who car- ried legislation requiring the transportation survey, said the $26 billion would merely "make our current system function at a decent level." "That's not talking expansion. that's not looking through the Sears `wish book,' " he said. 'That's filling potholes, replacing guard rails and repairing broken- down buses." The report was compiled by sur- veying counties. cities and local transportation agencies. They re- ported back with lists of needs that totaled $116.5 billion, includ- ed $57 billion worth of high -priori- ty projects arovind the state. SETTING tr STRAIGHT A story Monday on Page B 1 said a lawsuit tiled by Glen Elder Baptist Church accused the Rev. Ronnie Allen and his wife, Gail. of spending more than S100,000 in church money for personal use. The suit actually contends the couple used church money and church property valued at more than $100,000. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments estimated the backlog of high -priority projects in Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter and Yuba counties at more than $2 bil- lion — $872 . tftillion for highways, $83 7 million, for urban and com- muter rail, $488 million for local streets and $141 million for bike and pedestrian projects. Included in the list of local proj- ects was the extension of Sacra- mento's light -rail system south from Meadowview Road to Cal - vine Road. Money for extending the system to Meadowview al- ready has been secured, according to SACOG. Tile list also included extending Richards Boulevard in downtown Sacramento across Highway 160 to hook up with the Capital City Freeway. And on the list of state highway projects was construction of a new bridge over the Feather River be- tween Marysville and Yuba City. El Dorado County listed high - priority projects totaling $300 mil- lion, while Placer County officials presented a list totaling $+198 mil- lion. . The report was released Mon- day as the state Senate voted 32-8 to approve a preliminary version ors proposed S 16 billion stateside transportation borrowing plan. Supporters acknowledged that the bond measure still faces major negotiations, and Republicans yarned they would prefer that the state pay for road work without. long-term borrowing. Under the bill. SB 315 by Bur- ton. California voters would be asked to approve four separate, $4 billion bond measures duriagelea men, wno were apparer.: only to prevent an outri g Most of Monday's proft, veraity students and fa. and .some state companit lowed to send large deleg strators said that as the! applied for permisair embassy, the Publi, told them when and weer In a sign of how well th were staged, representat ficial religious group: marched in sequence — dhist monks, followed by Tibetan monks; then Tag Catholic, Protestant and ers. 1 High -priority statewide transportation projects Here is the breakdown of the states 657 billion in high pnonty transportation projects over the next 10 years, according to the California Transportation -Commission: ► S23.4 billion for state highways ► S19.4 billion for urban and commuter rail ► 313 billion for local arteries ► S1.3 billion for bike and pedestrian projects tees QAphie tions in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. The money could be used to build transportation facilities and repair or improve existing ones throughout the state. Lawmakers of both parties agreed that the state faces huge spending needs in transportation. They said the real work on devel- oping a transportation improve- ment plan — and a possible com- promise — will be done later this year in a joint Senate -Assembly conference committee. Gov. Gray Davis has appointed a special panel to study Califor- nia's overall infrastructure needs, including transportation, and ex- pects its report to be completed this summer. Several Republican senators said a plan to dedicate existing money- from the sales tax on gaso- line to transportation would avoid risking voter rejection of the bonds. If we do the Republican plan. we don't have to rely on the voters saying yes," said Sen. Jim Brake. R-Raneho Cucamonga. EE : 80 66, ET AUW 90/90d La CLIFF MADISON GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, INC. 046073 254-A Maryland Ave., N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 543-9305 Facsimile (202) 543-42y7 TO: Paul Blackwelder - Dave Shepherd FROM: Cliff Madison DATE: May 3, 1999 SUBJECT: April 1999 Federal Affairs Report On Friday, April 2, I met with Congressman Nick Rahall, the senior Democrat on the House Surface Transportation Subcommittee, for two hours to discuss any revisions which may take place on TEA 21 -- the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. On Thursday, April 8, I again met with Congressman Rahall to discuss activities of his Subcommittee. This was for one hour. On Monday, April 12, I met with Supervisor Mullen and members of the Nature Conservancy to discuss Riverside County issues. This was for two hours. On Tuesday, April 13, I met with .Supervisor Mullen and the Washington representatives of Riverside County. This was for two hours. on Friday, April 16, I met with Congressman Ron Packard for one hour to discuss transportation appropriations for FY 2000. And I met with Congressman Ken Calvert for one hour to discuss RCTC issues. On Wednesday, April 21, I met with Congressman Jim Oberstar, the senior Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee td discuss his Committee's priorities for this Congress. This was fok one hour. On Tuesday, April 27, I met with Congressman Jerry Lewis for one hour to discuss ROTC activities. On Thursday, April 29, I was asked by Congressman Calvert's office to assist in scheduling meetings between the Riverside Monday Morning Group, and Congressman Jim Oberstar, and Congressman Bud Shuster, the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. On Friday, April 30, I met with Congressman Ron Packard to discuss RCTC funding issues. This was for one hour. I also met with Congressman Nick Rahall for one hour to discuss surface transportation issues. 000032 T 0 - cd .LA00 NOS ICE W 60 : L T N O W 6 6—£ —JlaW Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 74 (Virginia Strom -Martin, D-Eureka) Introduced December 7, 1998 Amended April 27, 1999 Subject: State Rail Freight Study Status: Summary: Passed Assembly Transportation Committee 15-4 on April 19, 1999. Referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee — no hearing date yet. As introduced, AB 74 would have rendered a specific rail freight operation (North Coast Railroad Authority) eligible for State Intercity Rail funding. After recent amendments the bill now simply requires Caltrans, in conjunction with the California Transportation Commission, to develop a State Freight Rail Plan. The plan shall be developed through a study which includes the following: 1. Environmental aspect, including land use and community aspects. 2. Financing issues, including a means to obtain state and federal transportation funds. 3. Rail issues, including regional, intrastate and interstate issues. 4. Intemodal connections, including seaports and intermodal terminals. 5. Current system deficiencies. 6. Service objectives, such as improving efficiency, accessibility, and safety, and enhancing branch lines. 7. New technology, including logistics and process improvement. 8. Light density rail line analyses, including traffic density, track characteristics, project selection criteria, and cost -benefit criteria. Staff Comments: Based on the fact that permitting freight operations to apply for funds relied on by the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, would unnecessarily cause taxpaying rail passengers to compete with non -passenger service for funding to support their daily commute, both the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) adopted an "oppose" position to AB 74 when introduced. However, in light of the recent amendments to AB 74, staff recommends changing the current position from "Oppose" to "Watch." The bill currently offers no positive or negative impact upon either RCTC or SANBAG. Staff Recommendation: WATCH o:\ab74-dws.doc 000033 Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 923 (Wally Hertzberg, D- Los Angeles) Introduced February 25, 1999 Amended April 28, 1999 Subject: Would Increase the Fines for Rail Right of Way Violations. Status: Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee On May 10, 1999. Summary: AB 923 would do the following: 1. Increases the base fine for failing to stop at a rail crossing to $100, and provides that subsequent violations be fined as follows: a) Up to $200 for a second offense. b) Up to $250 for a third or subsequent offense. 2. Removes the restrictions that limit subsequent fines to a one-year period, so a second - time offender can be charged the maximum $200 fine, even if their first offence was more than one year ago. 3. Allocates the first 30% of the fine collected to the transit district if a rail crossing offense occurred at a rail crossing on the district's transit lines. However, if there is no rail transportation provided in that area by a transit district, then the entire amount of the. fine and fees collected shall be deposited into the various city, county and state funds Staff Comments: Rail crossing violations have increased dramatically over the past few years. Since the beginning of Metrolink service, approximately 15,000 citations were issued for grade crossing violations. Further, since its service began in 1992, there have been 74 accidents, resulting in 16 fatalities and 38 injuries. AB 923 is an effort to prevent the proliferation of such incidents and to provide a funding source for further educational/prevention efforts to make the public aware of the dangers associated with violating rail right -of way. Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT 000034 o: \ab923-dws.doc Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 1475 (Nell Soto, D- Pomona) Introduced February 26, 1999 Subject: Would Designate a Portion of Federal Transportation Safety Funding to School Safety Programs. Status: Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 12 —5 on April 13, 1999. Placed on Assembly Appropriations Suspense File Summary: Designates a portion of federal transportation safety funding apportioned to the state under the federal Hazard Elimination/Safety (HES) program to be used by local governments to improve school area safety by installing new crosswalks, building bicycle paths and lanes, constructing sidewalks where none exist, and implementing traffic calming programs in neighborhoods around schools. Specifically, this bill reformulates the existing 50-50 HES program split between the state and local agencies and splits the HES money one-third each to state, locals, and the Safe Routes to School Program (SRSP). Staff Comments: Since this bill redirects existing resources, it would reduce the money available to state and local agencies for safety improvements to streets and highways. The total of the state's safety projects in the current SHOPP ranges from $50 million to $100 million per year. The SHOPP program receives approximately $30 million in federal HES funds. Under this bill, that amount would be reduced to approximately $20 million. Because there would be a reduction in the amount of money available to fund these programs, the reduction would have to be replaced by other funding, perhaps from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The amount of money directed to local agencies for safety improvements would also be reduced to $20 million. In addition, this bill would call for many small projects from various entities around the state, and could prove to be inefficient. This bill would further divide existing transportation monies and reduce the flexibility set up under SB 45 (Kopp), Chapter 622, Statutes of 1997. This bill would earmark money.for the SRSP instead of allowing local transportation agencies to decide which safety projects should be given the highest priority. This bill would also require the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to reprogram existing money since the CTC has programmed the money through 2004. Through SB 45, regional transportation planning agencies are charged with making programming decisions and choosing between the needs of local streets and roads, state highways and public transit in order to meet overall transportation needs. It is important that such decisions remain in the hands of local elected officials and to preserve that 00 035 authority and autonomy, agencies such as RCTC and SANBAG must have credibility that they are choosing the best and most valuable projects for their area Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE 000036 Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999 Bill Number/Author: AB 1612 (Dean Florez, D- Shafter) Introduced February 26, 1999 Amended April 6, 1999 Subject: Would Allocate $300 lvrllion of State Highway Account Dollars to Rehabilitate Streets and Roads. Status: Summary: Passed the Assembly Transportation Committee 12 —3 on April 13, 1999. Referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee — No Hearing Date Yet. AB 1612 would do the following: 1. Appropriate from the State Highway Account (SHA) in the State Transportation Fund to the Controller $200 million in FY 1999-2000 and $100 million in 2000-2001 for allocation to counties (50 percent) and to cities (50 percent) repair of local streets and highways. 2. Allocate 75 percent of the funds payable to counties on the basis of the proportion of registered vehicles to county population, and the remaining 25 percent on the basis of the proportion of county road mileage to total county road mileage statewide. 3. Allocate the funds payable to cities on the basis of the proportion of the city population to cities' population statewide. 4. Require recipient cities and counties to maintain existing levels of general fund expenditures for streets and highways. 5. Authorize recipient cities and counties, subject to the maintenance of effort requirement, to spend these funds for transportation purposes in addition to street and highway reconstruction and to repair of storm damage to local streets and highways. 6. Specify procedures to prevent the commingling of funds received and deposited. 7. Require recipient cities and counties to comply with all force account and bidding requirements under current law. OLA37 o:\ab1612-dws.doc 8. Require recipient cities and counties to expend these funds within one fiscal year of their receipt, and requires the return of unexpended -funds to the Controller for reallocation to other cities and counties. Senator Rainey ( R — Walnut Creek), has introduced SB 10 which is exactly the same bill as AB 1612. However, after conversations with the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has decided not to pursue SB 10. Staff Comments: The state and regional approach to the planning, programming, and financing of local transportation needs was reformed only last year by SB 45. The funding AB 1612 would provide bypasses the accountability safeguards and competitive scrutiny applied to STIP projects by regional transportation agencies under SB 45. The key question posed by this bill is whether the proposed transfer of funds from the State Highway Account (SHA) would endanger both federal funding and already approved programs prioritized under the STIP, or whether instead SHA funds may be used for the important short-term purposes of this bill without adversely affecting projects for which SHA funds already are committed. Caltrans reports that this bill would significantly deplete interregional funds available to meet statewide needs in the 1998 and 2000 STIPs, and would result in the deprogramming of approximately $88 mijlion in adopted STIP projects in FY 2000-01. Moreover, because the funds transferred under this measure would be diverted largely from federal matching programs yielding federal matching shares in excess of 80 percent, this bill could translate into the loss to the 'state of millions of dollars in federal funding. In discussions with staff, the CTC staff indicates much the same as Caltrans and states that at a minimum currently programmed STIP projects will be delayed. As the SANBAG board discussed during its review of the 1998 STIP augmentation, if $300 were to be redirected to local street repair, some portion of the I-215 project would incur delays. Because the STIP process is relatively new, most projects budgeted under STIP are still in their early, least costly stages. Many projects yet in their engineering and design phases soon will progress to far more costly construction and implementation phases, thereby drawing much more intensely on funds seemingly bottled up in the current SHA balance. In the case of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Each governing body, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) considered street repair and maintenance when oe glad bk4{SI doc reviewing options for the 1998 STEP Augmentation. RCTC chose to allocate $15 million (well above what would be received from the $300 million allocation statewide) to a call for projects for local street repairs. Part of the RCTC action included language stating that should an effort to acquire additional funding "off -the -top" of the State Highway Account be successful, the $15 million would be reprogrammed to other projects. SANBAG chose to maintain it's current priorities (I-215 and SR 30) and not make any special allocations for street repairs. AB 1612 wouldnegate the actions of ROTC and SANBAG and likely would require a reprogramming of STIP funds, and therefore, produce delays in project delivery. Through SB 45, regional transportation planning agencies are charged with making programming decisions and choosing between the needs of local streets and roads, state highways and public transit in order to meet overall transportation needs. It is important that such decisions remain in the hands of local elected officials and to preserve that authority and autonomy, agencies such as RCTC and SANBAG must have credibility that they are choosing the best and most valuable projects for their area and not biased in favor of those that are owned and operated by cities and counties versus those that are owned and operated by transit operators or Ca!trans. Statewide $500 million of the $1.5 billion STIP augmentation has been programmed - $200 million of which is programmed for local street repair projects; the CTC expects that at least 30% of the remaining billion will be programmed for local street maintenance projects. Thus, statewide, cities and counties will have already in excess of $300 million — leading staff to conclude that AB 1612 is a "double-dipping" effort. Without question, the need for street repair is significant and such projects have difficulty competing against capacity increasing pOjects in the STIP process. For that reason, the RCTC/SANBAG Legislative Program specifically states the two agencies' goal to seek funding for local street repairs from a state source "other than the State Highway Account." AB 16f2 conflicts with that goal. Staff' Recommendation: OPPOSE ,.� 0C 3033 o:bb1612-dws.doc Date of Analysis: May 10, 1999 Bill Number/Author: SB 1277 (Tom Hayden. D- Los Angeles) Introduced February 25, 1999 Amended April 7. 1999 Subject: Would Prohibit Construction of Roads in Lands Under the Jurisdiction of the Departmentof Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game and the state conservancies. Status: Passed Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee 5-3 May 13,1999. Set for Hearing in the Senate' Appropriations Committee May 17, 1999. Summary: This bill would prohibit construction of roads in lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and Game and the state conservancies. This prohibition would not apply to roads necessary for the maintenance and use of the protected lands, to fire roads and to roads for utilities. Staff Comments: Clearly, the intent of the author in pursuing SB 1277 is to protect certain lands from transportation (road) development due to the negative environmental impact such development may bring. Nevertheless, there currently exists an exhaustive environmental review process and requirements for significant mitigation of any negative environmental impact a transportation project may have. Further, the bill relates to lands under the jurisdiction of two state departments and their related state conservancies. Such jurisdiction covers a vast amount of land. This bill could have the affect of stopping several future transportation projects which have already been planned, reviewed and mitigated for. In Riverside County, a recently initiated comprehensive planning process combining, the County General Plan, Multi -species Habitat Conservation Plan and transportation corridor planning known as the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) is underway. The CETAP process attempts to coordinate all significant levels of planning. This is a local process which includes all levels of government and will include all the requisite environmental reviews before proceeding with construction. It is possible that any projects arising out of the CETAP process have • an impact on San Bernardino County as well. Further, the Four Corners study efforts areas in Chino Hills that could be negatively impacted by the prohibitions in SB 1277. By prohibiting all road construction on any land under the jurisdiction of two large state departments, SB 1277 fails to recognize the local planning and review process currently existing. Further, with the advent of SB 45 (Kopp, Statutes, 1998) transportation planning decisions are largely under the purview of local governing bodies and these decisions are made through an open deliberative process which SB 1277 would prevent from having any relevance. Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE o:\sb1277-dws.doc %J J040 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Eric Haley, Executive Director Norm King, Executive Director, SANBAG SUBJECT: Eval.uation/Savings of RCTC/SANBAG Due to Shared Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs Background Beginning in August 1998, the RCTC/SANBAG Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs position was filled. The first seven months of this position's existence have brought to light the many benefits, challenges and cost savings associated with this approach to government relations. Each of these can be described in terms of their relationships to: RCTC/SANBAG Board members, Legislators, the Executive Directors, staff and the public. Board Members Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are both in a unique situation of having nearly completed the program for each of their local transportation sales tax measures, having their expirations within a year of each other, and being faced with the largest growth for any two counties in the State. This unique situation dictates that the transportation commission for each county work closely with each other on policy, planning and financial endeavors. The board of each agency seems to appreciate the cooperation and additional understanding of each other's activities that has arisen from the shared position. The shared position also enables each agency to receive significant cost savings. The shared position has resulted in a total savings of $132,130 in public dollars - these costs include fully burdened staff salary and travel costs. These savings are certainly appreciated by each board. Legislators The RCTC/SANBAG Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs has been able to communicate the close working relationship of the two agencies to local businesses, State Legislators, Congressional Representatives and other interested parties not only with the very existence of the position, but also with a demonstrable knowledge of the operations of each agency. This communication has helped to solidify the two county area as a single region working towards the common goal of responding to current and future transportation needs of the area. This is particularly appreciated by the two bi-county legislative districts (Senate District 31, represented 0 �041 .� J by Senate Brulte and Assembly District 65, represented by Assemblyman Brett Granlund) in the area. Reapportionment may produce more such districts - which will add further value to the shared position. Significant also is the ability of one individual to benefit from the relationships and contacts that come from working for each county transportation commission. In both Sacramento and Washington, D.C., these relationships and contacts have proven to benefit the goals of each agency. Further; this is a two-way street; elected officials and their staffs appreciate the ability to garner information about either county from a single point of contact who is knowledgeable about the activities of each agency. Executive Directors Both Executive Directors have received numerous positive comments on the approach of the shared position. Each Executive Director has appreciated the benefits arising from the coordination the position is able to facilitate. As expected; the challenges relating to the position as a shared one, are primarily logistical. Generally, no committee or board meetings present any scheduling conflicts that cannot be worked around. However, the nature of the position requires a great deal of travel (mostly to Sacramento) which necessitates the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs to be absent from a larger number of board and/or committee meetings than normally would be the case. The same is true for staff and other related meetings. This absence has not resulted in any noticeable decrease in productivity or the quality of performance. Rather, it is something that must be accepted and requires the flexibility of both agencies' staffs and board members. More importantly than the natural meeting conflicts, to date, no conflicts regarding policy positions of -either board have risen - nor do any appear to be rising in the future. The ability of both boards to adopt coordinated policy positions relating to legislation is a positive indicator of the value and benefit to maintaining the shared. position's existence. Another challenge associated with the shared position is the management of the State and Federal advocate contracts. While both RCTC and SANBAG are represented in Sacramento by the same firm (Smith and Kempton), that is not the case for the advocates in Washington, D.C. While each agency is represented at a highly competent level, this difference requires the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs to spend a substantially greater amount of time communicating with each agency's respective advocate than normally would be the case. The result is a loss in efficiency and some minor costs that could be avoided if the agencies had the same advocate in Washington, D.C. ►�04 While having two advocates in Washington, D.D. does present certain challenges, they are not without benefits. Each firm has it's own special relationships and contacts that are useful to both agencies. Thus, the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs is able to benefit from this information much in the same manner mentioned above relative to extensive contacts in each county. Staff The staff of both agencies have found value in the shared position's existence. The position has served well .to facilitate coordination between the two agencies. The position has also helped to eliminate duplicate meeting attendance by enabling one individual, rather than two (one from each agency) to attend various meetings - locally, in Sacramento, and elsewhere. Below is an analysis of the cost savings associated with RCTC and SANBAG sharing the position of the Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs. The primary costs associated with the position as an individual staff person used for this analysis are fully burdened staff costs (not including indirect costs due to difficulty extracting this number) and travel costs by the individual. I spoke with Dean Martin, RCTC and Susan Van Note, SANBAG to obtain the numbers referenced below. Staff Costs Past RCTC Full Burdened Staff Costs Past SANBAG Fully Burdened Staff Costs Current RCTC/SANBAG Fully Burdened Individual Staff Cost for RCTC and SANBAG 0108,870 divided by 2) $1 17,000 $112,109 $108, 870 $ 54,435 Travel Costs (It is important to note that due to the position at SANBAG not being filled from March 1998 through July 1998 and the current fiscal year not being complete, an estimate of $2,000 was added to the totals for March 1998 and March 1999 to provide a more accurate representation). Past RCTC Travel Past SANBAG Travel Current RCTC/SANBAG Travel Individual Staff Cost for RCTC and SANBAG ($6,000 divided by 2) $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 6,000 $ 3,000 Savings Related to Travel RCTC $ 6,000 SANBAG $ 6,000 O3343 Savings Related to Staff Costs RCTC $ 62,565 SANBAG $ 57,565 Total Savings Associated with Shared Position RCTC $ 68,565 SANBAG $ 63,565 Total Public Dollars Saved $132,130 Public For the public, the shared position has many of the same benefits associated with those attributed to legislators. Like legislators, the public appreciates both one point of contact and the significant cost savings mentioned earlier. Conclusion As with any newly created position, this one does not come without its difficulties. Most of these are logistical and certainly are manageable. On the whole, the shared position is having a positive impact on each agency, both financially and in terms of perception of the boards of each agency, each Executive Director, elected representatives in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., staff and the public. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION; That the Commission approve continuation of the shared position of Director of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs. 0 3044 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Mike Davis, Project Coordinator THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Request for Proposal for the Pedley Station Security System Design At the April 14, 1999 RCTC meeting, .the Commission directed Staff to prepare a request for proposal (RFP) from qualified consultants that can prepare the plans, specifications, and cost estimate for the Pedley Metrolink rail station security system and connect the system back to the Riverside Downtown Station monitoring facility. The RFP was issued on April 16, 1999 and Proposals were due at RCTC on May 14, 1999. Only two (2) Proposals were received. One proposal was received late and contained a cost that was sixty percent above the estimated cost and the other was non -responsive to the criteria as specified in the RFP. It is believed that the reason for such a poor response to the RFP was due to the fact that firms that typically develop rail station security systems do "Design -Build" contracts and the RFP as issued was strictly for Design only. Staff investigated whether or not RCTC could enter into a Design -Build contract for development of the Pedley Metrolink rail station security system and found that it could not be done without jeopardizing federal funding for construction of the project. Based on the results of the proposals received and the fact that this is not a time constrained project, Staff is proposing that the RFP be reissued. Staff will attempt to reach out to a larger group of consultants with the expectation of receiving a greater participation and better quality proposals. A selection panel will be established to review the proposals, short list the,firms that submit proposals, and report back to the Commission with recommendations on the most qualified firm to complete the work. The selection panel will be comprised of RCTC and Bechtel Staff. 0045 Financial Assessment Project Cost estimated cost is $30,000 {to be determined after selection process is complete. Source of Funds $776,250 of FTA Section 9 or CMAQ funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget v Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required n Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission direct Staff to reject the proposals received under the present request for proposals and reissue the RFP for the security system at the Pedley Metrolink Station. A selection panel will be established to review the proposals received, short list the firms that submit proposals if necessary, and report back to the Commission with recommendations on the most qualified firm to complete the work. The selection panel will be comprised of RCTC, Bechtel Staff and any other - interested agency participants. 000046 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2,1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission • FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer Paul Blackwelder, Deputy•Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director • SUBJECT: Request Commission Authorization to Proceed with a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Start the Process to Acquire Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's) by Eminent Domain Required for the Construction of Sound Wall #98 along the South Side of State Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets in the City of Riverside. At the May RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized staff to advertise for bids for construction of Sound Wall #98, located along the South side of Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside. The project was advertised starting on May 22, 1999 and bids are due on June 17, 1999. Construction of the project is anticipated to start approximately at the beginning of September, 1999. The new sound wall will be constructed with the far edge of the sound wall foundation located adjacent to the Ca!trans right-of-way line. This will necessitate the acquisition of Temporary Construction Easements (TCE) to allow for construction activities such as: clearing the construction area of vegetation, erection of temporary fencing, removal of the existing access control fences, and construction of the new sound wall. There are 24 TCEs required for the project, which are further described in Exhibit "A". The TCEs are situated along the back or side of each of the properties that are along and adjacent to the project. The easements are a rectangular strip of property, 1 meter in width. The TCEs are contained in an alley. The alley is at the back of each of the properties and runs the full length of the project. The property owners will be given a 30 day written notice by the contractor prior to start of construction. The Temporary Construction Easements will be obtained for a period of one (1) year starting on the 31 st day after the contractor's written notice. The County of Riverside Real Property Department is acting as right-of-way acquisition agent for the Commission in the acquisition of the 24 Temporary Construction Easements required for the project. Right-of-way acquisition agents for the County have, for the past month, been contacting the property owners and negotiated fees to acquire the temporary construction easements. In light of the planned project schedule, if the Commission fails to obtain any of the 24 temporary 0 �4 construction easements by voluntary acquisition, the Commission may have to consider adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire these temporary construction easements by eminent domain. Prior to adopting a resolution of necessity, the Commission must give each person whose property is to be acquired, and whose name and address appears on the last equalized County Tax Assessor's roll, a Notice of Intent and reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on: (1) whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project; (2) whether the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; (3) whether the acquisition of the temporary construction easements are necessary for the project; (4) whether the required offers to acquire the temporary construction easements have been made. Note: The value of the property is not an issue at the hearing. The Notice of Intent must be mailed by first class mail and state the intent of the Commission to consider the adoption of the resolution, the right of each person to appear and be heard on these issues, and that the failure to file a written report to appear will result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The Commission must then hold a hearing at which all persons who filed a written request within 15 days of the date the notice was mailed may appear and be heard. If authorized by the Commission, the required Notice of Intent will be mailed to the property owners on June 3, 1999 andthe hearing date will be set for the July 14, 1999 Commission meeting. Financial Assessment Project Cost $60,000 (Total cost for acquisition of all 24 TCE's.) Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Measure "A" ::i4::f::E�:3:s: r Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable Ou0045 BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission authorize staff to proceed with a Notice of Intent (NOI) to start the process to acquire the Temporary Construction Easements (TCE's) by Eminent Domain required for the construction of Sound Wall #98 along the South side of State Route 91, between Jackson and Monroe Streets, in the City of Riverside. Staff will continue with the negotiation process with each of the property owners to make every effort to obtain the Temporary Construction Easements by voluntary acquisition. If negotiations with the property owner cannot be concluded to allow the project to start in a timely manner, staff will then request that the Commission consider adopting a resolution of necessity to acquire these Temporary Construction Easements by eminent domain. 000040 EXHIBIT "A" ROUTE 91 SOUND WALL #98 PROJECT REQUIRED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS PARCEL GRANTOR 1 17423-1 Hung Le Dung 2 17424-1 Daniel B. Felix 3 17425-1 Richard A. Merlin . 4 17426-1 Paul A. Simmons 5 17427-1 Geral R. Unruh 6 17428-1 Juan N. Feliz 7 17429-1 Zacarias Murillo 8 17430-1 Carlos Jimenez 9 17431-1 Wenchi Wang 10 17432-1 Jose A. Gonzales 11 17433-1 Louise A. Barrera 12 17434-1 Louise A. Barrera 13 17435-1 Cal Fed Bank 14 17436-1 OCWEN Fed Bank 15 17437-1 Jose A. Gonzales 16 17438-1 RV Housing Dev. 17 17439-1 Juven Castro 18 17440-1 Michael T. O'Brien 19 17441-1 Mtn States Mtg. 20 17442-1 Jesus O. Tuazon 21 17443-1 Jesua O. Tuazon 22 17444-1 Stephen Hendrich; Dermott 23 17445-1 Clifton Harold Sawyers 24 17446-1 Secretary of HUD OU305U RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: . June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Mike Davis, Bechtel Environmental Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Consultant Contract No. RO-9970 to produce a Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215. At the January RCTC meeting, the Commission authorized a $100,000 study to assess the feasibility of providing future regional arterial improvements to provide better North/South connectivity between the 1-10 and State Route 60 corridors between 1-15 and 1-215. The City of Fontana in conjunction with the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) have each taken board actions to for funding allocations that would share in the cost of the study. The current proposal is that the funding be split between SANBAG and RCTC on a 50/50 basis and that the SANBAG 50% share be further split between SANBAG and the City of Fontana. RCTC will be the lead agency for the project with agency participation from both the City of Fontana and SANBAG. Development team members will also include planners from the County of Riverside, Caltrans and adjacent cities. At the March RCTC meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposal (RFP) to produce a Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215. The calendar of events were as follows: Distribution of RFP Proposers Conference Proposals delivered to RCTC Short Listed Firms Notified Interviews of Short Listed Firms April 1, 1999 April 15, 1999 April 22, 1999 April 30, 1999 May 11, 1999 Staff received proposals from five (5) firms. A selection panel was assembled, which consisted of representatives from RCTC/Bechtel, Caltrans, SANBAG, the City of Fontana, and the County of Riverside. The selection panel reviewed the five (5) proposals and short listed three (3) of the five (5) firms. 0 0051 All three (3) firms presented teams that would be capable of completing the proposed scope of work. After consideration of the proposed project teams, knowledge of the project and proposed project approach, the selection panel ranked the three (3) interviewed firms as follows: Top Ranked Meyer, Mohaddes Assoc. Second Parsons Brinckerhoff Third VRPA Technologies After Meyer, Mohaddes was selected as the top ranked firm, their cost proposal was opened. The Meyer, Mohaddes scope of work and cost proposal is attached for Commission review. Meyer, Mohaddes proposed to perform the attached scope of work to produce a Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215 for the amount of $99,867. Staff reviewed the Meyer, Mohaddes scope of work and respective cost proposal and found it to be reasonable to complete the proposed scope of work. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used. Financial Assessment Project Cost $ 99, 867.00 Source of Funds $50,000 (RCTC Measure A) + $50,000 (SANBAG/City of Fontana) Included in Fiscal Year Budget n Year Included in Program -Budget n Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission award Consultant Contract No. RO-9970 to produce a Feasibility Study for future North/South Corridors between 1-10 and SR-60 between 1-15 and 1-215 for the amount of $99,867 to Meyer, Mohaddes Assoc. There is no extra work for this agreement. The RCTC model consultant agreement will be used for this agreement. 063052 North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC SCOPE OF WORK Understanding of the Project and Overall Approach Capacity deficiencies and the related congestion problems in the north -south project corridor between the I-15 and I-215 freeways have confronted area residents, commuters and agencies for many years. The lack of adequate north -south traffic capacity in this area has resulted in exacerbation of traffic congestion problems on the existing few connecting arterials as well as both freeways, which have to absorb the overflow traffic. The traffic problems affect both residents of the immediate area and the longer distance commuters on the area freeways. In the area between the I-15 and I-215, the I-10 and SR-60 freeways carry over 160,000 and 83,000 daily two-way trips, respectively. This means that the broader east -west corridor in this area carries nearly 250,000 two-way daily trips generating a large desire to connect between the two east -west freeways. Faced with these problems, the two counties' agencies and the area's jurisdictions have done considerable research and planning to evaluate existing congestion problems and to identify potential alternative solutions. These efforts; however, will culminate in the subject project. The ultimate mission of this project will be to take the most balanced and comprehensive look at the north -south mobility needs in this corridor. In order for this project to be successful, a number of objectives must be met: • The levels of existing mobility problems in the corridor must be quantified • The patterns of traffic movement in the corridor, and the "users" of the corridor's limited number of existing facilities must be identified • The true or "unconstrained" future demand in the corridor must be quantified • A balanced solution should be developed for corridor's mobility problems; given the extent of the corridor, the capacity improvements must be placed in the most appropriate location • The recommended corridor improvements must be realistic and implementable, and acceptable by all "stakeholders" . Given the number of variables involved and the corridor combinations, it is fortunate that the project will have the full benefit of using the CTP model for its technical evaluation. Having been involved with many recent projects in the Inland Empire, MMA staff have complete familiarity with this model and its capabilities. As will be discussed in our detailed scope of work, we tiave proposed to identify and isolate an overall project study area to help compare and evaluate alternative mobility improvement scenarios. This technique, which has been successfully used in many area/corridor studies, allows for a comprehensive evaluation of mobility improvements using specific performance indicators such as: overall average speeds, delay, areawide levels of congestion, vehicle miles of travel, vehicle hours of travel, etc. When analyzing the future conditions, it is very likely that without any improvements, the highway system in the corridor will be so congested that a "no -project" model run will not show the true travel demand in the corridor. Another technique, which we have proposed is to conduct an "unconstrained" demand run to "bring out" and identify the true future north -south demand in the coridor and plan for improvements appropriately. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates T 003053 North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC Finally, regardless of a high quality, defensible technical analysis, it is vital that all aspects of the recommended solutions be properly identified. These include environmental and cost issues, traffic diversion impacts on other facilities, as well as acceptability of the solutions to local residents and all jurisdictions. Work Tasks The following scope of work has been developed to provide a step-by-step program for the North -South . Corridor Feasibility Study. It includes all the required tasks outlined in the Attachment "B", Scope of Services in the Request for Proposals and describes the specific features of the technical approach our team has developed for this project. Where applicable, each task is further broken down into relevant subtasks to clarify the proposed technical efforts. Task 1.0 Project Initiation and Data Collection • Proiect Kickoff and Scope Refinement. The consultant team will meet with RCTC, SANBAG, City of Fontana and City of Rialto staff to review the project scope and proposed detailed methodologies. Agency staff comments will be received and incorporated into a final scope of work. Proposed project deadlines, milestones, and deliverables will be reviewed and finalized. The specifics of travel forecast development and modeling will be discussed with SCAG and other agency staff and appropriate agreements will be developed. • Meet with Agencies. Consultant team members will meet with staffs from all involved agencies and jurisdictions, including RCTC, SANBAG, City of Fontana, City of Rialto, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Caltrans, and other agencies, as appropriate to discuss and document staff views on existing mobility problems in the corridor area, any sensitive environmental and community issues, and to collect all relevant available data and previous studies. • Review Previous Studies. All studies relevant to the corridor area will be reviewed and pertinent information will be summarized. These include the Sierra/Cedar Traffic Relief Corridor study, Sierra Avenue interchange improvement plans, City/County general plan circulation elements, as -built street improvement plans, land use maps, etc. • Prepare Base Mapping for the Corridor. Using USGS quad maps, and aerial photographs, which will be flown specifically for this project, the team will develop base maps for the entire corridor area at the most appropriate scale for performing the alignment and constraints analysis as part of this project. Products: flUi 054 Collect Traffic Counts. All available recent daily and peak hour traffic counts within the corridor area will be collected from agencies. It is assumed that the available data will be supplemented by new daily (ADT) counts along the corridor area. at all major north -south crossings and key east -west locations. Peak hour counts will also be collected at key intersections. A maximum of 15 ADT counts and 5 AM and PM peak hour intersection counts are assumed to be collected to supplement existing data, as part of this project. • Finalized Project Scope of Work • Summary of Previous Studies and Key Issues • Corridor Base Maps and Aerial Photos • Existing Traffic Count Data Base (counted and obtained) Meyer,_Mohaddes Associates North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC Task 2.0 Existing Conditions/Setting 2.1 Definition of the Corridor and Study Area. One of the key initial tasks will be to precisely define the project study area and its boundaries for analysis purposes throughout the project. This will also be important for the subsequent analysis of the mobility indicators. The definition of the study area will be based on discussions with agencies and review of travel patterns within the broader area. 2.2 Obtain and Refine CTP Model. The RIVSAN CTP model network and zonal structure for the project area will be obtained from SCAG's Inland Empire office and will be reviewed for accuracy of existing conditions as well as future base (funded) conditions. The graphic on the next page shows the base year CTP model network in the corridor area. It can be seen that the model network includes a fairly good representation of all facilities currently traversing the corridor, which should be appropriate for modeling needs of this project. Based on the review, recommendations will be made to refine and/or correct the network representations in tenors of facility connections, link capacities and length, and zone structure, as appropriate, to develop a more precise, focused CTP model for use specifically in this project. As an option, to expedite the process, network changes can be made by consultant staff and transmitted electronically to SCAG for application, which is the method we are currently using',on a number of projects. In order to be able to summarize relevant mobility statistics for the overall study area (as defined in 2.1), all of the study area facilities will be given a special code in the network. These mobility statistics, which will be used later in the project to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the various alternatives, will include: average speeds, overall miles of congestion, delay, vehicle miles of travel (VMT), vehicle hours of travel (VHT), etc. 2.3 Existing Mobility Problems. The existing traffic operating conditions within the defined corridor study area will be analyzed and described. This will include a description of major travel patterns and the users of the corridor utilizing a select link analysis from the CTP model. In addition, existing daily link volumes, peak hour volumes at key intersection, and operating ' conditions will be analyzed and described based on volume/capacity and levels of service analysis. All other perceived mobility problems in the study area, as identified by the agency staff in .Task 1 will be described. The existing model will be run to produce summary statistics about the current overall operating conditions of the study area. 2.4 Corridor -wide Engineering Constraints. Aerial photo reconnaissance will be conducted along proposed corridors, documenting existing conditions and constraints. The photo reconnaissance, as -built data and aerial photos will be used to compile an inventory of existing features, constraints and issues from an engineering perspective. This inventory will define, qualitatively, general topography, land use, and potential for connectivity to adjacent roadways along the study corridors. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 003055 saueq Jo JagwnN LIPM >1210MAN AMNON dl0 8V3A 3SVE1 Valti103rOdd 'all/ `sNe.100sst? SOpp 1/00/ Yo,foiy North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC 2.5 Corridor -wide Environmental Constraints. A preliminary environmental evaluation of the overall study corridor will be conducted. The focus of the evaluation will be on the identification of fatal flaws for the proposed circulation improvements. The analysis will use the environmental checklist from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The discussion of environmental effects will be based on review of existing literature and site visits. A brief explanation for all checklist answers will be included to provide Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) with an understanding of how the conclusions were reached: The result of the analysis would provide the RCTC with an understanding• of the issues that would arise during the preparation of the environmental documentation and the type of technical studies that would be required Products: • Technical Memorandum on the Existing Setting of the project area and current mobility problems, engineering constraints and environmental issues. (Note: this memorandum will be formatted for easy incorporation into future environmental documents). • Refined and Focused CTP Model for Project Study Area Task 3.0 Identify Future Mobility Needs 3.1 Identify Future Base System. With input from RCTC, SANBAG and the Cities, the consultant team will identify the future base system assumptions for the horizon year of the project. It is assumed that the horizon year will be 2020. All funded projects and those with good chance of funding will be identified. These include arterial and freeway mixed - flow and high occupancy vehicle projects. • 3.2 Identify Future Problems. The CTP model will be run to identify the future operating conditions and levels of service assuming only implementation of the base system defined in the previous subtask. 'This will provide information about the future levels of congestion and mobility without any further transportation improvements in the corridor. Levels of service analysis will include link level and system -wide performance indicator analysis, as well an analysis of key intersections. It should be noted that currently, the adopted future year forecast. for the CTP model is 2015. The 2020 forecasts are in development but are not yet complete. Based on our discussions with SCAG staff, it does not appear that the 2020 model will be ready in time for this project. To overcome this; in coordination with SCAG and SANBAG, MMA has recently employed adjustment techniques to develop 2020 forecasts by extrapolating the model's 2015 projections for use in the City of Fontana's I-10 PSR/PR projects. It is proposed that, in case the 2020 model is not available, similar methods be used to develop 2020 forecasts for this project. 3.3 Develop Mobility Goals. Based on an analysis of the future mobility problems, with input from agency staffs, the consultant team will develop a set of mobility goals for the corridor area. The goals will be either by facility (e.g., no worse than a certain LOS for all facilities) or by corridor -wide performance indicators (e.g.; overall V/C, average speeds or delay no worse than a certain level). These goals will be used to develop alternative transportation improvements. The consultant team, with input from agency staff, will also develop a set of performance criteria to evaluate and compare the improvement alternatives. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 00057 North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC 3.4 Identify Future Demand. Before alternative improvements are developed and tested, it will be important to find out what the true travel demand may be in the corridor. We propose to conduct one additional "unconstrained" model run, where a high capacity (say expressway facility) is assumed in the corridor. The results of this model run will provide information about the level of true travel demand in the corridor, the extent of needed future north -south capacity improvements in the corridor, and the potential level of benefits to existing parallel facilities. Products: • Technical memorandum on identified future mobility problems and capacity needs in the corridor area. Task 4.0 Develop Alternatives 4.1 Develop Alternative Improvements. Based on the results of the previous task, including the identified future congestion problems and capacity deficiencies in the overall corridor and on individual facilities, the identified travel demand, and mobility goals, the consultant team will identify a series of traffic capacity improvements in the corridor area. At a minimum, all of the identified corridors in the RFP will be examined. These, which were developed collectively by the City of Fontana, RCTC and SANBAG, include: Sierra - Valley Way, Mulberry -Country Village. Cedar-Rubidoux, Poplar -Pyrite, Alder -Market or Armstrong, and Sierra -Pacific. The graphic on the next page illustrates these presently identified potential connections and capacity improvements. It should be pointed out that most of these identified corridors are gap closures and connections of existing facilities on the opposite sides of the Jurupa Hills to create new continuous arterial corridors. Data on traffic flow patterns, from previous tasks, and the issue of logical geographic connections will be considered in developing the final list of corridors. In addition to these alternatives, the team will examine the possibility of capacity improvements along the existing continuous facilities, with consideration for identified engineering and environmental constraints. Select link runs will be conducted on the results of the model runs in the previous task to identify the users of the corridor, to see whether the travelers are mostly local trips or long distance commuters. This will help in identifying the levels of capacity need and best locations of appropriate capacity improvements. 4.2 Conceptual Alignments. Based on capacity and lane requirements derived from the traffic modeling and demand analysis, the team will develop one (1) conceptual alignment alternative for each corridor under study. Each alternative will include a conceptual roadway cross section, and horizontal and vertical alignments. Given the generally hilly topography of the project area, it is proposed that USGS mapping be used as the basis for developing conceptual vertical alignments. It is proposed that the conceptual plans be developed in AutoCAD Version 14 at'a scale of 1"=50' horizontal, 1"=10' vertical. 4.2 Development of Modeling Scenarios. The conceptual alternatives will be presented to the advisory committee for an initial consideration. Comments will be received and possible changes and adjustments will be made to the developed alignments and/or cross sections. The team, with input from the agency staff, will develop and finalize a series of corridor improvement scenarios. These will include individual improvements or grouping of potential improvements as "packages" to be modeled. Meyer, Mohaddes• Associates OUL)05.5 OEIIZ 1, am a04aa00Wkla00011Od00%.0 sapua8drf4 PaijOaPl dlln!Pu1 sd quawanoadwl aomaaoa ginospoioN putialod Au.dwo3 sL1 colleoo uy e m 3I1N3Ad r rrrr.• r 1i3A01S • y d •aupseppossdsappegw aalaiy NOISN31X31d12131W3181SSOd ■ ■ ■ 1N31A13A021dWIA1lOddd03181SSOd J CO a A3la3d b'1 8d0ti 3118 ■iNlA1M100 MOONY • ■ ■ y 7- 3 c ALM= CNOMI11311 My D ✓ m M 13 m I c r m m 7S0 x O D x x m m 73 Z C m Z m A Z c m Z m Z m 2 C m A 2 C m z C 3AISd r r r r •• •• •• 180adIV i 1 4:7) (7) North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC 4.3 Code Model Networks. The team will code model networks to correspond to each of the improvement scenarios developed in the previous step. For budgeting purposes, it is assumed that a total of six alternative scenarios will be developed. Coded model networks will be transmitted to SCAG whose staff will conduct the model runs. Products: Conceptual corridor alignment plans on USGS topographic base. • Coded TRANPLAN networks for each modeling scenario. Task 5.0 Evaluate and Compare Alternative Scenarios 5.1 Run Model Scenarios. The CTP Model will be run by SCAG for each of the corridor improvement scenarios. The results of model runs showing projected traffic volumes, levels of congestion, average speeds, and other statistics on each facility will be summarized and provided by SCAG to the consultants. 5.2 Analyze Mobility Results. The Consultant team will analyze the results of the. model runs for each scenario and will summarize the results. The results will be presented in the same format as the mobility analysis for the base (no project) conditions. Data will include corridor volumes by facility, V/C by facility, average speeds, as well as corridor -wide summary results of performance indicators including vehicle miles of travel, vehicle hours of travel, overall average speeds by facility type (freeway and arterials), average delay, etc. The findings will be presented in a matrix format for comparison. 5.3 Engineering Feasibility. The conceptual alignments developed under Task 3 will be evaluated for constructability, practicality, and cost. The findings of this evaluation will be presented in matrix form. Opinions of probable cost will be on an order of magnitude basis, and will include rough estimations of administration, engineering, right-of-way and construction costs. 5.4 Identification of Environmental Issues. The consultant team will identify the potential environmental issues associated with the developed alignment alternatives. Environmental issues in the following areas will be examined using the CEQA checklist: • Biological Resources —To determine the potential direct and indirect impacts of the alternative alignments on biological resources, a qualitative evaluation will be prepared assessing the potential impacts on connectivity of the project site to other regional open space areas and the known presence of sensitive biological resources within the region. Through the use of recent aerial photographs (1" to 400' scale mapping), topographic maps, roadway alignment maps, and previous environmental documentation of projects in theregion, the general habitat types within the study area will be identified and limited field checks will be conducted to verify areas that may appear suitable for sensitive biological resources. Species of potential concern in the study area include the Delhi sands flower loving fly, Quino .checkerspot butterfly, and San Bernardino kangaroo rats. Additionally, the compatibility of the proposed improvements with ongoing regional open space planning for the Santa Ana River watershed will be assessed. • Cultural Resources —Existing data for archeological and historical sites will be used to identify known sites and potentially allow the team to determine if any sites are known to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Complete literature Meyer,.Mohaddes Associates Ou3060 North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC searches and field surveys will not be conducted because this would be more appropriate at the time when the CEQA documentation is completed. • Land Use/Socioeconomic—Compatibility of the North/South Arterial Corridor improvements with the existing and proposed land uses in the project study area will be evaluated. The evaluation will identify if alternatives would result in extensive displacements of sensitive (difficult to relocate) uses. In addition, General Plans for the local jurisdictions and other relevant planning documents will be evaluated to determine project consistency with the goals and policies. This would include trails, bikeways, and other planned facilities that could potentially conflict or complement the project. • Air Quality —A qualitative discussion will be provided regarding potential sensitive receptors and applicable State and federal air quality laws. • Noise —The location of sensitive receptors will be identified. The environmental checklist will be submitted for review to RCTC. Revisions will be made to incorporate comments that are within the scope of work. 5.5 Rank and Compare Alternative Scenarios. Summary information from the previous three subtasks will be presented in a matrix format for comparison purposes. These three maior evaluation categories will include: mobility improvement, engineering feasibility, and environmental issues. The alternative corridor improvement scenarios will be compared and evaluated based on their performance in each of the categories and overall performance. The alternative scenarios will be compared with the base scenario and with each other using the evaluation criteria developed in Task 3. The alternative scenarios will be evaluated and compared based on their performance, and ranked. The evaluation criteria may or may not be weighted based on input from agencies. 5.6 Combine Alternatives. It is possible that after the initial evaluation of alternative scenarios, elements from two or more scenarios may be combined to develop a separate combination scenario. Products: • Technical memorandum summarizing the results of the alternatives analysis • Summary alternatives evaluation matrix • Environmental checklist for alternatives • Order of Magnitude Cost Estimates Task 6.0 Develop Recommendations 6.1 Select Preferred Alternative(s). As a result of the alternatives evaluation, the best performing alternative scenario will be selected for recommendation. The performance of the preferred alternative will be based on a combination.of mobility improvement, engineering feasibility, preliminary cost, and overall environmental impacts. 6.2 Refine Conceptual Drawings and Cost Estimates. The preliminary engineering drawings prepared for the selected alternative in Task 3 will be refined to reflect findings from the environmental analysis and any changes which may have resulted from the evaluation of alternative scenarios (e.g. changes in capacity and/or number of lane or typical cross Meyer, Mohaddes Associates $uJ(36 North/South Arterial Corridors RCTC section requirements) on particular roadway improvements. Necessary refinements will be made to cost estimates developed in Task 3 to reflect the total cost for the preferred alternative scenario. 6.3 Refine Initial Study Environmental Checklist. The initial study environmental checklist, which was prepared for the alignments in the preferred alternative scenario will be reviewed and refined, if necessary, based on any changes resulting from alternatives analysis and possible alignment refinements. 6.4 Implementation and Funding Strategies and Public Outreach Program Outline. The consultant team will develop a strategic implementation and funding plan for the projects included in the selected alternative improvement scenario. A table will be developed which will include the list of improvement projects, project description, estimated construction cost, jurisdiction, possible funding scenario, responsible agency, potential environmental clearances needed, and programming/funding steps. The consultant team will develop a strategic plan outline for a potential public outreach effort with agencies and corridor stakeholders in subsequent stages of the program, to help initiate a formal process for the implementation of the recommended improvement projects. 6.5 Draft and Final Report. The consultant team will prepare a draft final report which will summarize the results of all phases of the project and will be presented to all agencies for their review. Comments will be received on the draft report, will be incorporated and a Final Report will be published, which willinclude an Executive Summary for easy reference. Products: List of Recommended Corridor Improvement Projects • Improvement Project Strategic Implementation Plan • Public Outreach Strategy Outline Final Draft Report • Final Report Work Flow / Schedule Our proposed schedule for the North/South Arterial Corridor Study is provided on the following page. The graphic also illustrates the flow of work tasks, their inter -dependencies and input relationships. Major milestones/work tasks are also indicated. We have proposed an eight month schedule for the technical analysis. This is a schedule which will provide for a comprehensive evaluation and ample time for agency review cycles. MMA is open to discussions on modifications to this schedule. We feel that it may be possible to shorten the time frame to six months, if necessary, by compressing the time periods for review. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 0:) 062 E6/11/1. YMYODdEd alnpayoS I Mold voM loa(ad lsoi 4ndul slonpoki 0 ApaiS A4. gsoaP slop ioo ppapy UinoSNPoN suogopuawwooad dolanaa 'q sanµowew 011711on3 • g sanuowatiy doianaa steaN aintri3 ' £ sumpuoo 6uuspc3 • Z uolloalloo oJoallolip111W 40,90d ' l l f NOIIVZINVSd0103rOdd uo;suyor uuy - d31V `Apei8 uoomiem - slsAieud smeiisuo0 • lesuauauomnu3 • c.1.1311104a WIl - lumossellll ulweu - Buneg3 qog - uwnl euaa - lopuleH tie0 - slsi(leud owed • BuRsemod • slsAleuy and;ewelld • V1%1 i 0411Lit usp,osopee4 Apnls �4111 isped\ sJOppoo ElinoSnioN '3 d 'I111-13 lee4oIW - •3d 'uosapa ana;g - saipn;g luawuBlid • siuleilsuo0 Bupeoupu3 • liupaauitiu3 al.ioa i •3 d 'iaAaW I8eLPIW a`J.1111D-ul-l1:dlaul.i(1 •3 d `uelpinea ueBBIA .131iLI aaafo.ad imujuoA 3o Sp3 9VEINVS CONTRACT BUDGET Consultant. Meyer Mohaddes Associates 900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Contract: North -South Arterial Co-ridors Between 1-10 and SR-6 ) DIRECT LABOR AND FRINGE BENEFITS Staffer Hours Rate/nr. Amount Principal In -Charge 12 56.18 $674 Project Manager 128 47.25 $6,048 Senior Engineer 142 36.25 $5,148 Project Engineer 140 28.85 $4,039 Technical Staff 80 18.50 $1,480 -Support Staff 16 13.50 $216 Subtotal, Direct labor Fringe Benefits 518 S17,605 (Rate: 50 percent of direct labor) $8,802 Total, Direct Labor and Frince Benefits 926,407 SUBCONTRACTORS/CONSULTANTS Boyle Engineering $31,070 Bon Terra Consulting $9,98D Total, Subcontractors/Consultants OVERHEAD Overhead on Direct Labor 92 percent of direct labor . $24,294 $41, 050 Total, Overhead $24,294 DIRECT COSTS Traffic Counts $2.200 Travel $320 Computer $240 Printing, reproduction, phone, fax, etc. 9380 Total, Direct Costs FIXED FEE (approx.10% of Labor & Overhead) TOTAL CONTRACT COST $3,140 $4,975 $99.866 00.065 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Paul Blackwelder, Deputy 'Executive Director THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Supplement to Amendment 10 to Agreement RO 9337 with the County of Riverside for Right -of -Way Acquisition for State Route 74 SHOPP Projects At the August 13, 1997 Commission meeting Amendment No. 8 to our existing Agreement (RO 9337) with the County was approved which required the County of Riverside tp perform right-of-way acquisition services for 40 parcels for the amount of $208,400. This action was taken to support the State funded State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects at various locations on State Route 74 between Wasson Canyon Road and 7th Street in the City of Perris. Staff also recommended that Amendment No.8 include a 15% contingency of $31,260 for a total contract value of $239,660. As Riverside County proceeded with the acquisition of the original 40 parcels, Caltrans requested additional parcels be included in the SHOPP project acquisition process. The total number of parcels to be acquired for the SHOPP projects has now reached 80, double the original number proposed. Of the 80 parcels now required by Caltrans, 70 parcels will be required by the Measure A project. The remaining 10 are for temporary construction easements. The estimated cost for the County of Riverside to acquire the additional 40 parcels is $195,610. This amount exceeds the original $31,260 contingency set up to cover additional expenses under Amendment No. 8. On May 14, 1999, the Commission approved Amendment No.10 to Agreement RO 9337 with the County of Riverside to appraise the parcels necessary for the construction of the entire project State Route 74 between 1-15 and 7th Street in the City of Perris. Amendment No.10 will cover the appraisal of 425 parcels and was estimated to cost an additional $400,000. Staff is recommending that the Commission approve $195,610 for the County of Riverside to acquire the 40 additional SHOPP project parcels. With the addition of this work, he total value of Amendment No. 10 would be $595,610 ($400,000 + $195,610)• The $31,260 contingency established under Amendment No. 8 would be retained to cover any further additional expenses should they arise. M066 Caltrans has agreed that the overall cap on the RCTC contribution to the Caltrans SHOPP projects will not be increased. RCTC will end up paying more for right-of-way acquisition for parcels that will be required for the future Measure A project, and Caltrans will pick up additional construction costs for the SHOPP projects. Financial Assessment Project Cost $595,610 ($400,000 + $195,610) Source of Funds Measure A $4.1 million contribution to Caltrans SHOPP projects Included in Fiscal Year Budget N Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1997 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION.. That the Commission approve an additional $195,610 for Amendment No. 10 for the County of Riverside to provide right-of-way acquisition services for 40 additional SHOPP project parcels on State Route 74 between 1-15 and Th Street in the City of Perris. The total value of Amendment No. 10 would be $595,610. The $31,260 contingency established under Amendment No. 8 would be retained to cover any further additional expenses should they arise. A standard amendment will be used for this action subject to RCTC Legal Counsel review and approval. Ouu0b'�' COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SERVICES 3133 Mission Inn Avenue Riverside, California 92507-4199 (909) 955-4800 FAX (909) 955-4828 May 12, 1999 Mike Davis, Project Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 • RE: Highway 74 - 101 and 301 Shopp Projects Dear Mr. Davis: z/h/.6- Daniel Waldo. Jr.. P.E. Director RECEIVED MAY 1 4 1999 BECHTEL CORP. Riverside Office We have revised the figures for the Highway 74 101 and 301 Shopp projects per your request. These figures are based on a need to acquire a total of 80 parcels, which was determined by Tom Oaltman of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). As you are aware, Amendment Number 8 covered only 40 parcels. The estimated costs for the acquisition of these 80 parcels are as follows: 80 Parcels x 65 hours x $60/hour Appraisal Cost (80 Parcels) Septic System Consulting Litigation Guarantees (80 parcels x $360) Total Cost: $ 312, 000.00 64,210.00 21,900.00 28,800.00 $ 426, 910.00 The above estimate does not include costs for land purchases or title policies and escrow fees which are based upon a percentage of the land costs. Further, the estimate does not include additional expenses for acquisition services for protracted negotiations resulting from any condemnation actions or costs for any relocation assistance which may be needed for this project. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 909 955-9275. truly yours, i/cd anet M. Parks Supervising Real Property Agent JMP:js cc: Bill Hughes Dan Waldo Dave Slaughter 003063 ARCHITECTURE -ENGINEERING DIVISION (909) 955.4810 FAX (909) 955-4890 CUSTODIAL DIVISION (909) 955-4839 FAX (909) 955-4828 MAINTENANCE DIVISION (909) 955-4830 FAX (909) 955-4828 REAL PROPERTY DIVISION (909) 955.4820 FAX (909) 9554837 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution No. 99-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Guidelines for the Administration of the Measure A Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as parts of its Commuter Assistance Program" The first resolution establishing guidelines for the administration of the commuter incentive projects under the Commission's Measure A funded Commuter Assistance Program was approved in April, 1993 for FY 92/93. Based on Legal Counsel's recommendation, the resolution was prepared to minimize liability and formalize project requirements which had evolved since the inception of the various commuter incentive projects. Each fiscal year, staff reviews the existing Resolution (No. 98-006) to determine its consistency with any proposed programmatic amendments to the commuter incentive projects: Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride. Resolution No. 99-005, attached as - Exhibit A, was prepared jointly by staff and Legal Counsel. Proposed changes are marked for easy reference. They reflect minor editorial and clarification changes as no substantive programmatic amendments are being proposed for FY 99/00. Financial Assessment Project Cost N/A Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget N/A N/A Year Included in Program Budget N/A Year Programed Approved Allocation N/A Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N/A Financial Impact Not Applicable N/A 00306�j PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve Resolution No. 99-005, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Amending Guidelines for the Administration of the Measure A Funded Commuter Incentive Projects as part of its Commuter Assistance Program." Attachment 0ti0 Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. J8-OOG 99-005 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AMENDING GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MEASURE "A" FUNDED COMMUTER INCENTIVE PROJECTS AS PART OF ITS COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHEREAS, in 1988 Riverside County residents approved Measure "A" imposing a 1/2 cent sales tax for transportation purposes within the County of Riverside; and WHEREAS, 21/2% of the revenues generated under Measure "A" are designated for commuter assistance efforts designed to encourage single occupant vehicle drivers to carpool, vanpool, buspool, walk, bicycle, telecommute or use public transit (bus/train) to and from work to reduce congestion during peak rush hour periods; and WHEREAS, the Commission has established a Commuter Assistance Program including two commuter incentive projects, Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride, for the purpose of carrying out the.mandates of the Measure A; and WHEREAS, the Commission wishes now to revise the guidelines established in Resolution No. 98-006 and adopt amended ,guidelines for the two commuter incentive projects to help induce ridesharing in the County and to provide a means for fairly allocating limited Measure A revenues to all eligible participants; 000011 NOW, THEREFORE, the Riverside County Transportation Commission hereby resolves as follows: Section 1. The following guidelines are hereby established for Advantage Rideshare: (a) A Participating Commuter must be engaged in a Rideshare Arrangement for the purpose of commuting to a place of employment or a telecommuting work center. A Rideshare Arrangement specifically excludes taking children to school and/or day care situations. (b) Subject to the limitations set forth elsewhere in this Resolution, the following incentives are hereby established for Advantage Rideshare: (1) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter carpools in a new Carpool. (2) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter carpools in an existing Carpool. (3) up'to`$2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides in a new Vanpool. In addition, the Commission shall may purchase half the empty seats, if the employer and/or other riders purchase the remaining half. (4) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides in an existing Vanpool. (5) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides a public bus. 00072 (6) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter walks or bicycles. (7) UP to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter telecommutes. (8) up to $2.00 for each day a Participating Commuter rides Ibhetrcrrrtk- commuter rail. (c) All Participating Commuters must live in Western Riverside County. (d) All Participating Commuters in Advantage Rideshare must be employed by a Participating Employer during participation in Advantage Rideshare. (e) A Participating Commuter may not have received, within the six months prior to enrollment in Advantage Rideshare, any Incentive from Advantage Rideshare or from any Sister Agency Program. If an applicant received an Incentive from Advantage Rideshare or from any Sister Agency Program more than six months before submitting an application, the applicant may receive an Incentive under Advantage Rideshare only if he or she requests an Incentive for a different Commute Mode from that for which he or she has already received an Incentive. (f) The Participating Commuter may not have been in a Rideshare Arrangement during the 90 days prior to enrollment in Advantage Rideshare. 000073 (g) A participating Commuter must commute to work between 4:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on one or more weekdays (i.e., Monday through Friday) to qualify. (h) A Participating Commuter must carpool, vanpool, use public bus or commuter rail, walk, bicycle or telecommute to work a minimum of five weekdays a month to qualify. (i) Participating Commuters may receive an Incentive under Advantage Rideshare for no more than three (3) consecutive months. Any calendar month during which a Participating Commuter is enrolled in Advantage Rideshare shall be considered a full month of participation in Advantage Rideshare. For example, if a Participating Commuter enrolls in Advantage Rideshare on the 15`h of a month and carpools for five days in that month, that month will be considered a full month for purpose of determining the Participating Commuter's participation in Advantage Rideshare. (j) If a Participating Commuter's employer offers an incentive for ridesharing, the Incentive provided under Advantage Rideshare shall be reduced to the extent that the two incentives exceed $3.00. (k) All Incentives, except Incentive for vanpooling and commuter rail, ;shall be provided in the form of gift certificates purchased from private businesses by the Commission for this use. The Incentive for vanpooling may either be paid in: 0u 07,i (1) cash to the Participating Commuter's employer or to the Vanpool leasing company, or (2) gift certificates to the Participating Commuter. The incentive for commuter rail shall be provided in the form of TrainBucks. In no event shall cash be provided directly to a Participating Commuter. Section 2. The following guidelines are hereby established for Club Ride: (a) Any Western Riverside County resident currently participating in a Rideshare Arrangement may participate in Club Ride, provided that he or she has participated in a Rideshare Arrangement for a minimum of one day per week for a period of at least six months for the purpose of commuting to and from a place of employment or telecommuting work center. (b) The Executive Director is authorized to provide promotional materials to all Club Ride participants. Section 3. Definitions. As used in this resolution, the following phrases shall have the following meanings: (a) "Carpool" shall mean two or more persons commuting on a daily regular basis to and from work by means of a vehicle with a seating arrangement designed to seat less than seven adults, including the driver. (b) "Club Ride" means the Incentive described in Section 2 of this resolution. (c) "Commuter Incentive Program" refers collectively to Advantage Rideshare and Club Ride. (d) "Incentive" means gift certificates or TarainB'ucks to a Participating Commuter, or a cash payment to a Participating Employer or a vanpool leasing company provided under this resolution for the purpose of inducing eligible commuters to join Rideshare Arrangements or otherwise participate in the Commuter Incentive Program or other comparable project. (e) "Participating Commuter" means a commuter currently participating in the Commuter Incentive Program. (f) "Participating Employer" shall mean any employer which has executed an agreement with the Commission for participation in the Commuter Incentive Program. (g) "Rideshare Arrangement" shall mean the transportation of two or more working adults in a motor vehicle or by rail where that transportation is incidental to another purpose of the driver. The term includes ridesharing arrangements known as carpools, vanpools and buspools as well as utilizing public bus and commuter rail services. In addition, persons walking, bicycling or telecommuting shall also be deemed to be participants in a Rideshare Arrangement. "Buspool" means sixteen or more persons commuting on a daily regular basis to and from work by means of a vehicle with a seating 4u00 76 arrangement designed to carry more than fifteen adult passengers. (h) "Vanpool" means seven or more persons commuting on a daily regularbasis to and from work by means of a vehicle with seating arrangements designed to carry seven to fifteen adults, including the driver. (i) "Western Riverside County" shall have the same meaning as in the Measure "A" Expenditure Plan approved by the voters in November 1988. Section 4. Resolution No. 98-006 is hereby superseded and repealed. Section 5. The Executive Director of the Commission is hereby authorized to take those steps necessary and proper to implement the Commuter Incentive Program. The Executive Director, may, in his discretion, establish additional rules and regulations for the Commuter Incentive Program as well as prescribe in writing qualification requirements and incentives for the Commuter Incentive Program which differ from those established here. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of June, 1999. Councilman Jack F. van Haaster, Chairman Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: Naty Kopenhaver, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 003077 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: . Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Tanya Love, Program Manager • THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: San Bernardino Associated Governments FY Assistance Program Contract 99/00 Commuter For the past six years, San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) has contracted with the Commission to develop, implement and manage a commuter incentive project for San Bernardino County commuters. The project, known as Option Rideshare was developed as a "sister" incentive project to the Commission's Measure A commuter incentive project, Advantage Rideshare. Additionally, SANBAG and the Commission jointly established Inland Empire Commuter Services in FY 95/96 when it was determined by the two agencies that the Inland Empire would assume direct responsibility for the provision of local employer rideshare services as opposed to contracting with Southern California Rideshare, a division of Southern California Association of Governments. - Together, Option Rideshare and . Inland Empire Commuter Services make-up SANBAG's Commuter Assistance Program. Based on SANBAG staff's review of the two projects' performance this current fiscal year, the Commission was asked to develop and submit a FY 99/00 work plan and budget. for continuation of their Commuter Assistance Program. The proposed budget, attached as Exhibit A, was prepared by RCTC and SANBAG staff. Attached as Exhibit B are the goals for the two projects. The proposed contract between SANBAG and the Commission which defines the terms and conditions regarding project goals, budgets, reporting, invoicing and payment for services rendered has been reviewed and approved by RCTC's legal counsel and was approved by the SANBAG Board at its May, 1999, meeting. Staff seeks Commission approval to enter into the contract with SANBAG as part of the Commission's continuing bi-county partnership with SANBAG in the delivery of coordinated commuter and employer rideshare services. 003078 As the SANBAG contract budget is not part of the Commission's proposed budget, staff seeks approval to incorporate the costs in the Commission's contract with its Transportation Demand Management agreement in an amount not to exceed $677,831.00. Financial Assessment Project Cost $677,831 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget SANBAG's Measure 1; STP and LTF Funds N/A Year Included in Program Budget N/A Year Programed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) approve the SANBAG/RCTC contract to continue implementation and management of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program for FY 99/00; 2) authorize the Chairperson to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; and 3) approve the incorporation of the SANBAG Commuter Assistance Program consultant costs in the Commission's TDM consultant to perform the work. 130007 5/10/99 SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FY 99/00 LINE ITEM DESCRIPTION INLAND EMPIRE COMMUTER SERVICES OPTION RIDESHARE IN COUNTY OPTION RIDESHARE OUT OF COUNTY MULTI-SITE/MULTI JURISDICTIONAL SPECIAL PROJECTS Consulting Labor $201,954.00 $105,753.00 $117,885.00 $12,546.00 $6,931.00 Consulting Expenses l $3,725.00 $2,500.00 $3,250.00 $250.00 $69.00 Marketing Materials/Incentives $33,000.00 $13,850.00 $13,850.00 $0.00 $0.00 Office Equipment $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Office Supplies f $1,300.00 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 • $0.00 $0.00 Photocopy Service $100.00 $50.00 $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 Postage $5,000.00 $2,750.00 $2,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 Certificates/Vouchers/Subsidies $2,025.00 $68,343.00 $35,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 Promotional Events $1,800.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 Telephone $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Office Services $550.00 $450.00 $450.00 $0.00 $0.00 Equipment Maintenance $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 • $0.00 $0.00 Mailing Services $250.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 Computer Support/Maintenance $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Program Development/Oversigh $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $261,604.00 $208,396.00 $188,035.00 • $12,796.00 $7,000.00 a:excel, a/rctcoo.xls Pay J _;70 O Attachment B San Bernardino Employer and Commuter Assistance Programs Fiscal Year 1999-00 Inland Empire Commuter Services Provide a variety of services to employers who participate in trip reduction activities, including network meetings. technical assistance, promotions, coordination of average vehicle ridership surveys and RideGuide dissemination, Rideshare Connection broadcast facsimiles and coordination with other rideshare agencies and service providers. Assist multi -site and multi - jurisdictional headquarters within the County as well as related worksites outside of the County. The services also include special project assistance from RCTC to SANBAG, such as park and ride lots assistance, as well as SB 836 projects. Related Expenses: Include consulting labor, miscellaneous office expenses, marketing, office equipment, and telephone. Goals: • Provide dissemination of 22,573 RideGuide to employer sites. • Coordinate production of 43,934 surveys to 259 employers in San Bernardino County. Assist six multi-site/multi-jurisdictional headquarters with 123 work sites within the region. • Provide technical assistance and survey/RideGuide services to assist employers in preparing and implementing trip reduction programs. • Sponsor four employer transportation network meetings. Develop and implement two employer rideshare marketing campaigns. • Broadcast 18 Rideshare Connection facsimiles to San Bemardino County employers. • Implement the 5`h Annual SANBAG Employer Partnership Awards Program. Option Rideshare Offers San Bernardino County residents who commute to employment sites within our outside the County, up to $2 a day (in local merchant gift certificates) for each day they participate in a rideshare mode, during a three-month period. Related Expenses: Consulting labor, miscellaneous office expenses, marketing, office equipment, telephone, and direct commuter incentives in certificates/vouchers/ subsidies. 0:1A00007.doc 000081 Goals: • Solicit 644 County residents, who commute within the County to their worksite, to try a rideshare mode for three months. These efforts will reduce 55.304 one-way vehicle trips. • Solicit 416 County residents, who commute outside of the County to their worksite, to try a rideshare mode for three months. These efforts will reduce 27,605 one-way vehicle trips. Summary of Revenues and Expenses Revenue and Expense Summary by Category STP Funds $ 535,421.00 Labor $ 445,687.00 Measure I Funds $ 124,937.00 Incentives $ 110,550.00 LTF $ 17,473.00 Marketing $ 60.700.00 Total Program Funding $ 677,831.00 Computer/Equipment $ 10,500.00 Postage $ 10,000.00 Operational Expenses $ 40,394.00 Total Expense $ 677,831.00 Summary of Revenue by Program Category Program Category ,, ;:!- tSTP, . ::-°: 'Measure'l "r " ��, = t :: 0' Inland Empire Commuter Services $261,377.00 $525.00 $17,473.00 S279,375.00 Option Rideshare $274.044.00 $124,412.00 0 $398,456.00 Total S535,421.00 S124,937.00 S17,473.00 S677,831.00 Summary of Revenue by SANBAG Task Number Task Number - �� �.� ' -Program Cs o g � rY��.�.�� �,_" STP . Measure.I * �,^�L+�� ' , 40612 Inland Empire Commuter Services $243,106.00 $16,473.00 $259,579.00 40621 Option Rideshare — In County $274,044.00 $18,462.00 S292,506.00 40622 Option Rideshare - Out of County $105,950.00 • S105,950.00 40613 Multi-Site/Multi-Jurisdictional $11,796.00 $1,000.00 $12,796.00 40607 Special Projects $6,475.00 $525100 $7,000.00 Total S535,421.00 S124,937.00 S17,473.00 S677,831.00 O:\A00007.doc 063082 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Tanya Love, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 99/00 Southern California Rideshare Agreement for Regional Rideshare Core Services Southern California Rideshare (SCR), formerly known as Commuter Transportation Services, Inc. (CTS), has provided regional rideshare services for over 20 years in the southern California region including Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties. For many years, stable funding was secured from Caltrans at the state level with additional contributions from each of the respective county transportation commissions (CTC's). As the Commission will recall, for the last several years state funding was continually in question requiring extensive lobbying efforts at various levels to secure the following years allocation. In FY 97/98, Caltrans authorized the use of Transportation System Management (TSM) fund savings for regional rideshare services as the "last" bridge funding with the expectation that local jurisdictions would assume all future funding responsibilities. Based on the adopted roles and responsibilities between the Regional Transportation Agencies Coalition (RTAC) and SCR, a regional rideshare core services work program was prepared in cooperation with SCR and approved by the RTAC. In FY 98/99 funding was provided by the local CTCs based on a population formula; Riverside County's proportional share is 8.05% or $253,141 .00.. Included in RCTC's FY 99/00 draft budget under the Commuter Assistance Program is a Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) line item allocation to SCR in the amount requested. The regional rideshare core services work program includes database maintenance, survey and RideGuide production, telephorie customer information service and marketing implementation. As in the previous year, the five CTC's have taken a collaborative approach in the development of the work program, and expect to oversee the performance of SCR through the collective RTAC process. Attached as Exhibit A is the proposed goals and objectives identified in the work plan. The proposed contract between RCTC and the Southern California Association of Governments is currently being reviewed by RCTC's legal counsel. This contract defines the terms and conditions regarding project goals, budgets, reporting, invoicing and payment for services rendered. 000083 Financial Assessment Project Cost $253,141 Source of Funds Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality included in proposed FY 99/00 RCTC budget. Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) approve the Southern California Rideshare FY99/00 Riverside Regional Rideshare Services Work Program, 2) authorize the expenditure of Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality funds in an amount not to exceed $253,141 pursuant to adoption of RCTC's FY99/00 budget, and 3) pursuant to legal counsel review and approval, authorize the RCTC Chairman to execute an agreement with SCR. 0 U 0'8 (i standardized methodology developed by Cal State Chico and based on the most recent regional placement evaluation conducted in 1995. Placement statistics are subject to change based on outcome of FY `99-00 placement evaluation.) The number of AVR reports to be generated is continent upon level of response to voluntary activities. (on -going) Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 25% Task 4: RideGuide fulfillment and distribution. Maintain and update tracking system to ensure efficiency in delivery of RideGuides to clients. Perform quality assurance checks. Product: 220,000 RideGuides with up-to-date rideshare or commute information to be fulfilled and mailed to 1,000 clients for distribution to employees. (on -going) Start Date: 07/01 /99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 204)/o This product is consultant -assisted. Task 5: Maintain rideshare computer software which: • Produces survey registration packets for clients, including AVR/Transportation Survey forms (consistent with different air quality district's needs) and Instruction Packets. • Schedules production of RideGuides, produces RideGuides, records production statistics, and reports productions statistics. • Provides an Internet interface to commuter registration and matching. • Produces statistics reports for employers and density maps of employer registrants. Develop computer software which: • Provides the capability to e-mail RideGuides to individuals registered through Teleservices. Products (on -going): • Survey Registration Packets, including AVR/Transportation Survey forms and Instruction Packets. • 220,000 RideGuides to employees at client work sites. (By county: 152,096 in Los Angeles, 28,850 in Orange, 13,431 in Riverside, 22,573 in San Bernardino, and 3,050 in Ventura) • Internal Production Statistics Reports. • Computer screens to schedule production and selectively report. • Internet access to carpool, vanpool, park and ride lot, and transit information. • Employer rideshare reports, including AVR Reports. • Employer data on CD ROM for density map displays and identification of carpool alternatives for new potential ridesharers. • RideGuides available via e-mail. Qu0086 Exhibit A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL CORE RIDESHARE SERVICES FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 Survey and RideGuide Production S1,155,314 Generate survey packets which include AVR/Transportation forms and RideGuide processing instructions for employer registration. Track, disseminate, and maintain records on client registration activity. Prepare raw data for transcription, perform data entry, and validate accuracy of information by performing quality assurance checks. Produce RideGuides and average vehicle ridership (AVR) reports. Fulfill and mail RideGuides to clients for distribution of employees/commuters. Maintain software to.adapt to changes in RideGuide and AVR processes. Expense categories include labor, data entry, RideGuide fulfillment, paper, envelopes, postage, CD ROMs, disks and other electronic media. Tasks/Products: Task 1: Generate and disseminate survey packets for employer rideshare registration. Track and monitor survey activity for individual sites to ensure timeliness in production and delivery. Develop and maintain plans, schedules, and status pertinent to registration processing. Product: 1,000 automated survey packets for distribution to client sites. (on -going) Start Date: 07/01 /99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 15% Task 2: Forms preparation, data entry, geo-correction, and quality control. Processes include: (a) review and batch forms for data entry, (b) data transcription, (c) registrant database error correction, and (d) general rideshare data validation. Product: Processed data prior to RideGuide production and Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) calculation. (on -going) Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 25% Task 3: Production of RideGuides and AVR reports. Develop and maintain plans, schedules, and status pertinent to RideGuide and AVR processing. Products: 220,000 RideGuides from employer outreach program, placing approximately 33,000 (15%) commuters into a rideshare mode. (Estimation of placements is derived from a ou30a5 Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 5% Task 6: Perform Y2K testing of the Survey and RideGuide production software. Product: Rideshare software which provides seamless Survey and RideGuide production processes after 01/01/00. (one-time) Start Date: 07/01/00 End Date: 12/01/99 Percent: 5% Task 7: Convert the Survey and RideGuide production software to run on the DEC Alpha computer system, replacing the DEC VAX computer system. Product: Survey and RideGuide production processing on the DEC Alpha computer system. (option) Start Date: 07/01/00 End Date: 12/01/99 Percent: 5% Goals: • Schedule and track 1,000 employer survey packets. • Generate 220,000 RideGuides from employer requests, placing approximately 15% of these or 33,000 commuters into a rideshare arrangement. • Generate 5,000 RideGuides from remote terminals (ROLA). • Maintain a ten day (business work days) RideGuide turnaround time (defined as from the time the surveys are received at SCAG to the time they are mailed from the fulfillment contractor). Database Management and Ouality Assurance $1,056,467 Maintain a quality database of rideshare information, secure from tampering yet accessible to user's needs, with timely and accurate software. Maintain computer programs which create, update, report, and delete commuter, vanpool, park and ride lot, client and work site, employer' and regional incentives, and other rideshare data. Task 1: Maintain existing rideshare software to create, update, report, and delete commuter, vanpool, park and ride lot, client and work site, employer and regional incentives, and other rideshare data, accommodating changes required to meet changing goals, rules, performance needs, etc. and augment security and data access controls as needed to maintain the confidentiality of information. Products (on -going): 000087 • Computer screens which maintain rideshare data. • Computer software to select, summarize, and report on retained data to support users responsible for maintenance of data. Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 10% Task 2: Maintain the address geo-coding database for translation of street addresses and intersections into geographic references for ridematching, mapping, and other geographic referential products. Products: Geo-coding database consistent with current digital map. (on -going) Start Date: 04/01/00 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 5% Task 3: Convert the RideStar data maintenance software to the Windows graphical user interface, eliminating no longer used functions accumulated from prior years. Convert the server software to run on the DEC Alpha computer system. Products (on going): • Computer software which maintains rideshare data, running on the DEC Alpha computer system. • Computer software to select, summarize, and report on retained data to support users responsible for maintenance of data. Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 25% This product is consultant -assisted. Task 4: Develop computer software to accurately and concisely track rideshare activities and services for reporting to funders. Product: Computer software to record, select, summarize, and report on retained data pertaining to activities and services performed. (on -going) Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 12/31 /99 Percent: 10% Task 5: Perform Y2K testing of the Database Maintenance software. Product: Rideshare software which provides seamless data maintenance processes after 01 /01 /00. (one-time) Start Date: 07/01/99 O V 0 v 8 End Date: 12/01/99 Percent: 5% Page 14 of 21 Task 6: Maintain a quality vanpool database of 1,500 existing vanpools by reviewing age of data reports and contacting clients to verify the accuracy of their van data and to obtain updated vanpool information for changed routes as well as newly established vanpools. Data changes will be made in a timely manner and vanpool output will be verified for accuracy. Products (on -going): • Updated vanpool data on RideGuides. • Accurate vanpool matchlists. Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 1 5 % Task 7: Tasks associated with overall data base maintenance and quality assurance for 702 routes within the SCAG region to ensure accuracy in data and placement on RideGuides as well as transit itineraries generated by Transtar users through Web site access. Tasks include: • Generate annual fare reports to verify accuracy of carrier fares as well as zoned fares for individual routes. • Maintain on -going relationship with transit providers in an effort to acquire published schedules and route books as well as route change information prior to effective dates. • Conduct systematic samplings of client RideGuides to check accuracy of transit information displayed. In addition, quality assurance activities include tasks associated with maintaining and quality testing 126 routes outside of Los Angeles County as well as 111 routes updated and put into production by VCTC, OmniTrans, and RTA.• Tasks include: • Contact transit providers to obtain stops and time schedules for planned updates before changes go into effect. • Update routes in Transtar database to accurately reflect changes in schedules and route patterns. • Generate internal Route Errors Report to identify errors in times and/or stops. • Generate approximately 15-25 itineraries per route to verify whether footnotes, alternate patterns, fares, and schedules are accurate. • Verify that the route is checked and put into production by an individual other than the person who updated the route. • Provide technical support to transit providers updating their local route data. Products (on going): d0308J • Updated transit data on RideGuides. • Accurate route data provided on transit itineraries provided by call centers. • Accurate route data provided on transit itineraries requested via SCAG web page. Start Date: 07/0i/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 20% Task 8: Provide technical support and training to TranStar and RideStar users calling in on the Hotline. Assist transit providers entering their own transit data with telephone support during their route entry process. Assist with testing route data to ensure accuracy of footnotes and fares as well as landmark definitions. Provide assistance with troubleshooting problems related to functionality of software. Products (on -going): • User training classes. • Accurate route data for call center use as well as for production of itineraries and RideGuides. Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 5% Task 9: Maintain updated park and ride lot database by maintaining relationship with entities providing/maintaining park and ride lots. Delete park and ride lots no longer available for use by carpoolers from the database. Add new lots as they are identified. Products: Accurate park and ride lot information on RideGuides (on -going). Start Date: 07/01 /99 Goals: End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 5% • • Maintain an accurate database of 375,000 registrants. • Maintain working relationships with 50 vanpool clients in order to retain current information on 1,500 existing vans within SCAG's vanpool data base. • Ensure that 100% of van data is updated prior to 9 months of age. • Ensure that'a minimum of 95% of the transit data received at least one month in advance is entered for the effective date. Telephone Customer Information Center $ 509,790 Provide rideshare information to 24,000 callers via the 1-800-COMMUTE information line to include carpool, vanpool, transit and park and ride lot information. In addition, provide rideshare information to 12,000 individuals requesting service via the SCAG Internet Web site. Conduct 13,000 outbound customer calls to provide on -going service, update data base information and generate rideshare placements. 0i330 0 Produce and distribute 20,500 RideGuides to the call -in public and 10,000 RideGuides via Internet inquiries. Place 7,600 persons into various rideshare arrangements including carpooling, vanpooling and transit. (This assumes a 25% Teleservices placement rate as was cited in the 1991 Teleservices Placement Evaluation. There has been no determination made to date on the rate of Internet placements.) Expense category includes labor only. Tasks/Products: Task 1: Provide personalized, commute information/rideshare services to 24,000 individuals calling the 1-800-COMMUTE number. Product: In -bound call services (on -going). Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 40% Task 2: Provide commute information to 12,000 individuals requesting service via the SCAG Internet Web site. Produce 10,000 RideGuides via Internet inquiries. Product: RideGuides via the Internet (on -going). Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 20% Task 3: Provide customer service update calls to 13,000 individual call -in registrants. Product: Out -bound call services (on -going). Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 06/30/00 Task 4: Produce 20,500 RideGuides to call -in commuters. Product: RideGuides to call -in commuters (on -going). Start Date: 07/01/99 Percent: 25% End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 15% Goals: • Respond to 24,000 telephone inquiries for rideshare information. • Conduct 13,000 outbound customer calls. • Produce 20,500 RideGuides to call -in commuters and 10,000 RideGuides via Internet inquiries. Studies and Regional Marketing S 400,670 0U9091 Conduct a placement rate study to determine the effectiveness of the RideGuide in placing individuals into a rideshare arrangement. Other regional marketing activities include the planning and implementation of the annual media recognition luncheon event and the production and dissemination of CrossRoads to regional employer transportation coordinators and media. In addition, develop a regionwide marketing strategy to increase public awareness of the 1-800- COMMUTE telephone number and the Internet Web page. Expense categories include labor, consultant services, CrossRoads printing/postage and other expenses related to the Rideshare media recognition event. Tasks/Products: Task 1: This is a carryover project from fiscal year 1998-99. Develop survey and sample methodology, produce a timeline, distribute an RFP, develop and pretest the questionnaire, develop sample methodology, generate the sample, select a contractor, conduct the survey, clean and tabulate the data, analyze the data, develop a final report and report key findings. Product: Final report assessing the effectiveness of the RideGuide in placing individuals into alternative rideshare arrangements (on -going). Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 03/31/00 Percent: 25% Task 2: The Media Recognition/ Traffic Reporters' luncheon is the kick-off event for Rideshare Week and an opportunity to get traffic reporters and other media "on board" as supporters of the event. Tasks related to Rideshare Week include: securing. sponsors for location and/or food (costs not covered by core funding but vital to the success of the luncheon), designing and producing invitations, designing and ordering the awards, developing the program, securing an emcee, securing door prizes, designing signage and the Rideshare portion of the program, making personal calls to traffic reporters to boost attendance, developing specialized media kits for traffic reports that includes a press release, PSAs, sample soundbites and other information on Rideshare Week, developing pre -event media advisories, assisting traffic reporters with questions they have regarding the commute. Product: Media Recognition/Traffic Reporters' Luncheon (on -going). Start Date: 07/01/99 End Date: 11 /30/99 Percent: 15% Task 3: Write, produce, and disseminate 11 issues of the CrossRoads newsletter to regional employee transportation coordinators, academia, TDM consultants and media. (Costs include printing, postage, illustrations, photocopying of inserts and fulfillment.) Product: CrossRoads Newsletter (on -going). Start Date: 07/01/99 009 End Date: 06/30/00 Percent: 45% Task 4: Retain a marketing consultant to develop a regionwide marketing strategy to reverse the recent downward trends in public awareness of rideshare programs and the 1-800-COMMUTE telephone number reported in the 1998 State of the Commute study. Product: Regional strategic marketing plan. (option) Start Date: 07/01 /99 End Date: 12/31 /99 Percent: 1 5% This product is consultant -assisted. Goals: • Conduct the placement rate study/evaluation: • Conduct one Rideshare Week Media Recognition/Traffic Reporters' Luncheon. • Distribute 11 issues (quantity 5,700 each) of CrossRoads newsletter, distributing 62,700 copies in the five -county region. • Develop a regional strategic marketing plan. 00O093 Revenue Amount CTC Funding Allocated for FY 00 $2,712,730 CTC Funding Unprogrammed FY 99 $ 303.195 Unused Funding from FY 99 (rollover) $ 127,000 Total Anticipated Revenue FY 00 $3,142,925 Attachment "C" ('TC FY 00 Population % Share Share LACMTA 8,863,163 60.99 $ 1,916,953 OCTA 2,410,556 16.59 $ 521,363 RCTC 1,418,380 9.76 $ 306,772. RCTC VCTC Total -41 1,170,413 8.05 $ 253,141 669,016 14,531,529 4.6 100.00 $ 144.697 S3,142,925 Note: Population split is per formula used in the FY99 Budget Should the "unused funding from FY 99" be less than identified above, the CTCs are not obligated to replace that funding and instead will identify where there shall be a decrease in the budget so the budget balances. Should the funding be greater than identified above, there is no obligation to increase the budget. 000094 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Paul Blackwelder, Deputy Executive Director Tanya Love, Program Manager , THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director • SUBJECT: FY 99/00. Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Funding Continuation Requests As part of the Measure A Commuter Assistance Program, the Commission provides funding support to buspools used by Riverside County residents for their home to work commutes along the Route 91 corridor. The Commission adopted the Measure A buspool subsidy in October 1990 and established a monthly subsidy rate of $1,175 ($ 25/seat/month) in support of commuter buspool operations. The subsidy rate has not changed since inception of the policy. To provide additional guidance, the Commission established a minimum buspool ridership policy in June 1995. The policy requires staff to report to the Commission when a buspool's ridership falls to 25 or below and seek direction regarding the continuation of the buspool's subsidy. A buspool ridership summary chart for FY 98/99 is attached as Exhibit A. To renew their annual subsidy, an existing buspool is required to request continuation funding for the new fiscal year from the Commission in writing. Attached as Exhibit B are the FY 99/00 request letters from the following three existing buspools: RIVERSIDE/FULLERTON BUSPOOL: Begun in the early 1980's, the Riverside to Fullerton - Raytheon (formerly known as Hughes) • buspool route includes stops at park and ride lots at La Sierra Metrolink Station and Corona Park and Ride lot. The average monthly ridership for the current fiscal year is 25 passengers with the lowest single monthly ridership being 22 and the highest 29. As Raytheon pays its employees a $21 transit subsidy, the monthly pass cost for Raytheon employees is .$85. Any non -Raytheon employee passengers pay $106. The contract provider Safeway Lines & Tour Company has accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. • RIVERSIDE/EL SEGUNDO BUSPOOL: Begun in June, 1995, the Riverside to El Segundo - Raytheon buspool route includes stops at the Galleria at Tyler Mall and Corona park and ride lots. The average monthly ridership for the current fiscal year is 45 passengers with the lowest single monthly ridership being 43 and the highest 47. As Raytheon pays its employees a $21 transit subsidy, the monthly pass cost for Raytheon employees is $109. Any non -Raytheon employee passengers pay $130. The contract provider, Mark IV, has accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. 000095 MORENO VALLEY - EL SEGUNDO BUSPOOL: Begun in February, 1996, the Moreno Valley to El Segundo - Raytheon buspool route includes stops at the Moreno Valley Mall and travels directly to its destination. The average monthly ridership for the current fiscal year is 42 passengers with the lowest single monthly ridership being 38 and the highest 47. As Raytheon pays its employees a $21 transit subsidy, the monthly pass cost for Raytheon employees is $1 19. Any non -Raytheon employee passengers pay $144. The contract provider, Mark IV, has accessible coaches available for use on the route if a person with disabilities purchases a monthly buspool pass. Like all of the commuter assistance incentives provided by the Commission to encourage commuters to use alternative modes of transportation, the Measure A $25/seat/month subsidy is administered as •a "user side subsidy." Unlike all of the other incentives, the buspool subsidy is provided for a 12 month period. This annual subsidy remains cost- effective in comparison to the typical public transit subsidy rate of 80%. While the monthly cost of each existing buspool varies according to the number of route miles and the resulting negotiated service price, the Commission's monthly subsidy represents an average rate of 21 %. When taking other factors into consideration such as the reduction of vehicles on Route 91 during morning peak periods, the number of vehicle miles saved and the elimination of mobile source emissions, the annual buspool subsidy is an effective use of Measure A commuter assistance funds. See Exhibit C for the vehicle miles traveled and cost analysis for the three buspools. The three existing buspools have completed all requirements for funding as set forth by the Commission including submittal of: 1) monthly ridership reports; 2) semi-annual operations status reports; and 3) annual funding continuation requests. These reports allow staff to monitor the activities of the buspools to track ridership levels, monitor marketing efforts, and ensure availability to persons with disabilities. The Commission's proposed FY 99/00 budget contains a line item in the amount of $ 56,400 to provide buspool subsidies. Based on the established monthly $1,175 buspool subsidy policy, the funds are sufficient to support the three existing buspools and one new buspool should a written request for funding assistance be received. Financial Assessment Project Cost 56,400 Source of Funds Measure A Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable OU009G PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve, pursuant to its existing Measure A Commuter Assistance Buspool Subsidy Policy: 1) payment of $1,175/month for the period July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000 to the existing Riverside/Fullerton, Riverside/EI Segundo, and Moreno Valley/EI Segundo buspools, and one additional buspool upon receipt of a written request for subsidy support; and 2) continuation of the existing monthly and semi-annual buspool reporting requirements as support documentation to monthly subsidy payments. Attachments 003097 Exhibit A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Commuter Assistance Program 1746 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507 Buspool Ridership Report FY 98/99 5/11 /99 Origin/Destination RIVERSIDE/ RIVERSIDE/ MO. VALLEY/ FULLERTON EL SEGUNDO EL SEGUNDO Reporting Period: July, 1998 August, 1998 September, 1998 October, 1998 November, 1998 December, 1998 January, 1999 February, 1999 March, 1999 April, 1999 Subtotal Ridership Total Ridership Average Monthly Ridership Total One -Way Trips _ Riv County 24 23 27 24 22 Non-Riv County 2 2 2 2 2 20 2 23 21 24 3 3 1 24 1 232 252 25 504 20 Riv County 44 44 45 43 43 42 42 42 42 42 429 Non-Riv County 449 45 898 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 20 Riv County 43 45 Non-Riv County 0 0 47 0 44 44 38 0 0 0 41 l 0 41 0 40 40 423 423 42 846 0 0 0 TOTAL RIDERSHIP Riv County 111 112 119 111 109 100 106 104 106 106 1084 Non-Riv Total County Passengers 1124 112 2,248 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 6 3 3 40 115 116 123 115 113 103 111 110 109 109 O00095 Exhibit B Raytheon 30 April, 1999 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 To The Commission: Raytheon Systems- Company 2000 East El Seaundc Boulevard Po Box 902 El Segundo, CA 90245-0902 310.616.1375 In accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Raytheon Systems Company is requesting an extension of funding for the period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 for the Moreno Valley Commuter Buspool. The monthly fare for this route is $165 per employee. In addition tot he $25 subsidy offered by RCTC, Raytheon employees receive a company subsidy of $21 per month for using mass transit. Ridership on the Moreno Valley buspool has averaged 42 passengers per month over the last 12 months. Schedule AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival Moreno Valley Mall Raytheon, El Segundo Raytheon, El Segundo Moreno Valley Mall 4:15 a.m. 5:25 a.m. 3:20 p.m. 5:00 p.m. Mark IV Charter Buses, the service provider has coaches available to accommodate the physically challenged if required. The Raytheon Commuter Transportation Center regularly markets rideshare information to our employees, including buspools and vanpools. Employees receive this information though direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging. In addition, we share resources with other local employee transportation coordinators through our association with industry groups such as ACT, South Bay Transportation Forum, and Westchester/LAX TMA. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincerely,' RAYTHEON SYSTEMS OMPANY Rose Farooq, Administrator Commuter Transportation Center C: F. Peevy, MV Bus Coordinator 063099 Raytheon 30 April, 1999 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 To The Commission: Raytheon Systems Company 2000 East E! Segundo Bouievare Po Box 902 E! Seaundo, CA 90245.0902 210.616.1375 In accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Raytheon Systems Company is requesting an extension of funding for the period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 for the Riverside/Corona to Fullerton Commuter Buspool. The monthly fare for this route is $131 per employee. In addition to the $25 subsidy offered by RCTC, Raytheon employees receive a company subsidy of $21 per month for using mass transit. Ridership on the Riverside/Corona buspool has averaged 25 passengers per month over the last 12 months. Schedule AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival La Sierra Metrolink Station Corona Park & Ride Lot Raytheon, Fullerton Raytheon, Fullerton Corona Park & Ride Lot La Sierra Metrolink Station 5:20 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 6:30 a.m. 4:35 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 5:45 p.m. Safeway Lines and Tour Company, the service provider, has coaches available to accommodate the physically challenged if required. The Raytheon Commuter Transportation Center regularly markets rideshare information to our employees, including buspools and vanpools. Employees receive this information though direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging. In addition, we share resources with other local employee transportation coordinators through our association with industry groups, such as ACT, South Bay Transportation Forum, and Westchester/LAX TMA. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincerely, ON SYSTE •MPANY Ro Farooq, Administrator Cmuter Transportation Center C: R. Fries, Riverside/Corona - Fullerton Bus Coordinator 00 i )0 Raytheon 30 April, 1999 Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, Califomia 92501 To The Commission: Raytheon Systems Company 2000 East E! Segunao Bouievar: Po Box 902 El Seguneo. CA 90245-09C2 310.616.1375 In accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Raytheon Systems Company is requesting an extension of funding for the period of 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 for the Riverside/Corona Commuter Buspool. The monthly fare for this route is $155 per employee. In addition tot he'$25 subsidy offered by RCTC, Raytheon employees receive a company subsidy of $21 per month for using mass transit. Ridership on the Riverside/Corona buspool has averaged 45 passengers per month over the last 12 months. Schedule AM Departure AM Departure AM Arrival PM Departure PM Arrival PM Arrival Riverside Galleria Corona Park & Ride Lot Raytheon, El Segundo Raytheon, El Segundo Corona Park & Ride Lot Riverside Galleria 4:15 a.m. 4:30 a.m. 5:30 a.m. 3:20 p.m. 5:00 p.m. 5:15 p.m. Mark IV Charter Buses, the service provider has coaches available to accommodate the physically challenged if required. The Raytheon Commuter Transportation Center regularly markets rideshare information to our employees, including buspools and vanpools. Employees receive this information though direct mailings, newsletter articles, and electronic messaging. In addition, we share resources with other local employee transportation coordinators through our association with industry groups such as ACT, South Bay Transportation Forum, and Westchester/LAX TMA. Thank you for your continued support of this successful buspool program. Sincer RAYTHLON SYSTEMSGOMPANY Rose Farooq, Administrator Commuter Transportation Center C� C: D. Cross, Riverside/Corona Bus Coordinator 0U101 1 abed spcSlOOdsne 141uow lad SL I' 3 sl AplsgnS '66/0E/b - 96/1/L :popad 6uwodai yluow 01 uo poem 03AdS S311111V10100'00B'9S6'Z = S£ x 00 086'Ve :(loodsng uouarjjaplsianw) aldwex3 .a6eallw Aeon auo a6wane x paonpai sdul Aem auo axe" :panes sem lejol alelnoleo o f 'G33(10311 Shcal. AVM 3NO 1H101080'179 = O l x ZZ x Z x Z61 :loodsng uopalind/epleJanla) :aldwex3 •syluow Z 1 x sAep ainwwoo a6eJane x (dpi puns) Z x podai/sdul jo iaquwnu axe1 :paonpaa sdlil pie jN sup alelnoleo o1 00183d ON11.80d38 aOd 030n0321 d181 dO 1S00 6E 13 = (ZZ x Z x OO Z61) Aq papinlp OSL' l 13 :loodsng uopaen j/aplsiam8 :aldwex3 •syluow oI x aoualiadxa welBold uo paseq yluow/sAep aJeysapp jo Jagwnu aBeiane x (dui puns) Z x podaysdpl jo Jagwnu Aq amp pue Isoo lelol axel :pa3npa2i sdpj. jo Isop alelnoleo o1 00'094 lZZ £ 00'9Ll 44 49'99 M.;::.:::.:>;..:.:>::•:,: 00'400 l 00'4E0 L ....................;'>': 00.OiZ S£$ rIVlOj 00N1193S 13/A311VA [161a?1111A1 00.080'LLV L 00214491,- 00'06 00'ZZ 00'£L£ 00•£8E ZL•0$ 00'09t l l$ 00'OOe84v I. 00-91.£'6l 00-9L 00-ZZ 00.6£4 00-644 . 19-0$ 00.0SL' 11.$ oaNnees 13 MnlcHanim 00'099'96Z 00'844'9 00'9£ 00•ZZ 00261, 0020Z 6£' l$ 00'09e l L$ NOD:1311nd a3AVS S311W 1V101 a3Oflaea Sd1.111 3101H3A 391/311W AVM 3N0 3911213AV SAVa 3111WW03 3OVS3AV , G33(10321 Sd1211 3131113A 30 2138W IN 82131(1WW03 dO 2138W(1N 030110321 SdRil 3101H3A AO 1900 .1SO3 1V101 S100dsne • AVM-3N0 lb • ta 1f r #' Lo, 66/0£/4 - 86/11./L Popad 6w}iodaa SNOIlVI(lO1VO imvA01S8(ls lOOds(18 WVIMOkld 30NV1SISSV 2131(1WW00 NOISSIWWOO NOI1V12i0dSNV211 A1N(100 3019)33A121 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Minimum Fare Revenue Ratio for the Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine Transit Agency The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the SunLine Transit Agency serve both urbanized and non -urbanized areas of Riverside County. Therefore, their minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio required by State Law falls somewhere between the 10% requirement for non -urbanized area services and the 20% requirement for urbanized area services. The commission is responsible for calculating the intermediate ratio. The methodology used to calculate the minimum ratio required was developed by the Commission and originally approved by the State in April 1980. The methodology is still applicable and is attached for your review. R=.1Cn+.2Cu Cn + Cu R = Required Ratio Cn = Costs of Services in Non -Urbanized Areas Cu = Costs of Services in Urbanized Areas The costs for new or expanded services are exempted from the calculation for the first two full years of operation. Using the above formula and the RTA and SunLine Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP), the minimum required ratios for the RTA and SunLine in FY 1999-2000 are 18.35% and 16.56%, respectively. Upon adoption of the required ratio by the Commission, Ca!trans must also approve the ratios. The ratios are then fixed for the year and cannot be changed even though actual revenues and expenses may differ from the SRTP estimates. 003103 PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission: 1) Approve the _FY 1999-2000 minimum required fare revenue to operating expense ratio of 18.35% for the Riverside Transit Agency and 16.56% for the SunLine Transit Agency; 2) Reaffirm the methodology used to calculate the required ratio; and 3) Request Caltrans' concurrence with the methodology and ratios for FY 1999- 2000. O.U3104 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 Plan 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. A. For the purpose of this calculation, the operating cost in the urbanized area shall include the cost of all 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. B. 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 ad non -urbanized area costs in proportion to the route miles in the non -urbanized area and the route miles in the urbanized area. C. 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. - 00'3105 D. The cost of extension of public transit services pursuant to Section 99268.8 of the PUC shall not be included in any of these calculations. 11. The required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost in compliance with Public Utilities Code Sections 99268.3 and 99268.4 shall be calculated as follows: • R 7Cn + _9 rit Cn + Cu R is the required ratio. Cn is the operating cost in non -urbanized areas. Cu is the operating cost in urbanized areas. III. Annually, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the Riverside County Transportation Commission shall calculate the required fare revenue to operating cost ratio for each transit operator serving both urbanized and non - urbanized areas and submit this calculation to Caltrans. Caltrans shall approve the required ratio prior to the'.beginning of the fiscal year and the ratio shall not be subject _to change. *There are no operators in the Riverside County that are required to be in compliance with PUC Section 99268.2. There are no operators serving both an urbanized area and a non -urbanized area that had a fare revenue to operating cost ratio greater than one -fifth in urbanized areas or greater than one -tenth in non -urbanized areas during the 1978-79 fiscal year. 0IJC106 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Bill Hughes, Bechtel Project Manager Susan Cornelison, Rail Program Manager Karl Sauer, Bechtel Resident Engineer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Authorization to Advertise for Construction Bids for Operational and Station Safety Improvements at the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Several station safety and operational improvements have been identified for the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. The safety improvements relate to upgrading ADA access in the parking lot and resurfacing the parking lot where various projects have cut the pavement to remove any possible tripping hazzards. The operational improvements are .the addition of two new ADA access platforms near the middle of the new South Side Platform and the removal of the temporary platform near the north side Platform. These new ADA access platforms will allow Metrolink to load the trains nearer the middle of the platform adjacent to the elevator. Presently, the trains line up with one of the existing ADA access platforms at either end of the South Side platform. Because the trains that use the platform are sometimes cab forward and sometimes engine forward, different ends of the platform are being used for loading. This is causing confusion for the passengers. Since the dwell time for the trains stopping at the South Side Platform is very short, if the passengers are at the wrong end of the platform, they have difficulty getting to the other end quickly enough to catch the train. Now that the South Side Platform is in operation there is no longer a need to have the temporary platform on the north side. This platform was only needed until the South Side Platform was completed. As soon as BN&SF completes the work on the switches controlling access to the South Side Platform station track, the north side temporary platform can be removed and the median fence can be installed to prevent pedestrians attempting to cross the BN&SF triple track main lines between the North and South platforms. The following is a listing of the additional improvements required at the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station: 000107 Improvement No. Description of Improvement Estimated Cost of Improvement 1 Rework Handicap Parking Area, in main and temporary parking lots, to bring up to current ADA standards. $25K to $30K 2 Slurry seal main entrances and drives in main parking lot. $25K to $30K 3 Re -Stripe main parking lot following ADA upgrades. $5K 4 Construct two new mini platforms, for handicap access near the elevators, on the South Side Platform. $20K to $25K 5 Remove the North Side temporary platform and re -install chain link fence and lighting. $20K to $25K Total $95K to $115K Staff has just completed the drawings and specifications required to obtain a bid for construction of the improvements. Staff at this time is requesting Commission authorization to advertise for construction bids for construction of the above identified station Improvements at the Riverside Downtown Metrolink Station. Financial Assessment Project Cost $95,000 to $115,000 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget STA or TDAILTF N Year Included in Program Budget N Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Y Financial Impact Not Applicable 000108 BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION; That the Commission authorize staff to advertise for construction of the station improvements identified for the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station. After bids are received and evaluated, staff will return with a recommendation for award to the Commission. 000109 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Award of Consultant Contract for Call 'Box Support Services At the November 30, 1998 meeting of the Recurring Contracts Ad Hoc Committee, staff was directed to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for call box consultant support services in early 1999 for fiscal year 1999-2000. The consultant provides operational analysis of the call box system, management information reports, as well as any special studies Commission staff may requests during the year. The current fiscal year cost for the services are $56,454. Staff issued an RFP on March 26, 1999 and proposals were due April 30. Only two proposals were received, one from the current contractor, TeleTran Tek Services, and one from Katz, Okitsu & Associates. The RFP requested bids for fiscal year 1999- 2000 and four (4) option years. The bid amounts received were as follows: FY 99-00 FY 00-01 FY 01-02 FY 02-03 FY 03-04 TeleTran Tek Services $62,924 $48,537 $50,479 $52,102 $54,598 Katz, Okitsu & Associates $73,000 $58,000 $57,870 $57,870 $57,870 An evaluation committee comprised of the program managers from OCTA, SANBAG and RCTC reviewed the proposals and conducted interviews of the two firms. The committee ranked TeleTran Tek (T-Cubed, the current contractor) as the top proposer and recommend. they be awarded the contract. Financial Assessment ' Project cost $ 62, 924 Source of Funds SAFE Fees :ii ;:, ,,,.: t.,.. 4.: ^•.?k4.,... r.:.:':: Li}]]]}}]}:':•.v::i]]]]}},}}}}'h]]]]isv[::v:v:.:.:i>iv:>.:.::.} i.:2>..:Cfi:.:L':::: v':>.]: ...............:.,:................ n....,............................ .......::::... . :.:::: ::.:.v:4.v::;r•.i;•.{•}}:.-;ti ;: 4}]::::v.v: ;•]::tr]]::•:::•::-}:w:..v:;•.v:::::::.}:4:::?[i-:vv:.:v:::: cv. . .~`:k:'::i.R:;iii<:,;i.:isi;';c.:::%2}v]}'.::`rv.:n„+i-S:`•>:.:.:... •ii:. i.: A:: ........:..�..•]}}::}]}i]:::.]]]}}]vry};•}]]]:4'.:: v:.v:: } t:s ::}:<zz:::;:,-..:i:,..1: +Rtti:'isitii>:< 'i':%>. n'#::ti': i.14.:: •` a::�i'}iii '''''r 3+ att .. .;2't': ::5.::-:::. •rv:: :..}.:;--::•.2.:•xr.:`.•`.+::ti:..:.. ....::kCt,:a, Z>�:k::i'".`::.••`^::.::•. :..t..............:....:.::::..:2:..:.::.:..::.:A2•.:::•:....... • :.::h. :.::. }.:..k::,.:•::\ .::t.:....22•. . �•. •. ••n.. {.:+:(::::•.x•:nvivin,vvV.:vu i•.::..}. :•r. :..+ih:x.. ]:. ]: h:;n.:4]]]]Y.::^:•}:.}}}w•+}}}•:4. •i}}:•..:. ... : . ;{ ... .Y} . . . \. .............:::v.:v ::v.:v :.. m.v::........:•,...v:.v::v.. :... :..:... Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999-00 Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable 003110 BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission award the contract for call box support services to TeleTran Tek Services in the amount of $62,924 for fiscal year 1999-2000 along with four (4) one- year options to renew. 00 111 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 2,1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee William Hughes, Measure A Project Manager Louis Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Monthly Cost and Schedule Reports The attached material depicts the current costs and schedule status of contracts reported by routes, commitments, and cooperative agreements executed by the Commission. For each contract and agreement, the report lists the authorized value approved by the Commission, percentage of contract amount expended to date, and the project expenditures by route with status for the month ending April 30,1999. Detailed supporting material for all schedules, contracts and cooperative agreements is available from Bechtel staff. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Attachments 000112 %6.96 %6'96 %£'99 %Z"£ l %S'ES %Z'6L %£ 4S %1''66 %4.66 %Z'£9 %9'SS %9 66 191'169'9S LSL'L69'SS £l6'111`9S L1'6'969 Z44'6ZZ' 19 4£S'96L'£S 191'949'8S 191'969'9S 9lL`6E9'6$ 9Z 1'6£9'6S 969'98$ 969'98$ Mel£ZS 1S9'69l$ OZO'Z9$ E to l 96ed OS %t*L8 96419 £LL'828`96 EL l'8L9'9$ 1,09'9ZL'96 40S'9ZL'9$ 9LE-I1V101anS (9106 '9006021) 'ualnu3/6.i6u3 i(leulwllaid 91331'013d 91Z-1 1ZV1LZ6 %6'96 PL£'448'1S 896181119 1631n02i1V101enS 999 969.69 16Z'941$ OS4'E£9$ (£E66 '94960N) 6wdeospuel peenpunoS %0'001 000'00£'ZS 000'00£'ZS (SES6OH) dwe21 400H AMU 'pm uamg uen (9496' 1996'L496'LZ96'1.££6' 1,01.6021) £9£' 113 %0'S6 £90'96L'4$ 90S'940'S$ uollonalsuoo pue u6lsep IlempunoS 9103fOad 16 31n021 L9£'6Z9 %WOOL 606'££6'914 606'C£6'91$ 111 31noa 1V101enS LS96' 1.996-6496'£4L6'S£96 LSE'6Z$ %CYOOI 606'££6'91$ 606'££6'Sl$ (8£S6'L£S6'0£S6'SZS6'£ZS6'4£Z6'LZZ6'61Z6021) S103f021d 111 31nOa 0$ Y.0'001, 09£'969`66 09£`969`6$ 6L 31fi021 iV101enS .suouoadsul leluawuwlnue 6u1o6-uo 6uluuoped lueunsuoo pue smsel Ino -esolo pe1oid 6ulwiouad 'alaIdwo0 sl pe(wd (LEL6'6Z£6 'SEL6'LE£6'90£6 'ZO£6' 10£6' l I 1,6021) %IMOI 09£'969'6$ 09E'969'6$ MOa/uoilnu3/6upeaul6u3 9103f021d 6131nOti LZi'64S %WOOL 006'809'96 0061809`99 tL 31n021 l`d101ens LZeal 160'00l 006'909'9$ 006lDS'9$ (4S66 'LEE60a) MOa/ualnu3/6upaauou3 S103f0Nd 4L amod L9S'ZZIS %L'46 0L9'99£$ L9L`LB£9 09 alma 1V101enS 19S'ZZ IS %L £6 £ 1S'40£$ 000'SZ£9 (9Z6602:1) uolloniisuo0 pi apla u, Ted %O OOl LS l'Z9S LS l'Z9$ (9£L6021) u6isa0 leul j 101 apla ,u, )1Jed 9103fOad 09 31nOa 31V0 Ol S1NW1Ii4N00 31V0 Ol 6661 'OE IIJdV NOI1V001W 1SNIVOV 31V0-01 S3811110N3dX3 030N3 KNOW •Hl(1V 1SNIVOV SRInlION3dX3 % 803 3811110N3dX3 03111WW00 % 31V0 Ol S1N3W11WW00 1Va(110Va1N00 NOI1V00l1V 03ZIaOH1f1V NOISSIWW00 31nOa AS laOd3a 13JOns 9103fOad IAVMHOIH ..V.. 3anSV3W 310H NOI1dI80S30 103fOad LL %YU %6•£9 %0'OOL %6'88 %6"99 9o8'Z6 %9'Z6 %£'96 £ Jo Z a6ed 98L1+69`£9$ LZV699'84 £ L6'ZZO'LS 9t£'917S' IS 91. L`1£L`Z$ 9 L I'b£L'Z$ 809`AL9$ 90S'L 164 19V8Z6$ 19I'9Z6$ 9£6'90914 L6£'L£Z$ S6S'99£' I$ 996` 29$ Una ZSZ' LLS 9£6`Z9$ S£6'Z9$ O$ ZL0'80L$ ZLO'90 L$ L9£`09$ Lb£'09$ Ya6'96 %0'L6 %9'69 %0'00 L %WOOL. %0'00 L %WOOL %0'00 L %0'L6 %O. L6 %£'L6 %6 99 Z9910£'99S 098`9L6`64 000'69£`9$ 099'9ti9' I$ 00V9Lo'£S OOZ'SLO'£$ 000'099s 000'0Sb4 899'99103 999'9S9' L$ 8Z9`989'1$ 000'b0£$ 9ZS'09£' L$ 8L6`8L9`89$ Z9£'L68`014 ZOS'OS£'64 099'9VS' I$ 00e9L0'£S 00Z'SL0'£$ 000`0$14 000'09b$ 000'009' L $ 000'009'I$ 8Z9`0£L`LS 000'OS£$ 9ZS'08£'L$ S1V101 1IV212 nnWWOO 1V1018ns (£966' LS66'£S66'Sb96' £ti96'9£96'0Z66'000008 ) S1So0 '1u1eW/91900 d0/130ll el!S/uoReIS (9966'9596'17496'££96'Z£96' I£L6'0ZV6 021) 6upaaul6u3/salpniS 1IV21 a31nWWOO 30RYN-Nand 1ViolanS (£196) (9L66-1066) 6996 (Zb2.6-06L6 08) WI/215021d '1N30N1/30121-N•H21Vd 'SOAS V NVId WV21002Id 1V1018f1S (LZL602i - Ueld S11) APniS IepedS S301A213S NVId WV210021d 31Va OL 9INWLCIWV03 IWO 01 666L '0£ PRIV NOI1V00-11V 31V0 Ol N011V0011V 1SNIVJV 31V0-OL S32lnlION3dX3 a3ON3 H1NOW Hine 1SNIVJV S1N3W1IWW00 O3ZIHOH1f1V S38f111ON3dX3 % 210d 38MION3dX3 03111WW00 % lV2If110V211N00 NOISSIWN03 31f1021 AB 1210d321 _mans S103rOdd AVMHOIH ..V.. 32IfISV31A1 01021 131H0381V101ens (oohs oa) 'A213S MOW 211SN00 V 103P021d 30NVH02131NI1V1018f s (9t66'9Z66021) 6uwdeospuel 01 ewnA (9Zb608) (3'29d) u6lsaa Ieut3 DI eumA WVHDO8d 'A021dW130NVH02131N1 NOI1412:I0S30 103f02ld o-,r 60/0E/e re SelelS %L'49 %0' 99 %0'99 %0'99 %0'99 %1'9L %TEE? %9•£9 £ Jo £ a6ed 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ o$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 66L199'44$ Z6e£99' L$ L109d4$ SZ 1'99 L' l$ SL9'40L' 1$ Z9VZL0'4s Z9£'ZL0'4$ 9ZZ'14£'L$ 9ZZ' 14£' IS 0 •sia6pnq aeaA leosy }ou pue peAuoOnoefoad pp) Joj ale sewn IPd .swei6wd luewenoidwl a6ueyaielul pup& ueoi (f) :310N 9t9'90t'LL$ 0$ 9t9'90t'L1.$ S1V101 L90'6£ L'Z$ LZO'460'S$ 00S'4Z£'l$ 614'9£6' 1$ tZ9'ZLZ`S$ £Z9'Z1Z'S$ 000'00913 000'009'1$ os os L90'6£ 1'Z$ LZ0'460'S$ 00S'4Z£' L$ 6117'9£6'1$ tZ9'ZLZ'S$ £Z9'Z LZ'S$ 000'009`L$ 000'009' 1$ slwhdwl pew pue Rawls leool y 0n ewnA 00210N d0 A110 sluawanadwl pea g wails leool trinomial d0 A113 sluawanoidwl pew 2 spoils pool 01N10Vf NVS d0 A113 wawanadw! pea 8 wags leool S121213d 30 A110 VNOHOO d0 A1101V1018nS amlonuls a6eulew wools (L) sebueyoialul ulooun g aldeyy 'yips VNON00 d0 A110 NVO1311V1NOANVO 1V10180S (ZZ4606) sluawanadwl plj uoAueOpealle2{ 3>IV1NOANVO d0 A110 '11V0100 03A02iddV 1N3W11WIN00 30NV1V9 S30NVAOV 666L 'OE HidV 1N31N11WN00 NOIldla3S30 1SNIVOV 31V0-01 `JNIONV1Slf10 NV01 .V. 32if1SV311 030N3 NINON! 03A02iddV 103f021d 30NV1V8 NVOI °h omaNVlslfl0 1V101 2103 32if111ON3dX3 103f02Jd A8 lt1033211300118 s103f021d sOV021 Y S133211S 1V001/AVM1-10IH ..V.. 321nSV3W 01021 RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly 'Call Box Update Attached are the operational statistics for the call box system for the quarter ending March 31, 1999. There were a total of 13,752 calls during the quarter; 8,325 to Inland CHP and 5,427 to Indio CHP dispatch offices. This represents a decrease of 2,030 calls or 12.9% in call box activity over the quarter ending December 31, 1998. The average calls per day were 153 for the current quarter versus 172 for the previous quarter. In comparing the quarter ending March, 1999 to March, 1998 call volumes, there has been a decrease of 2,013 calls (-12.1 %) from last year to this year. Unfortunately, all call box programs throughout the state have been experiencing a similar decrease in usage which may be attributed to less older vehicles on the highway due to strict insurance requirements. Financial Assessment Project Cost N/A Source of Funds N/A Included in Fiscal Year Budget Year Included in Program Budget Year Programmed Approved Allocation Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required Financial Impact Not Applicable BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the SAFE Board receive and file. 060116 Riverside Summary of Calls to CHP Calls to CHP ALL TIME - 639,399 (Begin. May 90) 1998 Jan Feb Mar 1st QTR '98 1000 Total Cads to CHP 2000 Active Call Boxes 1,124 3000 4000 Calls to CHP 15,771 1999 5000 Calls/Box 14.0 6000 1st QTR '99 1,125 13,752 12.2 Mar Totals Jan - Mar Totals Riverside CHP Dispatch Centers 1st QTR '98 Call Boxes Calls to CHP Calls/Box 38%- 1 st QTR '99 Call Boxes Calls to CHP Calls/Box Inland 592 8,325 14.1 Indio 533 5,427 10.2 Riverside 1,125 13,752 12.2 Calls to CHP 62% Calls to CHP QGJ117 dHD 04 smoD jo klow anS apisaais N 0 C Q cD �O qO �O Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 1 Data Source: LA Cellular Riverside CellularAnalysis 1998 1st Quarter 1999 Average Call Lengths Average Call Lengths 1st Quarter 3.29 Active Call Jan Feb Mar 3:31 3:31 3:27 .Boxes X 35 minutes per call 1st Quarter 3:46 box* = Total Jan Feb Mar 3:41 3.52 3:45 Cellular Time Authorized 'The Amount of time each call box is authorized to use in one month without an additional charge from LA Cellular 1,124 Call boxes 118,020 Call Box Cellular Minutes Allocated 118,020 minutes used to call... CHP 55,136 O 47% ... Maintenance 12,285 •10% ... Other Numbers 151 O 0% Total Used 67,572 a 57% Minutes 1,125 Call boxes 118,125 Call Box Cellular Minutes Allocated 118,125 minutes Used to call... CHP 51,784 Q 44% ... Maintenance 12,322 e 10% ... Other Numbers 1,480 O 1 % Total Used 65,586 • 56% Minutes Remaining 50,448 ® 43% Total Used Remaining 52,539 O 44% Total Used Cellular Time 43% Used 57% Maint. 85% % Cellular o Time 45 /o Used 56% Maint. 44% 10% Other Oth Other 1 �._ .. . 199801P":Close-up (1st QTR) 1999 CHP Close-up (1st QTR) Call Length ,Number of calls Percent Call Length Number of calls Percent 0 to 1 min 3,139 20°0 0 to 1 min 2,568 19% 1 to 3 min 5,309 34% 1 to 3 min 4,461 32% 3 to 5 min 3,494 22% 3 to 5 min 2,996 22% 5 to 7 min 2,006 ❑ 13% 5 to 7 min 1,805 ❑ 1 3% 7 to 9 min 940 i 6% 7 to 9 min 890 ❑ 6% over 9 min 883 1 6% over 9 min 1,032 ❑ 8% Total 15,771 calls 100% Total 13,752 calls 100% 1998 Maintenance Calls (1st QTR) 1999 Maintenance Calls (1st QTR) Calls Calls Expected' ®33,720 Actual 38,698 Expected* ® 33,750 Actual 39,690 . 9 Too Many III4,978 13% irt 'Call boxes are scheduled to Call Maintenance Too Many 0 5,940 15% every 3 days (10 times/month) OD OpSi8Aqi 0 C Q CD Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 2 Data Source: LA Cellular (J'��'v 11 25- 20 Call Riverside County Box Statistics by Highway D < m 15 c3,> o a 10 o x Highway 9 yc -# y NMMt Y, < < < < < < < OO O O O O O <J fJP 0 O - A. . 1 st Quarter 1998 Call Calls to Avg Boxes CHP Calls/Box < < < O O . P - a .• - < < N V_ V 00- �y9n ,.. < < I:.) W A V < = P_ 0 p1 R krSy Highway Call Boxes Calls to Avg CHP Calls/Box RV-010 396 4,759 12.0 RV-010 398 4,240 10.7 RV-015 208 3,935 18.9 RV-015 205 3,510 17.1 RV-031 6 38 6.3 RV-031 6 17 2.8 RV-033 2 21 10.5 RV-033 2 10 5.0 RV-060 75 1,187 15.8 RV-060 75 961 12.8 RV-062 16 222 13.9 RV-062 20 258 12.9 RV-071 0 _ 0 0.0 RV-071 0 0 0.0 RV-074 30 296 9.9. RV7074 30 214 7.1 RV-078 7 18 2.6 RV-078 7 22 3.1 RV-079 29 237 8.2 RV-079 30 250 8.3 RV-086 11 65 5.9 RV-086 11 39 3.5 RV-091 161 2,733 17.0 RV-091 160 2,373 14.8 RV-095 7 12 1.7 RV-095 7 34 4.9 RV-111 12 110 9.2 RV-111 13 93 7.2 RV-177 26 26 1.0 RV-177 26 53 2.0 RV-215 98 1,895 19.3 RV-215 94 1,462 15.6 RV-243 14 83 5.9 RV-243 14 92 6.6 RV-371 12 68 5.7 RV-371 12 53 4.4 RV-865 14 66 4.7 RV-86S 14 68 4.9 unassigned 0 0 0.0 unassigned 0 3 0.0 TOTALS 1,124 15,771 14.0 TOTALS 1,124 13,752 12.2 fop apisaanii Aomg6!H Aq spii.silots xo8 0 C O No Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 3 Data Source: LA Cellular 0, 1 9 JolnlleD yl :winos oloa V :e6od seDwas peonpoJd Jnoy Rc1 silo* }o Jequmu e6°Jerry 0•51 0'oi o'S 66, Japnno c=› 0'0 118111111.1_6. r 100' .00' ▪ 00. . 00, J 00: Wol 00' W.100L W400'1 W4 00'Z I ■ W, 00'll WV 0001 WV 00'6 WV 00'8 (� WV 00'C f,1111111111111.11111k WY 00'8 WV 00.8 WV 00, I5 WY 00'0 ....111.111LWV 00'L 1111.11.11111111_WV 00'I 00 11 W. 00.01 1.2L 946 <=7: 960 .1191.00rip �� d LOS l 8:ZL L ZSL'E l 11L'S l POZ L9Z s +�- a 3 co 8:S 6.9 LES EE9 6 6 Wd 00:01 Wd 00:6 -N Z VL 91 0:8 E69 EEL L Ol Wd 00:6 Wd 00:8 Ot8 L 8 0.01 Z6L 016 171 91 Wd 00:8 Wd OO L 'N°p/511°J End 6:6 9' l l E06 190' 1 V l OZ Wd 00:L Wd 00:9 OLL'9 ZLSiL sll°' I°}°l L: l l S' 11 910' L 8VO' l 91 OE Wd 00:9 Wd OO:S S'01 tr. Z 1 096 9E 1' l 81 PE Wd 00:S Wd OO V 9.0 l 8.1 L 896 9L011 OZ 1£ Wd 0017 Wd OO E I6:6 L'O I IL06 SL6 IS L S L IWd 00:E Wd 00: Z J u -1 O Q ZES S 19 A°p!`II°' End 68 SOL 17l8 Z96 St. LL Wd0OZ Wd001 � 88 001 LO8 9l6 8 tL Wd 00 l Wd0OZ1 l 8 E 8 6EL ESL E t 6 Wd 00.Z1 WV 00 L L L 9 0 8 S l9 OEL Z L 8 Wd 00 1 t WV 00 01 6S8'V 809'S slit'' 1°1°l 0 9 9'L 817S 169 V S l WV 00 01 Wd 00 6 E 9 91. VLS 069 6 L t WV 00 6 WV 00 8 l S 6 S. 89V OVS 8 V WV 00 8 WV 00 L E E 9'E 001: 9ZE V t Wd OO L Wd 00 9 J E CZ tf Anp/SlloD 6ny EZ l'z 1.6S' Z s11°D 1°{01 9l EZ 8171 VIZ V L Wd 00:9 wd 00 S 1 9 l Z'Z 9171 661 0 E Wd 00 S Wd 00 D. 9L OZ OSL V8l 0 0 WV 00 V Wd OO E 0Z Sz 6 Z 1.6 Le 8ZZ L9Z 6LZ 0 L Z E WV OO:E Wd OO Z WV 00 Z WV 00 L 6E LV est LZV Z S WV 00 l WV 00 Zl 9V SS 9LV LOS E Z WV 00 Z l Wd 00 l l 6V l9 A °a/sll°D a6o.reny lSV 6SS dHD sll°D L L Wd 00 11 Wd0001 ep!21 Nun N 'IJ°d uJOJd 1 ,. 250 200 150 100 so 0 Apr Previous April 98 - September 98 , Goal Performance 98 May 98 Jun-98 JuF98 Au¢98 Sep-98 Previous -PM Cycle Preventive Percent of PM Maintenance System Cycle Visits Visited Apr-98 185 16% May-98 208 19% Jun-98 95 8% Jul-98 183 16% Aug-98 202 18% Sep-98 302 27% Total . 1,175 Summary PM visits needed to be on schedule 187 / Month (17%) 105% AVG Number of Active Call Boxes 1,123 PM 195 visits in the last 6 months / Month (17%) Preventive Epp Maintenance visi ntive Maintenance October 98 - March 99 300 250 150 100 0 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jarf99 Fea99 Mar-99 Most Recent PM Cycle Most Recent PM Cycle Preventive Maintenance Visits Percent of System Visited Oct-98 77 7% Nov-98 279 25% Dec-98 83 7% Jan-99 212 19% Feb-99 75 7% Mar-99 273 24% Total 999 89% Summary PM visits needed to be on schedule 187 / Month (17%) AVG Number of Active Call Boxes 1,123 PM visits in the last 6 months 166 / Month (15%) oloo cb s are required every 6 months. Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 5 666 l aapono Is L Data Source: GTE 0'1 CALSAFE CALL BOX ACTIVITY REPORT CalSAFE March 1999 Counties developing call box programs Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services CaISAPE Members Call Boxes Mar Colts to CHP Mar Year to Date Calls / Box Mar YTD San Diego 1,636 2096 8,659 29% 27,337 29% 5.3 16.7 Riverside 1,125 14% 4,617 15% 13,752 14% 4.1 12.2 MTC 3,187 39% 10,941 37% 36,227 313% 3.4 11.4 Ventura 521 6% 1,537 5% 5,158 5'% 3.0 9.9 CVRS 1,290 16% 3,451 12% 10,483 11 % 2.7 8.1 Santa Barbara 333 4% 640 2% 2,491 3%1.9 7.5 Total 8,092 100% 29,845 l 00% 95,448 100%1 3.7 11.8 0 Page: 6 Data Source: Cellular tapes V L� �.. c 122 RIVERSIDE LOST CALL ANALYSIS THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY EXPLANATION OF A LOST CALL A "lost call" occurs when a call box caller hangs up or "redials" before reaching a CHP operator. Note: "redialing", or pressing the call button a second time, disconnects the caller and reconnects them at the end of the queue (calls are answered by CHP in the order they are received.) PERCENT OF LOST CALLS THE LAST 2 YEARS sileo jo luaoiad MONTH : Percent Lost Apr-97 4% May-97 Jun-97 4% 5% Jul-97 5% Aug-97 5% Sep-97 4% Oct-97 4% Nov-97 4% Dec-97 5% Jan-98 3% Feb-98 5% Mar-98 5% Apr-98 4% May-98 4% Jun-98 4% Jul-98 5% Aug-98 8% Sep-98 Oct-98 7% 7% Nov-98 6% Dec-98 9% Jan-99 5% Feb-99 7% Mar-99 6% HOW LONG CALLS LASTED "BEFORE THEY WERE "LOST" The length of time (in minutes) a motonst waited before hanging up or "redialing" CHP. On hold Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 AVG 30 Secs or less 30 - 60 Secs 5 sec 7% 5% 4% 5% 10 sec 13% 11 % 11 % 12% 14% 35% 39% 15 sec 5% 8% 5% 6% 20 Sec' 6% 3% 5% 5% 30 Sec 7% 6% 8% 7% 40 Sec 13% 6% 9% 9% 50 Sec 5% 3% 5% 4% 60 Sec 4% 5% 5% 5% 70 Sec 2% 2% 2% 2% 90 Sec 5% 6% 5% 5% 110 Sec 6% 3% 5% 5% 90+ Secs 60 - 90 Secs 130 Sec 4% 4% 7% 513/0 130+ Sec 22% 37% 30% 30% Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 7 sisAleuy !lao apisaanN 6661, aapano 1st, Data Source: CHP ACD RIVERSIDE .DELAYED CALL ANALYSIS THIS REPORT COVERS THE INLAND DISPATCH CENTER ONLY EXPLANATION OF A DELAYED CALL CHP considers a call to be "delayed' if the MONTH Apr-97 Percent Delayed 72% Average Delay 38 call is not answered within 10 seconds. May-97 72% 43 Jun-97 74% 49 A call must be answered for it to be Jul-97 77% 55 a delayed call, otherwise it is a lost call. Aug-97 79°/° 60 Sep-97 76% 50 PERCENT DELAYED Oct-97 75% 44 90% _ Nov-97 76% 43 _ Dec-97 78% 51 80% - — — — — — Jan-98 76% 38 — Feb-98 76% 48 70% Mar-98 . 77% 47 Apr-98 77% 42 60% x. m m ° c 2. co� ° m g May-98 77% 42 J m m to J0.c' °'opJun-98 co 77% 44 AVERAGE DELAY Jul-98 79% 54 so _ Aug-98 84% 78 SQ`°"ds -- — Sep-98 82% 72 ea - — — — — — Oct-98 83% 66 -- -- _ — ---- _ Nov-98 80% 56 30 Dec-98 84% 77 Jan-99 79% 62 o a 3 O o ; a x O Feb-99 .79% 62 m 6 6 6_. 6 <0 6 � m Mar-99 80% 60 y I— < r m ON TIME 21% DETAILED 4TH QUARTER ANALYSIS DELAYED 33% 17% 17% v� r 0 nm 5% 7% Answered in < 10 Secs < 30 Secs < 60 Secs < 90 Secs < 120 Secs > 120 Secs Jan-99 22% 35% 17% 4% 7% 14% Feb-99 21% 31% 18% 5% 7% 19% Mar-99 20% 32% 17% 6% 7% 18% AVERAGE 21% 33% 17% 5% 7% 17% sisAieuy Ilan paAalaa apisJanN 6661, aapano is Produced by: TeleTran Tek Services Page: 8 Data Source: CHP ACD Q" 24 v � ,_ r RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Louie Martin, Project Controls Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Reports Attached are Combining Statements of Revenues and Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances (Unaudited) and the Highway and rail projects quarterly budget report for the Quarter Ending March 31, 1999. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. Attachments 00012 4 Ott Description REVENUES Sales Tax Revenues Measure A Other Sales Tax Revenues Fed State Local & Other Govern Interest Income Other Revenues TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION Salaries & Benefits General Legal Services Prof Services (Excludes Legal) Office Lease General Admin Expenses TOTAL ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Salaries & Benefits General Legal Services Prof Services (Excludes Legal) General Projects Highway Engineering Highway Construction Highways ROW Special Studies Rail Engineering Rail Construction Rail ROW SCRRA Capital Contribution Commuter Assistance Regional Arterial Streets & Roads Special Transportion\Transit Project Maintenance Project Operations Project Towing STA Distributions TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Intergovern Distribution Capital Outlay TOTAL EXPENDITURES Other Financing Sources(Uses) rside County Transportation Commission BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-3rd Otr For Period Ending: 05/18/99 05/18/99 REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION 68,500,001.00 51,313,449.72 5,448,179.00 4,466,199.00 6,969,920.00 3,901,142.38 3,060,565.00 2,172,978.01 6,642,989.00 3,064,873.87 90,621,654.00 64,918,642.98 17,186,551.28 981,980.00 3,068,777.62 887,586.99 3,578,115.13 74.91 81.97 55.97 70.99 46.13 25,703,011.02 71.63 606,214.00 489,485.45 116,728.55 92,500.00 52,884.30 39,615.70 865,020.00 586,588.05 270,431.95 220,000.00 163,246.30 56,753.70 716,960.00 489,783.38 227,176.62 2,500,694.00 1,781,987.48 718,706.52 80.74 57.17 67.81 74.20 68.31 71.25 1,311,656.00 805,399.41 506,256.59 61.40 232,500.00 181,978.13 50,521.87 78.27 598,650.00 252,116.02 346,533.98 42.11 1,693,900.00 1,001,114.60 692,785.40 59.10 1,877,738.00 419,415.76 1,458,322.24 22.33 5,048,000.00 3,465,467.79 1,582,532.21 68.65 758,188.00 323,344.85 434,843.15 42.64 250,000.00 90,966.47 159,033.53 36.38 266,539.00 221,894.53 44,644.47 83.25 3,506,300.00 2,819,387.03 686,912.97 80.40 22,352.00 14,902.00 7,450.00 66.66 1,150,000.00 150,318.00 999,682.00 13.07 1,378,920.00 808,158.53 570,761.47 58.60 10,068,505.00 1,705,671.67 8,362,833.33 16.94 26,579,715.00 19,905,252.27 6,674,462.73 74.88 5,915,461.00 5,113,148.00 802,313.00 86.43 550,094.00 459,051.93 91,042.07 83.44 1,129,787.00 507,265.18 622,521.82 44.89 657,800.00 441,515.71 216,284.29 67.12 2,186,116.00 1,022,732.00 1,163,384.00 46.78 65,182,221.00 39,709,099.88 25,473,121.12 60.92 397,295.00 397,295.00 0.00 100.00 93,221.00 62,089.02 31,131.98 66.60 68,173,431.00 41,950,471.38 26,222,959.62 61.53 aTRAF 000125 I 06J1'6 Description Operating Transfers In Operating Transfers Out Debt Service Issuance Costs Total Other Financing Sources Uses Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues And Other Financing Sources Over(Under)Expenditures And Other Financing Uses FUND BALANCE July 1, 1998 FUND BALANCE March 31, 1999 Riverside County Transportation Comnissior BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-3rd Qtr For Period Ending: 05/18/99 05/18/99 REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION 688,715.00 1,150,272.00 (461,557.00) 167.01 31,067,628.00 25,179,742.67 5,887,885.33 81.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,378,913.00 24,029,470.67 (7,930,690.00) (1,061,299.07) 95,642,832.55 95,642,832.55 87,712,142.55 94,581,533.48 6,349,442.33 79.09 (6,869,390.93) 13.38 0.00 100.00 (6,869,390.93) 107.83 QTRAF 60'029'126'1V 20'690'29 00'562'L6£ 6S'992'0£L'6£ 91'519'92/ 65'95L'S9£'2 00'0 00'0 9S'9SL'S9£'2 0£'157'95S'1 00'2£2'220'1 00'0 00'0 O£'159'9SS't 00'0 00'0 00'2f1'220't 1N- ns C7 'J O (sasn)sa3Jnos 6ulaueuli 99'19S'OZL'L 76'££9'h16'02 02'698'102'1 S6'666'097'9 S3k'f1110N303 1Y11 00'0 00'0 99195'02L'2 00'0 00'0 76'££9'916'02 94'2S1'L£ 00'0 • 25'620'620'1 9S'9f£'7Z 00'562'L6f 12'9h7'27£'7 00'2E2'220'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'2E2'220'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 1L'SLS'199 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 1L'StS'197 00'0 01'592'20S 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £0'£96'h22 S1'292'292 f6'1S0'654 00'0 611191 00'0 00'0 00'0 f5'2261 25'21S'902 69'01£'992 00'941'f11'5 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'£9£'911% 00'599'1£6 00'0 00'006'299'2 /2'252%06'61 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 99'21.9'f£l'S f9'6£9'142'h1 00'0 00'0 19129 %0L'1 00'0 00'0 69'626'992 00'0 06'02 '026 00'0 00'0 00'0 fS'95l'909 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 10'002'900 t£'0£9'l 1£'611 _ 00191f'O51 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'9l£'OSl 00'206'9t 00'0 00'0 ow() 00'0 00'0 00'206'h1 00'0. 00'0 f0'29£'619'2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 f0'29£'619'2 00'0 00'0 £S'769'122 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Ol'lf9'f01 00'0 fh'f92'911 29'990'06 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 19'092 S61900'02 10'009'02 S9'94£'f2f 46'002'02 00'0 16'00'£S2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 62'199'S99'£ 9L"9h6'962 91'109'12f'2 0L'L54'9lS 00'0 00'000'062 66'09£'6£ 00'0 00'62 92'517'619 OS-501'29£ 5£'656'2£ 00'0 00'0 62'709'2 21'999'12 00'0 00'0 09'4;11'100'1 00-0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Sh'6f9'SS SI'S19'06 00'0 00'0 20'911'252 00-0 00'0 " 00'0 00'0 00'0 61'209'17 69'091'97 96'221'791. £1'916'191 00"0 99'410'11 00'0 00'0 00'0 76'175'1£1 09'i£0'2 LL'29£'2£ 21114S'929 00-0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 /2"269'792 1£'900'99 20'159'257 0'226'102'1 00-0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 92'290'S9 02'026'969'1 9£'£92'69h 0£'972'£91 S0'995'99S 0£'999'25 S9'567'699 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 11'051'22 L2'££9'297 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 92'h62'6 2S'10'151 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 61'270'91 99'ShL'69S 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £7'S02'1 L9'en'l5 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 ,`22'h10'0£ 99'00'00 96'2991116'99 99' 719'99 L9'fL0/90'[ 10'220'221'2 9£'2ht'l06'f 00'661'994'9 22'6h7'£l£'lS 22'256'292 Lh'922'912'1 135'0£2'210'91 06'650'6£7'04 00'0 42'212'295 00'0 00'f£9'261'1 00'0 99'719'99 SL'7£7'259 22'256.292 l4'f6£'91 19'££2'692 00'0 £9.15e'6 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 { 00'0 00'0 b0'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 11'967'9h1'£l 00'0 Ll'£16'£LS 9L'£6t'OSS'£ 00'0 S6'256'h1£'9£ 1V101 d3dYd N0113naim3 N0113nk'1SN03 33NY1SISSV A1N003 AiNn03 °MINIUM 114113g3NN03 A1Nn03 9VA3 • 11SNVe1 Ne31SV3 N2131S3M A1N0103 Ne31S3M /0131S3M 31Y1S MID 66/9►/50 66/91/0 :6u mq polaad Jol 66/1£/£ 0! s un13Y uolssomo3 uollelJod! Aluno3 aplsJanlk' 6L'S22'220'1 SO'L9h'996 L7'Z9f'79 LZ'9Sf'9 00'0 • 00'0 31VS/dS1 16112£'0£S'9 Aellm lelld� uolum..14sla uaano6Ja4u S133f08d/SNYtl9Odd IYIC suolinglJlstO V) 6u1N01 laafo.i suolleJadO 3aafoJ aaueualupw laafw llsue,nuolvodsueJl 'spa(' spook' it sw.11 )elaalJY Ieuolde aauelslssy Jarmo uolinglaluo3 1e40e3 V11Y3 Moa )4e uo►lonnsuo3 Ile dulJaauldu3 11E salpnn 1e13ao MOM sAeM46l uollanJlsuo3 Amp! Sulaaauldu3 Aen46l slaafoJd leraua (1a6a1 sapnlax3) sa3lnr2S ;0J saalnJaS Iddel leraua sll;auag q salJele S133fOdd/SNVk'90Nd N0I1Vk'1SININOV 1V10 sasuadx3 Uplin leraua anal eau; ( WW1 sapnlax3) saalnJas ;0J saalnJaS le6al leraua sll;auag q SalJelE NOI1Y111SININOY SWUM] M] S30N3A3N 1Y10 10'9f£'91£ sanuanak' Jayl 7£'£S0'091 amoau( lsaaalu OS'O7L'Sf£ uranog Jaylo q leaol alelS pa 00'661'997'h sanuanak' x91 sales Jail. 00'000'052'1. y arnseaN sanuanay xe1 sale S3nN3 • ONN uolld wsa 1VH3N39 1 60'029'1/6'1, 20'600'29 00'S62'L6f 66'e92'0W6f et'SL9'92L 9S'9SL'S9f'2 00'0 00'0 0S'9SL't9f1 0E1 O'965'1 00'2£1'220'1 99'te5'02L'L h6'f£1016'02 92'676'102'1 56'666'099'9 00'0 00'0 0£10'965'1 00'0 00'0 00'2£2'220'1 00'0 00'0 h6'£fe'hlb'OZ 64'2SL'Lf 00'0 25'620'6L0'1 7S'9£f'92 00'S62'L6f L2's49'29f'4 00'2fL'ZZO'L 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'2fL'220't 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 1L'SIS'1h9 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 1L'SIS't49 00'0 e1'592'LOS 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 f0'f06'h22 51.2e2'262 f6150'654 00'0 61191 00'0 00'0 00'0 fS'2L6'1 2S'215'902 69'50£'992 00's7l'£tt'S 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'f9£'81£'1 00'5911'1E6 00'0 00'006'290'Z LZ'ZSZ'S06'61 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 49'219'££L'S £9'6f9'lLL'h1 00'0 00'0 L91L9'SOL'1 00'0 ' 00'0 69'626'M 00'0 9614L'026 00'0 00'0 00'0 f5'est'sOs 00'0 00'0 OO'0 00'0 00'0 16'002'909 I£'Ofe'1 1£'611, 0011I£'0S1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 0011l£'051 00'206'91 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'206'h1 00'0 00'0 f0'Lef'610'2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 f0'Lef'616'2 00'0 00'0 £S'96e'122 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OL'I£9'f01 00'0 0'092'011 L4'996'06 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 19'092 S6'900'0L 16'009'02 5e'49£'f2f h6'002'0L 00'0 16'£90'fS2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 6L'L99'S99'f 4L'e96'S62 9f109'12£'2 OL'LS4'915 00'0 00'000'062 66'011f'bf 00'0 00'6L 9L'S14'614 05'01'291 Sf'656'2f 00'0 00'0 W 909'2 21'990'12 00'0 00'0 09'911'100'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 S7'6f7'SS SI'SL9'516 00'0 00'0 20'911'262 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 61'20e'1h 69'0h1'97 h6'211'h91 fl'SL6'191 00'0 99'410'11, 00'0 00'0 00'0 4619S1£1 Os'ff0'2 1L'L6£'L£ 21'1145'920 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 4L'269'h82 L£'h00'he LO1S1I'LSh s9'Lsb'ISL'l OO'0 OO'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 92'490'59 02'026'969'1 sf'fOL'609 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Of'9h2'f91 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 501186'9e5 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Of'46e'2S 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Sh'Se9'669 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 06'249'e16'99 LS'fLe'490'f 10'026'2/1'2 6£'2h1'106'£ 00'661'999', 2L'6h4'fLf'LS 9e'91,9'99 f£'hOS'f22'1 00'0 /0'419'99 00.0 00'0 00'0 Sd'L12'295 Sr ./W M £a' 1 se' e 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 11'05I'L2 Or t6L'6 6L'2hs'9I £9'S02't LL'9LA`0£ LZ'f£9'299 2S'L57'£SL 99'0L'69S Le'9L9'1S 89-0t7'657 Z2'256'L82 W 922'912'1 11S'OU'Ll0'h1 06'650'6fh'0h 6L'SZ2'LL0'116112£'0£S'9 00'0 00'f£6'L61'1 00'0 22'2S6'L82 L4'f6f'6L 1e'£f2'692 00.0 00.0 00.0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 LL'96h'Ilhl'f1 00'0 Lt'f16'fLS 02'£61'OSS'£ 00'0 S6'256'hi£'9£ 111101 113dVd N0113nHISN03 N011311u1SN03 33NV1SISSV A1NnO3 A1Nn03 ONINIONO3 1V13N3NN03 Aim= OVA3 11SNVN1 NN31SV3 10131S3M A1NnO3 NN31S3M - NN31S3M 31V1S 66/sl/SO 66/6I/50 66/81/50 :suw63 pOpid J01 66/Lf/f muu a SlVn13V 181110 uolsslumo3 uollelJodsueJl Aluno3 aplsJanly SO'Leh'966 L0'9f£'e1f L4'26£'he h£'fS0'091 LT 9S['9 05'07L'Sf£ 00'0 00'661'99h'h 00'0' 00'000'052'1 31VS/dS1 ONn1 1VN3N30 (sas0)sa3Jnos 6ulaueuli Ja410 SUn1ION3dX3 1V101 A• Nn0 l el lde3 uolingiAlso uJaANSAalui S133P0ud/SNVU9011d 1V101 suolingms10 Vls 6u1no1.1301.01d suolleJadO l0a(oJd aou•ualul•N 13g01d 11sueJ1\u011J0dsueJl 16136dS spool' ! s4aa11S )elJalJy 1•uol0ay ameislssy Jalne•103 uolinglJluo3 lelld•3 yaws LION 1 NN uollonJlsuo3 1!•u SupaaulBu3 lieu salpnlS 1•12ad5 n00 sA•Ny6111 u0l336J19u03 A•440111 sulJaaul6u3 A•Ny6IN 6166(0Jd )•Jau60 (laeal sapnpx3) 6031AJas ;oJd saolAJaS ls6al leJauaO s1l;auag ! s'IJOI•S S133f0Vd/SNVNOOud NOI1Vu1SININOV 1V101 sasuadx3 ulspV leJauaO 'seal Holm() (legal sapn13x3) saolAJaS 101d saolAJas 'NW 1•Jauas s1l;auas y salJel•S NOIIVNISININOV S3un11ON3dX3 S3nN3A3N 1V101 sanuaAay Ja410 mow' lsaaalul uJano9 Ja43o 9 1e301 a1e1S No1 sanuanay xel sales Jam y aJnseaN sanuanay xel sales S3nN3A3N uo13d1Josao LL 98£i095 96 £9'Z99'£66'Z a19 9Z£'65La9f 81e19250£a8 a £1'00'919'2 a L8'961'£92'£1 26'90L£t'9Z 19'619'9£1'2 02'565'926 £ a4sa a _ ___a s as ss a as s aaa_ sa ssasas 11'218'299'16 LL'299'S19'1 L9'011'911'61 '69'LVe/98'6 21'125'909'2 1r/19'699'21 £1'110'119'02 21'192'659'Z 92'992'618'1 (82'199'280'1) (91'002'199) (91'908'916'2) ( W 999'295'1) 19'969'152 99'LLL'£Lf 65'199'925'1 (69'129'921) 96'821'69 L9'0L9'620'92 00'0 12'255'918'1 10'196'162 00'0 90121'126'S L1'295'L66'11 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 L9'29L'61.1'12 00'0 12'251'919'1 10'186'162 00'0 90111'126'1 L1'61/.996'91 00'510'611 00'0 00'212'011'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'261'166 00'510'611 00'0 11,101 834Vd NO1170N1sN07 N01191)V1SN09 39NV1SISSV Amp) Al10103 3AVs/dsi (INN 99I2189103 W13832203 .A1Nfi09 OVA] 11SNVV1 N83LSV3 N831S311 1V113N39 A111(103 NM315311 ' N1131S3M 31V1S 66/91(50 66/B1/SO 66/91/S0 :BuIN] pOlJad J04 66/1£(1 mu Al sunny i81110 uolsslusso3 uolielJodsusJl Alunoo aplsJaAlB • Cr) 4 -4 r> O 866t 'tf aa4oa3a0 3322128 ONOi 8661 'l Al°f 3391,128 ONlli sash Bulaueuli aay40 puV saJnllpuadx3(iapuO)ian0 saaonos Pulaueuld Jay10 puV sanuana8 ;o( aualal;a0)ssaax3 sash sa3mlos 6uloueuli Ja430 1e101 slso3 aauanssl aalnJas lga0 ln0 sia;sued Bulleaa60 ul spa;sued Bulleaa60 uolld!Jssa0 r 8L018ZO'LLZ$ £TE'ZTL'EOT$ 06V'08010T$ 988' Ete 9$ T£0' 8901,T$ 680'LT9'OT$ OtE' LTZ' O.T+$ Ste LZ0'9T$ b08'9T9'8$ 8Z8'T9S'8T$ StZ'9961S£$ 065'909'L$ t9t•'£561Z$ T9t'£9Z$ S8L'6LS$ 08T'ZSZ$ OSL'OSi$ 96£'oZZ$ T8S'60T'T$ 666T'T£ imampq S89'OTO'E$ T99'LZT'T$ 6S£'969$ o$ Tte6£Z$ ItZ'Z$ 0$ Z8T'66ti$ L9£'494$ o$ t✓£8' T$ 0$ 0$ %6°86 %S"66 %0'OOT %0'OOT 80'66 89'66 %6'L6 %S'86 %0.00T %L°E6 %8'66 80'OOT %0'68 %0'OOT %0'OOT 80'OOT %0'OOT 80"OOT 80'OOT SZL aamaYna u03 alYa saoIonm 3o azeWnN bOTT ualuvna u03 an s300ud SROIOANI 3o aaavinN LZ01689'£T£$ ZT6'0691t+OT$ 86L1L9T'ZT$ 068'80b'8$ 656' 8Se ti$ 800'98S'OT$ TOS'96£'06$ L081S8b18T$ 606'££6'ST$ tSS'ZS818T$ 866'S9£'9£$ t+T6' £8Z' ZT$ Tt+9' TS6' E$ L90'6ET'Z$ LZO'V60'S$ 000'009'T$ 00S'bZ£'T$ 6Tb'9£6'T$ £Z9'ZTZ'S$ 666T' T£ HOuNEK NOIZYOO'I'IK alAta OZ num ZLYa os RCM %TIMM aMavna "mnY ZSNIYJY SSNZSLINHDD Imauva/saunSIamaaxH uo3 aanmIaN3ax3 amiwoo % avanbovumN00 6661 L£ HOUVIN ONIaN3 0011:13d 1110d3tI _mane Aitan no S103f'021d 11V21/AVMHOIH V 321(1Sd3W 0108 PIW TOZ'LT£$ ZTV'06T'SOT$ 86L'L9T'ZT$ 068'806'8$ 656'-106' 6T$ 800'Z£9'0T$ Z£8'ttZ'Tti$ 8581L9L'8T$ 6661££6'ST$ 8L0'STT'OZ$ 86618bt•'9E$ VT6'£8Z1ZT$ Z66'8L8'£$ L90'6£T'Z$ LZO'660'S$ 000'009'T$ 00S'tZ£'T$ 6Tt' 9£6' i$ £Z9'ZTZ'S$ NOIZYOUrri azziaomnm NOISSINKOO smV1Os riiva umnmoo SIOUd' SN30NI 4 3QIH-N-MUYa ' SOAS 9 NK'Id NEVII:10?Id SHJIAUZS ZNHfI'3 WMPI 10WOud HCOIDOlId'AOUdNEI WNYH0HZINI SS03POud STZ-I T6 mnou ssoaroxa TTT mnou 98 amnou 6L amnou TI L mnou 09 amnou (treoZ) - 00u0N 30 LIIO (uvo'1) - TInOH1111 30 XII0 (uvo'I) - e'DIK'I NOEtMO 30 MIO (treoZ) - OSNIoYr NTS 30 IWO Mewl) - SIMMI 3o 7CSI0 (treo'I) - YN0aoo 30 7CSI0 NOISaIaosaa soaroua Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and changes in Fund balances- General, Special Revenue and Capital Projects Funds Budget Variance explanations For nine months ending March 31, 1999 REVENUES Federal, State, Local and other Governments Revenues Billings for the south side platform were still outstanding as of March 31. Subsequent to the end of the quarter the Commission received over $2 million in receipts for the south side platform. Other Revenues CVAG billing for TUMF share of debt service($1.4 million) is not billed till May and is usually received in June. DMV fees are paid two months in arrears by the state. State transit assistance is paid three months in arrears by the state. CETAP billings have not yet been processed pending finalization of the contract with the state. EXPENDITURES General Legal Svcs Third quarter legal billing received subsequent to quarter end. Highway Engineering Santa Fe Depot expenses for approx $50,000 to be applied in next FY. City of Riverside has not yet billed $750,000 for the Van Buren interchange design. Greiner currently working on Phase II approximatley $500,000 is anticipated to be billed by the end of the fiscal year. A number of invoices are expected from projects in the Coachella Valley by June 30, 1999. Highway ROW nn, Route 74 appraisal and support services is anticipated to be billed by June. Special Studies (d. CETAP environmental study budgeted for $200,000. Most of these costs will carry over to fiscal year 2000. Regional Arterial Expectations are approximately $1.4 million of expenses to be billed in the 4th Qtr. Remaining projects to be carried over to FY 2000. Project Operations/Towing Pending invoices from SANBAG and CHP for callbox and FSP support services. 000131 STA Distributions A number of claimants have not yet filed their 1999 claims. Any based on capital needs may carry over to FY2000. It is not anticipated that rail will make any claims for the current year. 0001K, Revised Attachment AGENDA ITEM 6R PAGE 124 Quarterly Financials AGENDA ITEM 6R Description REVENUES Sales Tax Revenues Measure A Other Sales Tax Revenues Fed State Local & Other Govern Interest Income Other Revenues TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES ADMINISTRATION Salaries & Benefits General Legal Services Prof Services (Excludes Legal) Office Lease General Admin Expenses TOTAL ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Salaries & Benefits General Legal Services Prof Services (Excludes Legal) General Projects Highway Engineering Highway Construction Highways ROW Special Studies Rail Engineering Rail Construction Rail ROW SCRRA Capital Contribution Commuter Assistance Regional Arterial Streets & Roads Special Transportion\Transit Project Maintenance Project Operations Project Towing STA Distributions TOTAL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS Intergovern Distribution Capital Outlay TOTAL EXPENDITURES Other Financing Sources(Uses) Riverside County Transportation Commission BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-3rd Qtr For Period Ending: 03/31/99 05/24/99 REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION 68,500,001.00 51,313,449.72 5,448,179.00 4,466,199.00 6,969,920.00 3,901,142.38 3,060,565.00 2,172,978.01 6,642,989.00 3,064,873.87 90,621,654.00 64,918,642.98 17,186,551.28 981,980.00 3,068,777.62 887,586.99 3,578,115.13 74.91 81.97 55.97 70.99 46.13 25,703,011.02 71.63 606,214.00 489,485.45 116,728.55 80.74 92,500.00 52,884.30 39,615.70 57.17 865,020.00 586,588.05 278,431.95 67.81 220,000.00 163,246.30 56,753.70 74.20 716,960.00 489,783.38 227,176.62 68.31 2,500,694.00 1,781,987.48 718,706.52 71.25 1,311,656.00 826,548.12 485,107.88 63.01 232,500.00 181,978.13 50,521.87 78.27 598,650.00 252,116.02 346,533.98 42.11 1,693,900.00 1,001,114.60 692,785.40 59.10 1,877,738.00 419,415.76 1,458,322.24 22.33 5,048,000.00 3,465,467.79 1,582,532.21 68.65 758,188.00 323,344.85 434,843.15 42.64 250,000.00 90,966.47 159,033.53 36.38 266,539.00 221,894.53 44,644.47 83.25 3,506,300.00 2,819,387.03 686,912.97 80.40 22,352.00 14,902.00 7,450.00 66.66 1,150,000.00 150,318.00 999,682.00 13.07 1,378,920.00 808,158.53 570,761.47 58.60 10,068,505.00 1,705,671.67 8,362,833.33 16.94 26,579,715.00 19,905,252.27 6,674,462.73 74.88 5,915,461.00 5,113,148.00 802,313.00 86.43 550,094.00 459,051.93 91,042.07 83.44 1,129,787.00 507,265.18 622,521.82 44.89 657,800.00 441,515.71 216,284.29 67.12 2,186,116.00 1,022,732.00 1,163,384.00 46.78 65,182,221.00 39,730,248.59 25,451,972.41 60.95 397,295.00 397,295.00 0.00 100.00 93,221.00 62,089.02 31,131.98 66.60 68,173,431.00 41,971,620.09 26,201,810.91 61.56 aTRAF AGENDA ITEM 6R Description Operating Transfers In Operating Transfers Out Debt Service Issuance Costs Total Other Financing Sources Uses Excess(Deficiency)of Revenues And Other Financing Sources Over(Under)Expenditures And Other Financing Uses FUND BALANCE July 1, 1998 FUND BALANCE March 31, 1999 Riverside County Transportation Commission BUDGET VERSUS ACTUALS-3rd Qtr For Period Ending: 03/31/99 05/24/99 REMAINING PERCENT BUDGET ACTUALS BALANCE UTILIZATION 688,715.00 1,150,272.00 (461,557.00) 167.01 31,067,628.00 25,179,742.67 5,887,885.33 81.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,378,913.00 24,029,470.67 (7,930,690.00) (1,082,447.78) 95,642,832.55 95,642,832.55 87,712,142.55 94,560,384.77 6,349,442.33 79.09 (6,848,242.22) 13.64 0.00 100.00 (6,848,242.22) 107.80 OTRAF 60'0Z9'LL6'L7 9L"51,7'92L 95'9SL'S9£'2 0£15h'9SS'L 00'2£L'ZZO'L 99'195'0ZL'L 20'620'29 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'S62'L6£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 6512h2'0EL'6£ 91'51h'BZL 9S'95L'59£'2 0£'LSh'9S5'l 00'2EL'220'1 99195'OZL'L h6'££9'h16'0Z 92'6h9'102'1 56'666'09h'9 00'0 9h'252'1£ hS'9££'72 00'0 00'0 00'562'L6£ h6'£f9'h16'02 ZS'620'6L0'L 12'94h'2h£'h 00'2EL'220'1, 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'2EL'220'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 11'515'1h, 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00"0 1L"St5'171 00'0 91'S9Z'105 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £0'£06'h22 Sl'Z92'292 £6'150.60 00'0 6L'LBL 00'0 00'0 00'0 £5'ZL6'l 2S'ZLS'90Z 69'59£'912 00'97L'£tt'S 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'L9f'91£'L 00'590'1E6 00'0 00'006'292'2 L2'Z52'506'61 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 h9'ZL9'££L'S £9'629'LLL'71 00'0 00'0 L9149'50/.1 00'0 00'0 69'626'h9L 00'0 96'the026 00'0 00'0 00'0 £S1151'800 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 L6'202'909 1£'0£9'L 1£'611 00.91£'ost 00.0 00.0 00'0 00.0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'91£'0S1 00'206./1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'206'h1 00'0 00'0 f0'L9£'619'2 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £0'L9f'619'2 00'0 00'0 fS'h69'122 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Ot'LE9'£01 00'0 fh'£9Z'911 Lh'996'06 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 L9'992 S61900'02 L6'929'0Z 52'hh£'EZf hb'092'0L 00'0 l6'£90'ESZ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 61'L91'59h'f hL'9h6'SbZ 9£1.09'12£'2 OL'LSh'9LS 00'0 00'000.06Z 66'09£'6£ 00'0 00'6L 9L'SLh'61.h OS'S01'29£ Sf'656'2f 00'0 00'0 6L'/Oh'2 21'990'12 00'0 00'0 09'111'100'1 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Sh'6Sh'SS St'SL9'06 00'0 00'0 20'94 '252 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 61'200'1, 69'0hl'9h 96'2LL'99t £111L6'191. 00'0 99'hL0'LL 00'0 00'0 00'0 961h5'LEL 09'£f0'Z LL'L9E'LL ZL'9hS'9Z9 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 1L'269'h92 l£'h00'99 [0150'20 9h'L96'192'l 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 92'L90'S2 02'026'969'1 9£'Re69h 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OF'972'£91 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 S0'005'995 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 O£'h99'ZS 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Sh'S9h'69h 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 LL'OSL'LZ LZ'£E9'Z9h 00'0 9L'h6L'6 2S1Sh'£S1 00'0 61'279'91 92'57e695 00'0 £h'S02'1 L9'9L9'15 00'0 21'hL0'0£ 99'OLh'60 96'Zh9111.6'79 99'h19'99 ££'h05'£ZZ'L 22'2S6'L02 17'922'9LZ'1 05'0W/10'11 06'650'6£h'Oh 6L'S22'LL0'1, 16112£'0£5'9 L9'£20'h90'£ 00'0 Sr/12'29S 00'0 00'££9'L61'1 1013L6'2LL'2 h9'h19'99 SL'hfh'259 22'2S6'L92 Lh'f6£'9L 9£'2h1'106'£ 00'0 0'150'9 00'0 00'0 00'661'99h'h 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 ZL"61h'£Lf'LS 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 L9'Lte 69Z 00'0 00'0 LL'96h'BhL'£L 00'0 SO'L9h'996 L0'9££'9tE LL'EL6'£LS L7'29079 W ES0'09l 9L'£6L'OSS'£ LZ'95£'9 OS'O/L'S££ 00'0 00'0 00'661'999'h 56'256.'11'9f 00'0 00'000'052'1 1Y101 Y3dYd N0117ny1SN03 N0117ny1SN03 332Y1SISSY ALNf103 A114103 3JVS/dSi ONni 9NIN19NO3 WI0y3WN03 A1Nno3 9YA7 lISNYNl NN31SY3 MASSN 11013N30 A1NnO3 2431S3N 243133A 31212 66/h2/SO 66/11/£0 :6u1pu3 pepad aoi CNN A9 slYnloY 66/ i9y10 u0lssluu00 laodsueal Aluno7 aN saaAly (saSn)saoanos 6u1oueuli ua410 S3Nf1110N3dX3 WW1 Ae 1ln0 1e11de0 uotlncipls10 uaan06a84u1 5133f04d/SNY4904d 1Y101 suot3ng1J3st0 Y1s Bulnol loafoad suolleaad0 loafoad aoueualuteN loa Load 7lsueAnuol3aodsueal lepads speoy g slaaals lelualAy leuolBay amelstssy aalnuuas uolinglaluos lellde3 Y11435 Noy 1194 uollonalsuo7 Hey Bulaaaupu3 'ley salpn3S leloads ►l0y sAen4614 uollona3suo3 Aen461N Bulaaauleu3 Aen46111 shafoad leaauag (lebal sapnlox3) saolnaas ;oad saotAaa$ le6al leaaua3 sll;auag g.salaeles S173road/massoyd . NOIIYBISININOY 12101 sasuadx3 ulupv leaaua0 &seal 231;10 (1e6a1 sepnloxl) saotnaas 30ad saatAaaS label leaaua0 sll;auag g sala91es N011YN1►ININOY 2321111043dX3 231413A36 1V101 sanuanay uag10 =owl lsaaalul uaan0g aaglo g leool a3e14 Pai sanuanay xel sales aatl70 Y aanseaN sanuanay xe1 sales S3nN3A3N uolldlaosa0 219 ► VaN3DV W 79039076 £h'2h9'£66'2 th'92£'6SL'9£ 85'£92'SO£'B £L'L90'859'Z LB'hbl'£hZ'£l 26'hL9'L£L'hZ f9'619'h££'2 OZ'565'826'£ 9661 '1£ Jagwe300 37NV1V8 ONni 55'Z£9'2h9'56 LL'Zhh'SS9'£ L8'0£1'911'6£ 69'Lle298'6 2£'£LS'h09'2 2'1.0'698 21 £f110'119'0Z ZL'£he6Sh'Z tr992'658'£ 9661 '1 Alnp 37NTIVe ONni MLIC (91'Lhh'Z80'l) lh£'OOB'199) 0,7'108 956'Z) (11'h81'295'0 1h'h67£SZ 99'LLL'fL£ 65'£99'92S'£ (6h'£29'hZ0 96'62£'69 sasn 9ulaueuli ua430 putl saAnllpuadx3(Aapun)uan0 saoAnos 6uloueuli ua410 PuV sanuanaa ;o(Aoualol;a0)ssa3x3 19'0Lh'620'hZ 00'0 LZ'ZSS'h18'1 £0'586'£62 00'0 9012£'£26'S 1£'Z9S'L66'81 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 L9'ZhL'6Lt'S2 00'0 LZ'Z55'ht8't £0'586'£6Z 00'0 901L£'£26'S L£'6SL'886'9L 00'SLO'6S1 00'0 00'2LZ'OSL'l 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'L61'166 00'5L0'651. 00'0 1V101 83dtld 801171181SN07 N0117n111sN07 37NV1SISSV ADV107 A1N1107 34VS/dS1 ON11i W11818803 1V1383141407 A1N(107 OVA7 11SNV81 NN31SV3 8831S3M 11183830 A1N1107 8831S3M 883183M 31V1S 66/VVS0 66/1£/£0 :eulpu3 popad Aai 66/1£/£ ow A8 slVn17V 66/VVS0 18810 uolsslewo7 uollelAodsueal Aluno7 aplsJanla sasn saoAnos Bupueuli Aa430 18101 slso7 aouensst aavoas Anon Ann sua;sueAl 6t43euad0 ul sra;sueAl 6ulleAsd0 uatldlAosa0 219 WILI V(11‘1:40V RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Single Signature Authority Report Through April 30, 1999, contracts were executed under single signature authority granted to the Executive Director by the Commission. Remaining was $369,775.62 unused capacity. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. 003135 9601sumdP1luudeidlsiesnvi •91'8L0'rE EZ'81,1'86 8E'4ZZ'OEI 111101 srin's srsts's 1,r>r'1'01, 00'00811 owo woos's& 'slug awls ued a uo pepeau se saaliues Jew 40 6w;un000e WJO;Ied Ol soAoldula;oisnuoa *um uopesuedwoa pue uopeayissela s uuoja.id of **woos Ouginsuoa •uoiilsinboe MOM poi iesleidde Jo; ioedwi lepuelod 1P6•S80'0t 90149U 00'006' I swepAs nudes 'yL MS seoyues Oullinsuo0 Poi ePIM V >Ned 00'0 00'000'SL 00'000'SI ssed uoe0id 10; semseeyy uolleBOM ilwwns 00 0 00 000 L 00'000'L GNAW elolyeA lend enoewesy uounquluo0 'uoile;s eu0,00 .M oo:ooc 00 009 £I 00f006'£t le iuewened uogomsuo0 •uoiieis euoro0•M 00.0 S8 £IO'£ S8•£LO'E ey; Jo; sseuislp iuewened geoluyoeloe0 00'0 00.000'S 00.000'S 6661. Jo; sen0 d14siegweyy •weiBwd .epw weel, luewumpe;ue pue 00'0 00.000'0 L 00.000'0 t s;ueme;sei 10; seol ves pelunoosip ePOold wei0oid Gwent sseueni;oeu3 pue Pt 991,'l 86.666'6 ZL•99b'LL Aoueloy3 ,sioleJedO ilsuesl;o luawdolene0 gels 0101:1 s6ulleew do mom g yeis meu;o sd14suopelei 'em;onu;s leuoi;eziuebio LZ•ZZZ'E 6L LLL'9t 00'000'0Z and 'Fenms eetteldwe OlOM Jo; iuesnsuo0 30NV1V8 1Nf10WV 1Nf10WV S301A0A3S d0 ONINIVI9Mi 030N3dX3 10V211N00 NOIldINOS30. Mt 'OE 112IdV d0 SV A11MOH111V 3M(11VNOIS 310NIS 2130N1103ZIMOH1f1V S10VM1N00 •lady pua 140101N 101 sioalluop neau 141.1e5048J ewe MIKIS ;*1011 Aq pemelne Aq paedeid Z9'9lL'69£ 6661 'OE eunr f121H1 ONINIVI93H 1NfIOWd 00'000'009 8681 'I AInf 318V1IVA1/ 1NfIOWV eARIMV ilggqa 'oul's1lo11nloS 14041015eUIPW anllea,l0 •oui 'sem;ueA 8uueeui6u3 (aOMOM) puism uoliemesuo0 eomoseM euao0-episieniu seleloossy g uleispen uouoniisuo0 xlueoyd p3 dsueil Jo; pund elwo;lle0 .out 'Joiue0 BulsnsuoO ellen° se;eioossy g s14;epy 1NV1lfISN00 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: GFOA Distinguished Budget Award The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) was established in 1984. It recognizes those agencies which prepare budgets that are considered exemplary. The budgets are evaluated using a comprehensive list of standards whereby the document must meet program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan and as a communication device. Once again, the Commission's 1998/99 Budget was submitted to GFOA and we were awarded the "Distinguished Budget Presentation". The award is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting. The attainment of this award represents a significant achievement by our organization, as the staff works together in a joint effort each year to present a comprehensive document of this type. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission receive and file. 000135 666T 'OE TTzd'd ve-ev 4,5901 ama iotaar p anrynaaxd 'spivpuvts uiv48ofd aiaw) of pa8pnf an, sia8pnq asoym spun suawulano8 asoyt of paluasaid s '8uua8pnq /muaumI7n08 pmnly lsay8ry aye s! ?pup% 'ptv w y uogvnuas»d 7a8pn8 paysre8uysla ay •pmmd mom:tiasa-id fa8pn8 paysrn8uysla v 8ufeaty3v nun viaueuano8 nays u! imaunusut uaaq anvy oym sp upwput asoy' uo!wpossd siaa!ijo a3uvuld waumiaeoo ayl 4 panas-add r! uoytuvda d la8pn8 iof uomu8o3ad fo ama fluad ata eTuzo;TTeD 'uoisszutuop uoTgegzodsuelI,Aqunoo epTszaApi buTqun000y pus aoueuTa : o1 NOI.LV?Iidalld .LHOQIIS 1I0d NOI.LIN90332I AO HEV3IALLIIHD s to mosaad uputreD pue saims pmun alp 3o uopepossy snow° aourtm mamma/too atu, RIVERS/DE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Dean Martin, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Proposed FY1999/2000 Budget Staff is pleased to submit herewith the Proposed Budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2000. The changes from the Draft 1999/00 Budget are noted below. Since the Budget document is so extensive and was reviewed by the Budget and Implementation Committee, and for facilitation of agenda preparation, staff has only included the Executive Summary. The remaining sections of the budget, namely Personnel, Revenues, Debt, Department/Program budgets and Fund budgets, which include all the requisite detail, will be available at the meeting. The 1999/00 Proposed Budget is as follows: Revenues $100,452,201 Personnel salary and fringe benefits $ 2,206,299 Professional $ 1,991,056 Support $ 1,649,270 Projects and Operations $ 73,588,055 Capital Outlay $ 86,000 Operating Transfers $ 30,600,225 Contingency $ 1,600,000 Total Expenditures $111,720,806 Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance $ 86,586,845 $ 75,318,140 000137 Changes from the Draft 1999/00 Budget Engineering costs have increased $664,915 for Route 74($164,915) and the San Jacinto Branch Line for preliminary engineering and environmental clearance 0500,000). Construction and right of way costs have increased $7,332,102 for additional soundwalls on Route 91($3,225,000), and final design and right of way appraisals and acquisitions for the Van Buren interchange 02,653,762), Phase II. Additional rail construction projects include ADA accessability ramp at the southside platform ($200,000) and increased costs for the La Sierra and West Corona overcrossings 0925,000). Capital outlay was increased by $30,000 to cover the costs of a clean fuel vehicle and a new postage machine. Finally, the contingency was increased by S98,000 to meet the Commission's requirement that the budget include a contingency equal to two percent of expenditures (less debt service). Revenues were slightly increased to reflect the additional matching funds to be received by the Commission as a result of the increased project costs. BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the Proposed Budget for fiscal year ending June 30, 2000. moo verside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue Suite 100 • Riverside, California 92501 phone: (909)787-7141 • fax: (909)787--7920 • www.retc.org June 2,1999 Honorable Board of Commissioners Riverside County Transportation Commission Riverside, California Fiscal year 1999-2000 could well be termed the year of renewal. The Commission will be facing less than ten remaining years of Measure A, the half cent sales tax that transformed the Commission from a small, little known agency into the multi -million dollar transportation authority it is today. Where does it go from here? Efforts are already under way to address that question, and they will be intensified as fiscal year 2000 proceeds. The Commission's thirty members have the opportunity to forge a countywide transportation plan that will serve as the blueprint for the beginning of the 21 a2 century. The Board has demonstrated its determination to tackle the challenges facing Riverside County, and that it intends to proactively and aggressively seek solutions for improvements to the county's transportation infrastructure. LOOKING TO MEASURE A AND BEYOND The fiscal year budgeted expenditures of $111,720,906 continues the Commission's firm commitment to the completion of Measure A while embarking on new endeavors to meet the ever growing needs of Riverside County and to address issues confronting the County for the 21 st century. Measure A initiatives include improvements to Routes 74, 79, 91, and 111 with expenditures of over $16.5 million. The budget continues to leverage its Measure A investment in commuter rail. State and federal monies have been awarded to fund the more than $7.8 million in FY2000 expenditures on track and station improvements for the San Jacinto Branch Line, and the La Sierra, West Corona, and Pedley station sites. Though maintaining existing commitments, the Commission has sought to be responsive to the infrastructure needs in the County. The Commission is a major participant in an innovative and ground breaking program for developing new transportation corridors. This new undertaking, termed the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP), seeks to unite all interested and affected stakeholders in an inclusive review and determination of potential new transportation corridors. The budget has allocated over $1.7 million to this effort in staff time and consultant studies. The CETAP effort dovetails with the Commission's strategic planning process. Initiated in FY99 with Phase I of the Plan, Phase II will be dedicated to analyzing future needs for the entire county and ascertaining available resources. Potential new revenue sources will be examined and a range of projects identified. 0 0139 BUILDING A REGIONAL APPROACH The importance of regional cooperation and coordinated approaches to building transportation solutions has never been greater. In recognition of that reality, additional resources and staffing have been assigned in FY2000. An entire program area, Regional Issues, has been created along with a management level staff person (actually created in FY99), the Director of Communications and Regional Issues, to provide an intensified focus on partnering•relationships and devising joint strategies for addressing regional issues. Resources totaling more than a quarter million dollars have been identified in the, budget to fund this program area. Additionally, the_efforts of other management and professional staff will be heightened to build upon improved working relationships with the Commission's local and regional partners and to arrive at solutions based on a broad consensus. A prime example of the Commission's commitment to working closely with its partners to achieve common goals is the unique effort between the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and the Commission. Embarked upon in the FY 1998/99 budget, the Commission and SANBAG will continue to share a staff member to oversee the state and federal legislative agendas of the two agencies. This arrangement has proven successful in carrying a united message to state and federal lawmakers. It has further served to increase the influence of the Inland Empire in the formation of legislation beneficial to the region. Although not the primary focus of this shared effort, both agencies expect to reap the benefits of reduced costs while attaining greater legislative effectiveness. ACHIEVING AND COMMUNICATING RESULTS This budget reflects a stronger emphasis on training and development. A directed and organized approach to improving the skills of employees through formalized training will be instituted. Recognizing that the historical results and performance of the Commission can only be' maintained. with motivated, dedicated, and well trained staff, two management staff members will coordinate and facilitate a comprehensive staff training program. Managers will attend classes designed to sharpen their leadership skills. Support staff will be given specialized training in spreadsheet and graphic design software to improve their skill level and the quality of their support. Communicating to others what the Commission has accomplished and what it plans to do is a high priority for the 2000 fiscal year and the years to come. The Commission can be proud of its record and the public, other agencies, and policy makers will be kept continually informed on Commission activities and accomplishments. A Public Information Officer will be hired shortly after the beginning of the new fiscal year and will be responsible for the establishment of a 0 .11 4rr) media relations program. Various forms of media will be used to communicate to the public what the Commission does and its value to the County. This educational process will be a critical element in fostering public support for the Commission's programs and, its future endeavors. GFOA Distinguished .Budget Award The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) presented an award of Distinguished Budget Presentation of the Riverside County Transportation Commission for its annual budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1998. In order to receive this award, a governmental unit must publish a budget document that meets program criteria as a policy document, as an operations guide, as a financial plan and as a communication device. The award is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current budget continues to conform to program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another award. Acknowledgments A new direction for budget preparation and completion invigorated all staff to achieve greater accountability and involvement in the process. Staff, to create a budget that presents its vision and goals in a comprehensive and straightforward manner, devoted many long hours and late nights. Staff appreciates the leadership of the Commissioners and the sense of renewal they have inspired. Eric Haley Dean Martin Executive Director Chief Financial Officer 000141 PROPOSED RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OU0142 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 060143 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Proposed Budget for fiscal year 1999/2000 is herewith presented to the Board of Commissioners and the citizens of Riverside County. The organization of the budget has changed from prior year budgets to place a greater emphasis on department and program functions. The discussion in each department/program area has been revised to now include a review of major initiatives and key assumptions. Though the budget is a very comprehensive document, staff believes its value and usefulness to readers has been enhanced by these changes. In addition to the Commission's long term goals and strategic plan, the short term factors listed below were used to guide the development of the Proposed Budget: Operational • Encourage greater department involvement in budget development and accountability for budget performance. • Continue the Commission tradition of a relatively small staff, understanding relative in the context of need. • Improve on the skills and training of all levels of staff. • Improve communication with Commissioners and educate policy makers on all issues of importance to the Commission. Financial • Maintain administrative costs below the policy threshold of 4%. As part of that effort, the manner in which project versus administrative costs were classified has been changed to reflect only what is truly administrative and to ensure full costing of project and program requirements. • Continue to maintain prudent reserves to provide some level of insulation for unplanned expenditures. • Use the sales tax revenue projections as reviewed by Ernst & Young LLP. to predict the available sales tax revenues. • Look for opportunities, funding sources, and innovative approaches to address County needs that extend beyond Measure A. • • Move forward on Measure A projects for highways and regional arterial using both sales tax revenues and state and federal funding. Leverage and protect the past Measure A investments in rail to obtain state and federal funding for additional rail improvements. Budget Overview Total revenues are budgeted at $100,452,201.Total projected remaining fund balance at June 30, 1999 available for expenditures, (exclusive of debt service reserves of $23,827,487, loans receivables for $14,774,221, and prepaid lease for $1,026,372) is $41,569,809. Total funding sources amount to $142,022,010. All revenue categories, with the exception of Other Revenues (down .3%) are budgeted at higher amounts than the prior year. The increase In Measure A sales tax revenue is indicative of the strength exhibited in the Riverside County economy. Reimbursements are up, principally from federal sources, to fund rail capital (Measure A revenues are not available for rail operations or capital projects). QU0144 SOURCES OF REVENUE: Operating Revenues: Sales Tax Revenues Reimbursements Other Revenue Investment Income Total Operating Revenues 61,114,739 62,986,334 68,817,656 73,948,179 80,642,263 6,694,084 9.1% 7,754,264 5,470,049 9,539,357 6,969,920 9,508,645 2,538,725 36.4% 5,429,505 5,570,150 5,590,508 6,642,989 6.623,129 (19,860) (0.3)14. 7,260,013 6.030,161 5,004,028 3,060,565 3,678,164 617,599 21.0% 81,558,521 80.056,694 88,951,549 90,621,653 100,452,201 9,830.548 10.8% 120,000,000 100,000,000 80,000,000 60,000,000 40,000,000 20,000,000 0 1996 1997 Commission Revenue Trend 1996-2000 1998 1999 2000 O Investment ❑ Other ■ Reimbursements ©Sales Tax Explanatory Note: The general expenditure explanations relate to the Budget Summary By Line Item. Total expenditures are budgeted at $111,720,906; an increase of 11.7% over the prior year revised budget amount of $100,027,639. Administrative costs are budgeted at $2,558,207, program expenditures total $78,582,475, and $30,580,224 has been reserved for the payment of debt service. Project costs have increased 14.2% from $63,436,710 to $73,588,055. The increase is a result of increased highway expenditures, particularly for Route 74, rail station construction projects, and Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) studies. The increase in expenditures is partially offset by a decline in the regional arterial expenditures. The decline is a function of depleted reserves (i.e., bond funds have been exhausted). 063145 Program Expenditure Comparative 1996-2000 1996 1997 1998 1999 (est) 2000(proj) Highway 15,298,196 20,208,833 11,410,318 9,377,826 18,040,443 Commuter Rail 10,387,335 6,455,881 11,144,126 8,872,919 14,165,234 Regional Arterial 24,724,467 23,115,405 21,035,529 10,068,505 4,230,599 Streets 8 Roads RR 21,310,988 22,240,185 24,382;462 26,579,715 28,172,108 Commuter Assistance 1,132,286 1,101,415 1,312,435 1,604,970 1,709,730 Special Transportation 3,794,912 4,001,072 5,125,364 5,273,262 5,759,782 Motorist Assistance 1,405,172 1,741,382 1,519,114 1,543,880 1,988,950 Other 3,558,641 3,447,602 3,929,372 6,354,345 7,073,835 Debt 25,327,762 25,208 531 74,344,388 30,352,217 30,580,224 Total 106,939,759 107,520,306 _ 154,203,108 100,027,639 111,720,905 Note: Other includes Management Services, Finance, Planning/Programming and Regional Issues Commission Personnel: The Commission's salary and fringe benefits totals $2,206,299. The increase of 15.5% over the 1999 budget estimate of $1,917,861 is for the following reasons: Cost of living adjustment Staff additions Merit increases Executive compensation adjustment Estimated health premium increase Vacation/Sick leave cash buyout Other benefit adjustments Total $ 25,748 117,690 11,396 8,000 11,442 41,335 72,827 $288,438 ®1111111= Staff Summary by Department for FY 1998 to FY 2000-Full Time Equivalent (FTE DEPARTMENT FY 1998 FTE FY 1999 FTE FY 2000 FTE Executive Management 1.58 1.84 2.07 Administration 1.91 2.51 3.90 Finance 3.28 2.70 3.84 Capital Development 8 Delivery 1.53 2.24 2.03 Plans 8 Programs 3.53 • 5.99 4.68 Regional Issues 0.00 0.00 1.30 Special Transportation .56 2.15 .65 Rail Program 1.80 3.66 2.95 Commuter Assistance 1.30 .76 1.20 ` Motorist Assistance 1.63 .95 1.18 Total 17.12 22.80 23.80 QUJ146 Department Initiatives Executive Management Speaking in public forums on Commission accomplishments in preparation for possible expansion/extension of Measure A. Regular one on one meetings with the Commissioners improve staff training and development Pursue other collaborative endeavors with regional partners, such as SANBAG, including exploring the possibility of shared legislative consultants. Continue to build on improved relationships with regional and local partners. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total -Throug 6/30/97 $ 160,083 95,316 6f30i'9$ uti 423,205 190,936 101,834 79,000 233,287 401,356 1 81,652 42,351 322,356 81,652 22.2% 184.5% 100.0% $ 255,399 $ . 525,039 $ 269,936 $ 716,295 $ 446,359 165.4% Administration An extensive educational program, in the form of workshops and informational materials, is planned for the Board of Commissioners A formalized training and development program will be initiated for all staff. A comprehensive review of position classifications and personnel policies will be completed by staff, with the assistance of an outside consultant. Position responsibilities and salary ranges may be adjusted accordingly. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total 6/30/97 > 6/30198 Bvifge $ 165,089 162,553 266,982 369,643 217,363 308,021 344,720 189,200 $ 252,226 $ 276,349 $ 233,325 $ 261,150 102,661 (155,520) 27,825 38.5% (45.1)% 11.9% $ 634,678 $ 746,923 $ 845,027 $ 819,993 $ (25,034) 3.0% 1 includes legislative contract with SANBAG for $103, 000, which, in prior years, was included in administration. Also, set asides for the Executive - - Director's single signature has been budgeted at $100,000. 0347 Finance and Accounting (2) It is anticipated that accounting services will continue to be provided to the Western Riverside Council of Governments. Continued emphasis on a comprehensive approach to budgeting (i.e., full department/program staff accountability) will continue to be emphasized along with improved management reporting. Development of Phase II of the Commission's Strategic Plan. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total $ 254,490 456,554 158,870 275,351 140,382 329,360 188,978 134.6% 485,510 ' 678,100 736,000 57,900 8.5% 148,349 49,744 165,307 115,563 232.3% $ 869,914 $ 909,210 $ 868,226 $1,230,667 $ 362,441 41.7% Planning and Programming CETAP study will be managed byte Director of Planning and Programming, along with the County of Riverside. Staff will participate with SCAG in the annual update to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). North/south corridor study will be performed along with SANBAG and the City of Fontana. Congestion Management Plan will be updated by December 1999. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total :teal Throug h 6/30/97 $ 256,229 130,421 121,266 1,574,678 6/3t)19$< 232,251 147,943 124,876 1,883,153 udget 472,329 266,500 179,591 2,808,411 432,644 121,500 279,675 4,644,275 (39,685) (8.4)% (145,000) (54.4)% 100,084 55.7% 1,835,864 65.4% $ 2,082,594 $ 2,388,223 $ 3,726,831 $ 5,478,094 $ 1,751,263 47.0% 2 Property. Management, as well as transit staffing function, has now been included. OU0148 Rail Program Staff will play an active role in the development of a statewide, high-speed passenger rail system, including routing of the backbone corridor through the Inland Empire. The Commission's current efforts include seeking capital and operating funds and participation with seven other Southern California counties on the Interim Joint Powers Board considering intercity rail administration. Extension of the Pedley station platform. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total $ 49,839 200,182 23,589 2,687,200 123,681 261,382 247,787 (13,595) 130,016 141,500 150,000 8,500 177,581 399,390 421,314 21,924 3,419,013 3,468,650 3,933,000 464,350 13.4% 5.5% $ 2,960,810 $ 3,850,291 $ 4,270,922 $ 4,752,100 $ 481,179 11.3% Regional Issues Route 91 toll lane study. Participation in LAX expansion discussion. Analyze Routes 71/91 improvement study for possible implementation. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total $ 127,941 33,000 81,506 25,000 an 127,941 33,000 81,506 25,000 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% $ 267,447 $ 267,447 100.0% Capital Projects Development and Delivery Construction of improvements along Route 111 at San Pablo, Monterey Avenue and Portola in the City of Palm Desert, Monroe to Rubidoux in the City of Indio will perform right of way support and acquisition and construction activities. Design and construction of soundwalls and auxiliary lanes along Route 91. Construction of passenger crossover bridges at the La Sierra and West Corona rail stations. Construction of passenger crossover bridges at the La Sierra and West Corona rail stations. Track improvements along the San Jacinto subdivision to facilitate freight movement and for future commuter rail line. _ Installation of a security system at the Pedley rail station. Rehabilitation of the historic Santa Fe Depot in Downtown Riverside. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operation Total Estimate .................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... . ...................... 6/30/97 6130/98 Budget $ 312,591 149,685 222,712 778,330 220,133 279,000 147,938 242,948 295,227 67,179,329 63,624,281 50,996,237 201,510 242,500 120,495 58,643,779 ange :: (21,201) (9.5)% (36,500) (13.1)% (174,732) (59.2)% 7,647,542 15.0% $ 68,418,188 $64,237,047 $51,793,176 $59,208,284 $ 7,415,108 14.3% Special Transportation (Para -transit) Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total 6f30/97 8f30(98 Budget $ 72,012 43,265 73,170 55,949 3,500 2,500 34,082 19,813 31,085 34,268 Z703,313 3,567,642 3,052,561 3,271,399 (17,221) (1,000) 3,183 218,838 ante (23.5)% (28.6)% 10.2% 7.2% $ 2,809,407 $ 3,630,720 $ 3,160,316 $ 3,364,116 $ 203,800 6.40/o • Commuter Assistance The Commission will continue operating its core rideshare programs, namely, Advantage Rideshare, Club Ride, the Commuter Exchange, and buspool subsidies. Inland Empire Commuter Services will continue to be managed by the Commission to support voluntary employer programs aimed at encouraging employees to rideshare. Carryover SB836 funding will be used to fund supplemental programs, which includes a State Route 60 Corridor Campaign to encourage use of the new High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, and the 1-10 Commute Reduction Project, a construction impact mitigation project targeted to small employers in a designated corridor within San Bernardino County and Customized Employee Rideshare Services supporting voluntary rideshare for employers with less than 250 employees. Southern California Rideshare is a regional rideshare core services program providing common services to five southern California counties. OU015U Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total $ 73,983 15,820 35,014 978,936 udget 13dgeF than 97,851 149,781 103,830 (45,951) (30.7)% 21,656 17,500 21,500 4,000 20.0% 44,811 58,769 186,856 128,087 218.0% 1,141,427 1,378, 920 1,397,544 18,624 1.4% $ 1,103,753 $ 1,305,775 $ 1,604,970 ,,$ 1,709,730 $ 104,760 6.5°% Motorist Assistance Two tow trucks will be added on the 1-15 between State Routes 60 and 91. Service hours will be expanded by one hour in the afternoon on all routes. Dispatching services will be reviewed for possible privatization. Personnel Professional Support Projects/Operations Total 112,378 77,016 80,453 1,453,793 80,130 104,347 24,217 57,850 93,500 35,650 67,435 103,046 35,611 1,338,465 1,698,058 359,593 30.2% 61.6% 52.8% 26.9% $ 1,751,394 $ 1,723,640 $ 1,543,880 $ 1,998,950 $ 455,070 29.5% OUJ151 FUND BALANCES (3) - BY PROGRAM AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA June 30, 2000 1#00**Roil„ 14,738,312 815,000 15,553,31 K8a1Ati 1,834,998 1,834,99 • ;A�as4100'' 4,186,688 1,176,759 41,306 lens 2,929,175 1,077,096 3 ifeSigit °Witt: tii ttn 15,915,062 13,816,304 1,004,020 7,912,425 3,901,537 1,748,716 55,396,921 2,368,744 1,851,998 11,694,206 5,297,919 2,929,094 4,186,68 1,176,75 41, •: 4,006,271 23,827,48 13,816, 1,004,0 2,368,7 5,650, 1,851,99 75,318,1 OUv152 3 As of June 30, 1999 $1.1 million in Local Transportation Fund (LTF) rail reserves are on deposit with the County of Riverside for the Commission's commuter rail program. Additionally, State Transit Assistance reserves are estimated to be approximately $900,000 as of June 30, 1999. Summarized Line Item Budget FY 1999/2000 ';. Litre item SOURCES OF REVENUE: Operating Revenues: Sales Tax Revenues 57,888,149 63,496,222 65,625,000 68,500,000 73,487,000 4,987,000 7.6% Sales Tax TDA Planning & Administrative 1,298,000 1,197,000 1,294,500 1,294,500 1,555,263 260,763 20.1% Sales Tax 7DA Transit Allocation 3,800,185 4,124,434 4,350,000 4,153,679 5.600,000 1,546,321 35.5% STA Transit Allocation 1,812,380 1,982,721 2,360,478 2,360,478 2,395,666 35,188 1.5% SAFE Fees 1,033,019 1,060,791 1,040,000 1,065,000 1,081,200 16,200 1.6 % Reimbursements: 5,470,049 9,539,357 10,086,920 6,969,920 9,508,645 2,538,725 36.4% Other Revenue 2,724,751 2,546,996 2,993,972 3,217,511 3,124,263 (93,248) (3.1)% Investment Income 6,030,161 5,004,028 2,937,875 3,060,565 3,678,164 617,599 21.0% Total Operating Revenues Debt Proceeds 80,056,694 88,951,549 90,688,745 90,621,653 100,452,201 9,830,548 10.8 % 61,429,211 350,000 (350,000) (100.0)% Total Sources of Funds 80,056,694 150,380,760 EXPENDITURES: Personnel Salary & Fringe 1,552,075 90,688,745 90,971,653 100,452,201 9,480,548 10.4% 1,647,688 1,861,106 1,917,861 2,206,299 288,438 15.5% PROFESSIONAL & SUPPORT EXPENDITURES i Professional Services 65100 General Legal 1,018,544 394,635 325,000 325,000 355,000 30,000 9.2% 65200 Bond Counsel 49,697 20,529 25,000 10,000 10,000 65300 Financial Services 74,864 54,834 97,500 210,000 210,000 65400 Audit Services 285,404 388,939 290,000 405,600 419,000 13,400 3.3%1 65500 Professional Svcs. -Other 425,208 531,388 649,920 838,070 997,056 158,986 19.0% Total Professional Costs 1,853,717 70000 Support Costs TOTAL PROFESSIONAL & SUPPORT EXPENDITURES Projects and Operations 1,390,325 1,387,420 734,557 777,435 2,588,274 2,167,760 1,788,670 1,991,056 897,895 936,960 2,285,315 2,725,630 202,386 11.3 % 1,649,270 712,310 76.0% 3,640,326 914,696 33.6 % 81000 Projects -General 1,011,991 1,859,105 1,833,900 1,693,900 1,753,900 60,000 3.5 % 81000 Station Operations 557,317 756,036 597,294 550,094 648,000 97,906 17.8 % 81000 SAFE Operations 798,163 1,064,975 1,106,127 1,129,787 700,900 (428,887) (38.0)% 81000 Towing Services _ 545,312 523,458 679,628 657,800 972,158 314,358 47.8% 86000 Commuter Assistance 978,937 1,141,427 1,391,920 1,378,920 1,372,544 (6,376) (0.5)% 81100 Highway Engineering 1,045,208 1,260,031 2,120,719 1,877,738 3,274,915 1,397,177 74.4% 81100 Rail Engineering 606,240 . 487,948 111,250 266,539 1,297,150 1,030,611 386.7% 81300 Highway Construction 11,549,471 7,044,877 7,367,225 5,048,000 11,590,776 6,542,776 129.6% 81300 Rail Construction 21,467 4,468,611 8,046,300 . 3,506,300 5,941,250 2,434,950 69.4% 81400 Highway Right of Way 5,563,831 1,176,862 4,483,000 758,188 1,710,729 952,541 125.6% 81400 Rail Right of Way 618,439 402,279 85,656 22,352 622,352 600,000 2684.3 % 81500 Highway & Rail Special 511,729 353,542 235,000 250,000 1,805,000 1,555,000 661.7%, Studies 86100 SCRIM Capital 1 Contribution 1,234,386 1,316,099 1,150,000 . 1,150,000 (1,150,000) (100.0)% 86100 Regional Transportation 27,630,703 30,466,257 31,079,157 32,495,176 34,753,507 2,258,331 6.9% 86200 LTTDisbursements 305,095 309,000 327,295 397,295 518,609 121,314 30.5% 86300 STA Disbursements 1,269,583 1,535,401 2,746,194 2,186,116 2,395,666 209,550 9.6% 86400 Regional Arterial 23,113,312 21,035,529 7,895,150 10,068,505 4,230,599 (5,837,906) (58.0) % Total Projects Costs 77,361,184 75,201,437 71,255,815 63,436,710 73,588,055 10,151,345 16.0%1 90000 Capital Outlay -- o►,:1'15� 53,677 306,660 166,200 93,221 86,000 (7,2211_ .72% Expenditures before distributions and operating transfers Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues Over Expenditures Ater Contingency (26,741,228) (4,286,364) (16,760,604) (9,055,986) (11,268,705) 1999/2000 Projected Budget Summarized By Fund Type Riverside Cau„ty.Trapspottation Contrnaiian : Budgeted Expenditures SununaritedBy Futrd Type FY 1499/00ProfectedBudgst .SONNEL SALARY AND BENEFITS ' ofessional & Support Expenditures 65100 General Legal Services 65200 Special Legal Services 65300 Financial Services 65400 Audit Services 65500 Professional Services -Other Total Professional and Support Expenditures 70000 Support Costs Total Professional and Support Expenditures- 1,550,526 655,773 154,500 200,500 10,000 0 0 198,000 12,000 0 358,300 60,700 0 852,563 144,493 0 1,573,363 • 417,693 0 1,342,405 308,865 0 2,915,768 724,558 •roject and Operations Expenditures 81000 Projects -General 648,000 4,799,502 0 81100 Highway & Rail Engineering 100,000 1,712,150 2,759,915 81300 Highway & Rail Construction 600,000 11,318,176 5,613,850 81400 Highway & Rail ROW 600,000 1,733,081 81500 Special Studies 1,805,000 0 86000 Special Transportation/transit (Includes SCRRA) 3,310,000 3,271,399 0 86300 STA Disbursements 0 2,395,666 0 86400 Regional Arterial 0 4,230,599 0 TOTAL PROJECT AND OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURES 7,063,000 29,460,573 8,373,765 Other Expenditures 86100 Special Transportation(Streets & Roads) 28,172,108 86200 LTF Disbursements 518,609 0 90000 Capital Outlay 80,840 5,160 TOTAL OTHER EXPENDITURES 599,449 28,177,268 Other Financing(Sources) Uses 59000 Operating DebtTransfers In (200,000) (651,028) 97000 f Operating Transfer Out 20,000 30,580,224 2,598,719 TrTdLOTHER FINANCING (SOURCES)USES (180,000) 30,580,224 1,947,691 0 0 i .agencies 225,000 1.375,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12,173,744 89,225,705 10 321,456 REVENUES OVER(UNDER)EXPENDITURES (223,021) (2,966,036) (8,079,647) Beginning Fund Balance 3.152.115 37,706.207 . 45.728.523 Ending Fund Balance 2,929,094 34,740,171 37,648,87�6 1 Amieakt 1._. - - - -- � - ii•42iivis-.v •:itii �v�vv •.`. ... : .. +ter+::. ..:::..::. .:..... Project Description 81000 Project General Program management and contract administration (Bechtel Corp.) $1,550,000 Park N Ride Leases 53,900 Program support costs 150;000 TOTAL PROJECT GENERAL $1,753,900 81100 Highway Engineering Rte 74 1-15 to 7th street widening 2,312,915 Rte.79 : Lamb Canyon environment 12,000 Route 79: Realignment PSR & Project report 425,000 Route 91 Material testing services 40,E Route 91 Surveying support services 15,000 Route 91 Phil Soundwalls and aux. Lanes design 350,000 Rte. 111 : San Luis Rey design 53,000 Route 111 El Paseo/Cabrillo design 37,000 Surveying support services 30,000 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY 3,274,915 81100 Rail Engineering San Jacinto branchline engineering support 62,150 Pedley station security system design 35,000 Santa Fe Depot rehabilitation 100,000 San Jacinto branchline Prelim. Engineering/environmental clr 500,000 Tier II station design (Van Buren & Corona Main) 600,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL 1,297,150 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL ENGINEERING 4,572,065 81300 Highway Construction Route 74 1-15 to 7th street widening 2,860,0138 Route 79 Right tum lanes 100,000 Route 91 soundwall #98 725,000 Route 91 soundwall #635 2,500,000 Route 91 Van Buren Phase II ROW & Appraisal 2,653,762 Route 111 Monterey Ave project 942,000 Route 111 Portola in the City of Palm Desert 329,926 Route 111 San Pablo in the City of Palm Desert 379,000 Route 111 Monroe to Rubidoux 1,061,000 Landscape Management - several projects 40,000 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAYS 11,590,776 Rail Construction San Jacinto branch line track improvements 500,000 Pedley station security system installation 741,250 Pedley station emergency platform 300,000 Southsjde platform ADA required ramp 200,000 La Sierra and West Corona Rail Stations Over Crossings 3,800,000 Santa Fe Depot rehabilitation 400,000 SUBTOTAL RAIL 5,941,250 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL CONSTRUCTION 17,532,026 81400 Highway Right of Way Route 74 SHOPP advance right of way acquisitions 1,064,737 Route 74 right of way support services 400,000 Route 91 Temporary construction easements PHII 45,000 Route 111 County of Riverside support services 50,992 Monroe to Rubidoux in the City of Indio 150,000 SUBTOTAL HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY 1,710,729 Rail Right of Way Other Rail station right of way purchases SUBTOTAL RAIL RIGHT OF WAY 22,352 600,000 Otj0155 622,352 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL RIGHT OF WAY 2,310,729 81500 Highway & Rail Special Studies CETAP 1,630,000 Study North/South Corridor 75,000 Study Countywide Origin & Destination study 100,000 TOTAL HIGHWAY & RAIL SPECIAL STUDIES 1,805,000 OU015G REVISED ATTACHMENT AGENDA ITEM 7A PAGE 137 • Project Summary • Performance/Workload - Administration - Commuter Assistance - Rail Program • Expenditure Detail - Planning & Programming Capital Projects Development and Delivery: Projects Summary Westem County Projects: Route 74 - Design Engineering and Right of way acquisitions on Route 74 RCTC will purchase the required Right of Way for supporting Caltrans SHOPP projects between Interstate 15 and 7ch Street in the City of Perris. RCTC entered into an agreement with a developer to perform design services for the Measure A improvements of RT 74 between 1-15 and Wasson Road. Cost: $1 064,737 - Right of Way Acquisition $2,312,915 - Engineering .............. $2 880'08$ < tiri tru ti n Operating Budget Impact: None - Caltrans will have construction and maintenance responsibility Strategic Plan Impact: The Strategic Plan included a project from 1-15 to 7m Street and a portion of the project is being escalated to take advantage of advancement of State (SHOPP) funds that will be made available. Route 79 - Realignment - Gilman Springs Road to East Valley Reservoir and Right Tum Lanes Gilman Springs Road Complete the engineering and construction of the right tum lane along Route 79. Perform realignment environmental and engineering services from Gilman Springs Road to East Valley reservior. Cost: Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $ 425,000 (Environmental and engineering services) $ 12,000 (Environmental Services) $100,000 (Right tum lanes engineering and construction) There are no long-term operational budget impacts. Caftans will assume maintenance responsibility. The 98/99 budget included funding for the right tum lanes; however, work will now be performed in 99/00 Fiscal Year. The realignment of RT 79 will be performed as a Demonstration Project and funded through TEA 21 program dollars. Route 91— Van Buren Interchange Design/Construction (Phase II) Phase II of this project is to complete design and right —of-way appraisals and acquisition of the future interchange improvements on Van Buren Boulevard. This phase of the project will improve the local circulation element, widen and lengthen that span of the bridge and improve ramp access. This interchange is currently the most congested interchange along Route 91. The first phase (Phasel) which added a new eastbound off ramp was completed in 1996. The construction of the interchange improvement is scheduled for fiscal year 2001. Cost: Operating budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $2,653,762 — Engineering/Right-of-way Appraisals and Acquisition None. Caftans and City of Riverside will share responsibilities for the maintenance, signaling and landscaping One of the aspects of Measure A is construction of interchanges, which improve local circulation or promote job development. Van Buren is one of the interchanges to relieve local congestion. Route 91 - Soundwall and AuxUiary lanes construction These improvements provide required mitigation for the Route 91 HOV projects between Magnolia Ave. to Mary Street. The purpose is to suppress the intensity of noise generated by freeway traffic. The Project will require the acquisition of temporary construction easements to provide access to construct these walls. Design is complete and the award for construction will be made just prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Cost: Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $ 45,000 (Appraisals and Acquisition of Easements) $ 350,000 (Engineering) $ 55,000 (Material testing and Surveying support) S , , (CoilMfuotion. c u tiw li `# rtid#635) The Commission will be responsible for plant establishment for landscaping for the first three years. The Commission will contract for these services and Costs have already been included in the cost of construction. Cattrans will then assume maintenance responsibility. The 99/00 budget, includes Phase II of the soundwall engineering a#nt) �atr5tt1..F1i`.�#x The Strategic Plan allows for staged implementation of soundwalls and auxiliary lanes along RT 91. These soundwalls are required mitigation for HOV lanes constructed on RT 91. North/South Corridor Study The Commission authorized study to access the feasability of providing future regional arterial improvements to provide letter North/South connectivity between 1-10 and State Route 60 corridor between 1-15 and 1-215. Cost: $75,000 Operating Budget Impact: Funding will be split between SANBAG and RCTC on a 50/50 basis. RCTC share will be paid from Planning funds. Strategic Plan Impact: Not included in the Strategic Plan. May provide corridor projects for future Measure A or other funding source in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Route 111 The Commission and CVAG cooperatively programmed an initial $10 million using Measure A highway program funds to complete signal improvements and local intersection widening improvements along State Route 111. Coachella Valley Projects: Cost: - Palm Desert $ 379,000 San Pablo Avenue Construction $ 329,926 Portola Avenue Construction $ 942,000 Monterey Avenue Construction $ 90,000 Final design San Luis Rey and El Paseo/Cabrillo - Indio $1,061,000 Monroe St. to Rubidoux St. Construction $ 200,992 Monroe St. to Rubidoux Right of Way and Support Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: None — Ca!trans will be responsible for maintenance The projects that are completed or will be completed as part of this initial amount are identified as Tier I in the strategic Plan. Rail Projects Other Station Improvements Construction improvements for pedestrian crossings at the West Corona and La Sierra rail stations. Contractor mobilization will commence in late FY 1999. Cost: $3 00cOp 3 (Construction) Operating Budget Impact: None - Construction cost will be reimbursed by CMAQ funds with local match from RCTC. Design cost will be paid from Prop. 116 funds Strategic Plan Impact: Existing Tier I stations shown in the Strategic Plan require pedestrian improvements and additional trackage for freight and passenger rail. Santa Fe Depot- Downtown Riverside The Commission purchased the old Santa Fe Depot in Downtown Riverside from the City of Riverside for $85,000 using available property management revenues. The plan was to use a portion of the building for Metrolink crew quarters and the remainder to develop for either rail educational purposes and/or joint development to generate rail operating revenues. Federal funding (with a small Commission match) has been designated as the source to cover the costs of rehabilitation. Cost: $500,000 (Design and Construction) Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: Final usage will have to be determined before operational costs can be calculated. If jointly developed, any costs must be more than offset by revenues generated. Not included in the Strategic Plan. These improvements are being funded by STP grant along with matching funds from available property management revenues. Commission approved as a separate action. i San Jacinto Branchline Track Improvement The Track improvement study funds is for track and drainage Cost: Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: proposes $9.2 million for improvements of which $500,000 of federal and state improvements. $500,000 (Construction) None. Construction costs will be reimbursed by CMAQ funds. This is consistent with Commission's long term policy goals. While not specifically in the Strategic Plan, the planned improvements will be necessary for future commuter rail service on the San Jacinto Branch Line, currently an unfunded project in the Strategic Plan. Pedley Station Improvements To design and install a security surveillance system at the Pedley station. Cost: Operating Budget Impact: Strategic Plan Impact: $776,250 (Design and Construction) None - All costs will be reimbursed by FTA section 5307 funds. Local match should be satisfied by local expenditures. If not, State Transit Assistance rail funds will be used. Not included in the Strategic Plan. These improvements are being entirely funded by Federal Transit Administration funding currently allocated for rail usage. foig#010sion .................................. ................................. $300;000. (igrneating ntt Constr ctiti i) 00eraiiieg t1:W40 J:444 ttattgid. Pl htiti t New Staii011 Design (Conana Main and Van Buren) Cost: $600,000 .(Engineering) Operating Budget Impact: None -..Alt cests*ilt beliinibiiitsediiiith.:STIPETOrnierProp-108-torninitment) funds. . StrategicPlantrnpact: Cttided4nlitieliStfate.010Pfek:OTtie$04ftiOte*eitietitSi:,a-teltiet.0Mentirebt fiitidedbV:Ortlt:TUnding:tiirreiitty'..aftdatettitti.etait.:4Sage. Station Right of Way Purchases Cost: Ope $600,000 rating Budget impa0t: N0n0-7A itxitts IMO be reirn4Orsed84EtttTP.1700.0:;.: 1001L ; 0000» and TDA:funds. Strategic PlanImPact NOf intiti<d >3 a tafegi0 m :s - rely rtl.tatt datildiii0itgratiti San JacintOlkanatiirik4Sagtnefirl $60-000RIN..6.110046iii4itii.i.644iidiiAigtii40.10$66i461-414604.004) Ope*16610u060:**** N4ti040W000W0iirbOAOtitiOt$'''' t.(0t0t00::0041i0j0.4* 17.1400.iii0.4.:.7.00tii*thg0.0.#0.1.- 60" $:. . Iti.44tOtifoiL. • anti it 010ffie0.....,..ssa..- ..........110010.0.0.01C0. ADMINISTRATION PREVIOUSLY REPORTED PERFORMANCE/WORKLOAD INDICATORS: F/Y 96/97 Actuals FY97/98 Actuals FY98/99 Revised FY99/00 Estimate Staff Training hours: 0 430 525 600 Public presentations held: 2 5 5 10 Press releases issued: N/A 2 8 16 Documents archived: 10,269 9,135 9,650 Annual report newspaper circulation:* 227,921 229,839 230,000 230,000 (*Based on Paid Subscription only) AS REVISED PLicruKMAIVCE/WORKLOAD INDICATORS: FY96/97 Actuals FY97/98 Actuals FY98/99 Estimated FY99/00 Projected Staff training hours: 0 430 525 600 Public presentations held: 2 5 5 10 Press releases issued: N/A 2 8 16 Records microfilmed: N/A 9,135 6,1581 7,500 Annual report newspaper circulation:* 227,921 229,839 230,000 230,000 New/vacant position recruitment's/filled: N/A 2 6 3 Agreements processed: N/A 143 123 1002 Legal notices: N/A 18 17 15 No of Commission/Committee Meetings: N/A 32 38 40 No of hits on RCTC web page: N/A N/A 44,0283 38,524 No of RCTC sponsored events: 2 5 5 5 ased on Paid Subscription only) 1 As of 1998/99, subject files were assigned the identification chron numbers and, therefore, archived documents are not counted the same way as in previous years. 2 This estimate is based on the number of projects proposed for 1999-2000. 3 First year that this data is collected. COMMUTER ASSISTANCE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED PERFORMANCE/WORKLOAD INDICATORS: FY95/96 Actuals FY96/97 Estimated FY97/98 Draft FY98/99 1. Number of one-way single occupant vehicle trips reduced as a result of Advantage Rideshare incentives -Freeway:(commuters traveling to work outside the county) -Local: (commuter traveling to work inside the county) 59,241.60 58,249.80 32,760 48,825 30,240 41,850 31,140 42,390 2. Number of Club Ride member: 1,901 2,300 2,500 2,500 3. Number of Club Ride business discount partnerships: 133 150 150 150 4. Provisions of Employer Transportation Forums: 14 7 8 6 5. Number of services provided by Inland Empire Commuter Services to support employer trip reduction efforts at work sites: -Survey/Ride Guide Services -Technical Assistance Services -Ride Guides Produced N/A N/A N/A 188 180 16,000 210 85 15,000 260 110 10,880 6. Number of events participated in by the Commuter Exchange: -Public Events -Employer Work Sites -Elementary Schools 14 14 3 11 12 36 10 10 40 10 10 40 7. Delivery of "Rideshare Connection' Broadcast fax information bulletin to employers: N/A 8 18 18 8. Development and distribution of rideshare marketing campaigns for implementation by employers: 1 3 3 3 COMMUTER ASSISTANCE AS REVISED PERFORMANCE/WORKLOAD INDICATORS: FY96/97 Actua/s FY97/98 Actua/s FY98/99 Estimated FY99/00 Projected 1. Number of one-way single occupant vehicle trips reduced as a result of Advantage Rideshare incentives: Freeway: (commuters traveling to work outside the county) Local: (commuters traveling to work inside the county) 32,760 48,825 27,500 36,395 31,140 42,390 31,140 42,390 2. Number of Club Ride members: 2,300 2,000 2,500 2,500 3. Number of Club Ride business discount partnerships: 150 163 150 160 4. Provisions of Employer Transportation Forums: 7 7 6 6 5. Number of services provided by Inland Empire Commuter Services to support employer trip reduction efforts at work sites: Survey/Ride Guide services: Technical Assistance services: Ride Guides produced: 188 180 16,000 112 200 14,673 260 110 10,880 200 150 12,000 6. Number of events participated in by the Commuter Exchange: Public events: Employer work sites: Elementary schools: 11 12 36 9 9 43 10 10 40 10 10 40 7. Delivery of "Rideshare Connection" broadcast/fax information bulletin to employers: 8 16 18 18 8. Development and distribution of rideshare marketing campaigns for implementation by employers: 3 3 3 3 RAIL PROGRAM PREVIOUSLY REPORTED PERFORMANCE/WORKLOAD INDICATORS: FY96/97 Actuals FY97/98 Actuals FY98/99 Revised FY99/00 Estimate Growth on existing commuter lines -Riverside Line -Inland Empire Orange Co. 3,769 1,069 4,061 1,682 3,897 1,715 4,000 1,950 Off-peak utilization of exiting line N/A 5% 10% Fare Box Recovery Ratio -1E0C Line -Riverside Line N/A N/A 35% 45% 36.1% 46.6% Special Event Trains Saturday Service on Riverside Line 9 dates N/A 22 dates Rescheduled 17 dates Complete 17 dates AS REVISED PERFORMANCE/WORKLOAD INDICATORS: FY96/97 Actuals FY97/98 Actuals FY98/99 Estimated FY99/00 Projected Growth on existing commuter lines - Riverside Line - Inland Empire Orange Co. 3,769 1,069 4,061 1,682 3,897 1,715 4,000 1,950 Farebox recovery ratio - IEOC Line - Riverside Line N/A N/A 27.5% 49.6% 35% 45% 36.1% 46.6% Special Event Trains Saturday Service on Riverside Line 9 dates N/A 22 dates Rescheduled 17 dates Complete 17 dates SPECIALIZED TRANSIT PREVIOUSLY REPORTED PERFORMANCE/WORKLOAD INDICATORS: Specialized Transit 96 Actual 97 Actual 98 Estimated 99 Proposed Number of specialized transit grants 14 14 16 To be provided awarded: Number of one-way trips provided by Measure A funded non-profit transit N/A 57,073 73,013 operators: Number of one-way trips reimbursed through the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) -Western County: 32,186 37,810 17,792 Number of transit tickets provided through the Transportation Access Program(TAP) N/A 97,433 103,345 AS REVISED PERFORMANCE/WORKLOAD INDICATORS: FY96/97 Actuais FY97/98 Actuals FY98/99 Estimated FY99/00 Projected Number of specialized transit grants awarded: 14 13 13 11 Number of one-way trips provided by Measure A funded non-profit transit operators: 57,073 77,017 72,064 75,667 Number of one-way trips reimbursed through the Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project (TRIP) -Western County: 37,810 17,344 18,702 19,637 Number of transit tickets provided through the Transportation Access Program(TAP): 97,433 97,985 102,885 108,029 Expenditure Detail PREVIOUSLY REPORTED Perronnel Salary A Fringe: Director-Planning/Programming 72,583 85,740 133,060 144,765 130.613 (14,152) .9.8% Director-Governmental/Legislative 12,902 Director of Regional Issues 211,022 Program Managers ll 92,866 • 89,331 175,018 49,383 120,096 (140,310) -53.9% Staff Analyst II 60,275 48,444 47,949 67,159 68.826 1,667 2.5% Staff Analyst I 30,505 Support Staff(1) 113,110 Total Personnel Salary b Fringe Benefits 256,729 232,251 356,027 472,329 432,644 (39,685) -5 4% Professional 6 Support Costs Professional Costs: 65100 General Legal Services 8,039 5,142 20,000 10,000 24.000 14,000 140.0% 65500 Other Professional 122,382 142801 97,500 256,500 97,600 (159,000) -62.0% Services Total Professional Costs 130,421 147,943 117,500 256,500 121,500 (145,000) -554.4% 70000 Support Costs 121,266 124,876 121,865 179,591 279,676 100,084 55.7% Total Professional and Support Costs Projects and Operations 251,687 272,819 239,365 446,091 401,176 (44,916) -10.1% 500 Special Studies 38,752 235,000 225,000 1,730,000 1,505,000 668.9% .200 LTF Disbursements 305,095 309,000 327,295 397,295 518.609 121,314 30.5% 86300 STA Disbursements 1,269,583 1,535,401 2,746,194 2,186,116 2,395,666 209,550 9.8% Total Projects and Operations Total Transportation Planning and Programming 1,574,678 1,883,153 3,308,489 2,808,411 4,644.275 1,835,864 65,4% 2,082594 2,388,223 3,903,881 3,726,831 6,478,094 1,751,263 47.D% 1 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. -The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line Rem. Staffing Summary Position FY96/97 Actual FY 97/98 Actual FY 98/99 Revised FY 99/00 Proposed Director of Planning/Programming .40 .75 .95 .93 Director- Govemmental/Legislative 29 Director Regional Issues .94 Program Managers II .79 .75 1.06 1.05 Staff Analyst II .97 .60 .56 .80 Staff Analyst I ,73 Support Staff 1.23 1.14 2.76 1.90 FTE 4.12 3.53 6.27 4.68 Staffing levels have increased due to the addition of a Program Manager to handle expanded responsibilities of SB45. This position is funded with SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds ($110,210 in 1999/00). Expenditure Detail AS REVISED Personnel Salary et Fringe: Director-Planning/Programming 72,583 Director-GovemmentaMegislative Director of Regional issues Program Managers ll Staff Analyst II Staff Analyst I Support Staff(1) 85,740 133,060 144,765 130,613 (14,152) 12,902 56,027 92,866 89,331 175,018 204,378 120,096 (140,310) 60,275 48,444 47,949 67,159 68,826 1,667 30,505 113,110 Total Personnel Salary 8 Fringe Benefits 255,229 232,251 356,027 472,329 432,644 (39,685) Professional d Support Costs Professional Costs: 65100 65500 General Legal Services 8,039 5,142 20,000 10,000 24,000 14,000 Other Professional 122,382 142,801 97,500 256,500 97,500 (159,000) Services Total Professional Costs 130,421 147,943 117,500 266,500 121.500 (145,000) 70000 Support Costs 121,266 124,876 121.865 179,591 279,575 100,084 Total Professional and Support Costs Projects and Operations 55.7% 251,687 272,819 239,365 446,091 401,175 (44,916) -10.1% 81500 Special Studies 38,752 235,000 225,000 1,730,000 1,505,000 66E 86200 LTF Disbursements 305,095 309,000 327,295 397,295 518,609 121,314 30.5% 86300 STA Disbursements 1,269,583 1,535,401 2,746,194 2,186,116 2,395,666 209,550 9.6% Total Projects and Operations Total Transportation Planning and Programming 1,574,678 1,883,153 3,308,489 2,808,411 4,644,275 1,835,864 65.4% 2,082,594 2,388,223 3,903,881 3,726,831 5,478,094 1,751,263 47.0% 1 Allocated support staff in prior years was included in the salary totals for the various positions. The FY99/00 Budget begins the practice of showing the support staff dollars as a separate line item. Staffing Summary Position FY96/97 Actual FY 97/98 Actual FY 98/99 Estimated FY 99/00 Projected Director of Planning/Programming .40 .75 .95 .93 Director - Govemmental/Legislative .29 Director Regional Issues .33 Program Managers II .79 .75 1.39 1.05 Staff Analyst II .97 .60 .56 .80 Staff Analyst I _ .73 Support Staff 1.23 1.14 2.76 1.90 FTE 4.12 3.53 5.99 4.68 Staffing levels have increased due to the addition of a Program Manager to handle expanded responsibilities of SB45. This position is funded with SB 45 2% Planning, Programming and Monitoring funds ($110,210 in 1999/00). RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION June 2, 1999 DATE: TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Jerry Rivera, Program Manager THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan The Riverside County FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) covers the three apportionment areas of the county and is comprised of plans for the municipal operators, the Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, and Regional Commuter Rail. In the development of the Plan, the operators are using the new schedules and format approved by the Commission on January 13, 1999, along with the Productivity Improvement Plan. Consequently, not all of the operators were able to complete their plans in time for submission to the Citizens' Advisory Committee for review. However, in order to meet other reporting requirements (e.g. Regional Transportation Improvement Program), staff was directed to move forward for Commission approval with those plans that have been submitted. The Plans for Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside Special Services, and SunLine Transit Agency were reviewed by the Commission's Citizens' Advisory Committee on May 17, 1999, and they were supportive of the proposed changes included in the SRTP. Following is a summary of service highlights: City of Banning The Cabazon Express route will be discontinued and service in the area will be provided by rerouting the fixed route to provide greater access to Cabazon and Banning commercial areas. Although headways will increase from 60 to 90 minutes, passengers will actually spend less time on the bus. City of Beaumont The fixed route implemented in mid-FY 99 is programmed to continue in FY 2000. Both fixed route and dial -a -ride service will be expanded to Saturdays and begin two hours earlier in the morning and run one hour later in the evening.. 000157 City of Corona In order to meet their required fare ratio of 20% without the use of Measure "A" funds, the city will conduct fare increase public hearings in conjunction with planned service change hearings to solicit input in the upcoming fiscal year. Additional service will be provided to the Metrolink station, and the city is reviewing plans to operate two community fixed routes to meet the growing transportation needs within new.. housing developments. Should the fixed routes be implemented, the general public dial -a -ride would be changed to elderly and handicapped service. The city will return to the Commission before.the end of the calendar year to amend its SRTP to allow for these service and fare changes. Riverside Special Services The city terminated its service to the County Regional Medical Center in Moreno Valley in March 1999, but they have received only 5 requests for rides since the program change. Those passengers have been provided transportation to an RTA route serving the medical center. The eight hours previously used for the service was added to the continuing dial -a -ride service. No significant changes are planned for FY 2000. SunLine Transit Aqencv SunLine's SRTP proposes a $12,155,000 budget, an increase of $1,046,000 over FY 1999. The increase will support improvements to Line 111 by increasing hours by 12% and adding limited -stop service during the tourist season; increase service on Line 30 by 15% with the addition of one bus 8 hours/day, 5 days per week; adding one a.m. and one p.m. trip on Saturday to the Palm Springs Tramway on Line 24; implementing the SunLink service; and adding one expansion paratransit vehicle to the fleet to increase dial -a -ride capacity. The capital budget includes $680,000 for two new expansion buses, as well as routine maintenance, computer and office equipment. (As a reminder, the Commission approved SunLine's request to amend their FY 1998-99 SRTP to purchase 19 used CNG buses at its special meeting on May 24, 1999. Seven of the buses were originally programmed in the FY 1999-2000 SRTP but have been deleted.) Also, this is the second year they are programming $300,000 to allow the purchase of three replacement buses in FY 2001. The budget also includes $385,000 for 6 replacement and one expansion paratransit vehicles. Financial Assessment Project Cost $15,368, 705 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget LTF, STA, FTA, Measure "A" Y Year OuO156 Financial Assessment Included in Program Budget Y Year Programmed 1999- 00 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 1 999- 00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the FY 2000-2006 Short Range Transit Plans for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona and Riverside and the SunLine Transit Agency as presented. 00159 1999/2000 TRANSPORTATION TUNE-UP'S • Line 111 - addition of 4 '/2 round trips, 7 days a week, 8 hours daily. Due to ridership increases of 15% in recent months, this will allow for additional ridership growth, as well as ensuring the on -time performance of the line. This service is planned to begin in October 1999. • Line 111 - addition of "Quick" service. This is proposed to operate initially during the tourist season. Service will be provided from Indio to Palm Desert and back, and alternately, from Palm Springs to Palm Desert and back. This service will most likely operate November to May. • Line 30 - addition of 4 round trips, 5 days a week, 8 hours daily. The Line 30 currently accounts for 18% of system ridership, and the increase in service will allow for additional ridership growth. This service is planned to begin in October 1999. • Line 24 - addition of one a.m and one p.m. trip on Saturday to the Palm Springs Tramway. This service will be evaluated to determine if there is interest in additional trips. This service is planned to begin in July 1999. • SunLink - implementation of service from the Coachella Valley to MetroLink stations in Riverside and San Bernardino. This service is planned to begin in Summer 1999. • SunDial — expansion of one paratransit vehicle for additional Dial -a -Ride capacity. 'Hos eta! p *Civic Center Lib �` City Parks *Orchard Park Cherry & 14th STuSt_ Penn. Ave. Stater Bros.\ Food for Less K mart — ---- ----- 8:00 8:03 8:06 8:10 8:13 8:15-8:25 8:30 8:32 8:35 8:40 8:43 8:46 8:50 8:53 8:55-9:05 9:10 9:12 9:15 9:20 9:23 9:26 9:30 9:33 9:35-9:45 9:50 9:52 9:55 10:00 10:03 10:06 10:10 10:13 10:15-10:25 10:30 10:32 10:35 10:40 10:43 10:46 10:50 10:53 10:55-11:05 11:10 11:12 11:15 11:20 11:23 1 I :26 11:30 11:33 11:35-11: 45 11: 50 11:52 11:55 12: 00 12:03 12 :06 12:10 12:13 12:15-12:25 12:30 12:32 12:35 12:40 12:43 12:46 12:50 12:53 12:55-1:05 1:10 l :12 1:15 1:20 1:23 1:26 1:30 l :33 1:35-1:45 1:50 1:52 1:55 2:00 2:03 2:06 2:10 2:13 2:15-2:25 2:30 2:32 2:35 . 2:40 2:43 2:46 2:50 2:53 2:55-3:05 3:10 3:12 3:15 3:20 3:23 3:26 3:30 3:33 3:35-3:45 3:50 3:52 3:55 4:00 4:03 4:06 4:10 4:13 4:15-4:25 4:30 4:32 4:35 4:40 4:43 4:46 4:50 4:53 4:55 5:00 5:02 5:05 5:10 (LS) ----- ------ BEAUMONT AVE. 7 JOAR to Fixed Route transfer point COtAR WAY PALM AVE. f 4m ST. _________JCHERRY AVE. 8 LUNN. AVE. lir 4 Downtown Transfer point for Beaumont DAR to Fixed Route & RTA Routes 31,35 & 36 NORTH 6'" STREET TIMETABLE FOOTNOTES: • Bold Type indicates transfer points for Beaumont DAR, RTA & Banning Fixed Route. • (LS) Last Stop • Timetable subject to changes with advance notification. KEY STOPS ROUTE 1 1. HOSPITAL* 2. K MART 3. STATER BROS.IFOOD FOR LESS 4. CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT* 5. LIBRARY 6. CITY POOL\P Ajf 7. ORCILiRD PARK APTS.* 8. CHERRY & 14TH ST. 9. 81-11 & PENN. AVE. Indicates flag stops allowed (*Indicates transfer points) LLEGHENY MAP NOT TO SCALE Transfer point for Beaumont DAR, Banning Fixed Route & RTA Routes 31,35 &36 A iht HIGHLAND SPRINGS RD. 6 'CM SDNRidS CINV''IHDIH 9E 78 S£ ' I f saino)' yzE pa% 8uruueg; Ada wocunea8 Joj mod Jajsurill 4 31 OS O.L ,LON dVIAI 9f78 s£'r f samox Nall 7s, Iwo luomneag �S H19 J03 miod la3suel,L umowe+op L (slutod aa,Isuni) salealpui.) paMoiie sdols Neu salealpul, JUNI C X 6 SS312I0d Q003l•SO2I8 ?Ia. vis 8 ?Ii�it�8 AINI103 HIIION L AZIVIIE111 9 S?RIVd V 100d 9KIWILIIIAAS A1I3 S **UAW XIIVd Q?IVHOxO ti 111113H, ?8 tut! £ •aAv *Sil,I3d V 'IS 418 Z * IVIldSOH I Z# airiou ---- SEMIS Aa3I •ampsod uagb uopeagpou aauvitpu Inpa salluega of pafgns algelaugi • doN purl (S-D • •alnog pans Sutuumeg 7s+ vim `sva laouinrag Joj slu!od aapaeal salealpui adiC) Nog • III IOAI 1 l Art v idil.1d1 I.3Ad AS11311D Avm svDf10D 1 3A\. 31"1V•_u 9 30iod iajsueu ?I3 of Ada ••. • '3AV .I NIOWfIt'3E1 £S:t 61-:t Lt:tr 904 tt:tr f0:t 6E:t 8S:f Sf:b trS:f If:t (S1)6S:t 954 OS:f j 8Z:t-8[:t Sl:t Zl:t 80:t Lt:£-Lf:£ tf:f I £:f LZ'f SZ:f ZZ:f Li:£ £t:£ 60:£ t t •Z 9f :Z c. ZE:Z 8Z:Z , 90:£-9S:Z fS:Z 0 :E. 9t:Z tt:Z SZ:Z-SI:Z 1- ZI:Z 60:Z SO:Z fO:Z 00:E SS:I IS:I Lh:1 tt:l-t£:i l tf:l 8Z:1 fZ:1 ZZ: t 61:1 tl :l 01:1 90• 1 £0:1-£F.:ZI ` OS:ZI Lt:ZI £t:Z1 lt:Zl 8E:ZI ££=Z1 6Z:Zl SZ:ZI ZZ:ZI-ZI:ZI � 60:11 90:ZI ZO:ZI IZ:11 OO:Z1 61:1 1 LS:II 91:1 1 ZS:II St:II tt:11 l t:l l L0:1 1 f0:1 1 It•11-I£:11 1 8Z:11 SE:11 r I O£:01 9i.:01 ZZ:01 00:11-05:01 I Lt:01 tt:01 Ot:01 8f:01 5f:01 0:6 ' St:6 I P:o 61:01-60:01 ! 90:01 £O:01 65:6 L5:6 t5:6 8£:6-8L:6 i >7..:6 Z::6 81:6 91:6 5f:8 Nei r q•'] f I :6 Zf:8 sired Ni 80:6 LZ:B lira p�eya�U* t0:6 fZ:S �t1 'S nLa�7 00:6 6 :8 LS-B-Lt:B `-t:8 It:8 L£:8 91:8-90:8 L t0:8 00:8•?,V •uv�3 -S s'K I lepdsoNa 1 ur:6'V NI ssai Joj pooy •soag p;e1S �lUefl icuno aor\�„ 7 q� AlEI I3INI.I.. 3SIA0D01.?2I3.L1\.1UJ Z 3 L. :S310► 10O.4 3111V1,3I,01 r Service Area Zone Map for DAR & Fixed Route c l m �STi-IY 60 Che Vineland, Ave Cherry Valley 31v• 4th St LEGEND Zone 1 (Inside 1/4 Mile) Zone 2 (Outside 1/4 Mile) ammism Fixed Route mn�o��s: x�e ��+Zn� Milli d��;k�lEli11nd St 16th St F 1 fth St C,.t� o-P -�-V t1 Ok! T - Grand PI Lincoln PI RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Congestion Management Program Pilot Project Evaluation The Congestion Management Program (CMP) in its last update modified the Land Use Element, Chapter 5, of the CMP from requiring Traffic Impact Assessments (TIAs) for each development generating over 200 peak hour trips impacting the CMP network, to implementing an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program. The Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program was designed to address federal and state monitoring and reporting requirements. The program involves the purchase and installation of 'Smart' Call Boxes along the CMP network of roads and highways. It was recommended by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to develop a Pilot Project consisting of the purchase and installation of 10 Smart Call Boxes to evaluate the effectiveness of the 'Smart' Call Boxes, provide a cost/benefit analysis, identify any potential problems with the purchase and installation, evaluate the value of the data, and document the process to download and interpret the data. - The Smart Call Box Pilot Project was initiated in January 1999 and has now been completed. Attached is the "Evaluation of the Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program - 'Smart' Call Box Pilot Program" report. The report's conclusions and recommendations are summarized as follows: ► 'Smart' Call Box technology can provide for significant improvements in the amount and quality of traffic count data for transportation planning, engineering, modeling, and funding allocation purposes. ► Utilizing the existing inductive loop infrastructure provides savings in Capital Costs. ► Speedy data conversions and archiving result in a reduction in staff time spent collecting and managing data. ► Level of Service calculations can be generated to reflect existing conditions due to the availability and ease of obtaining year-round count data. ouolbU Based on the Pilot Project evaluation, staff will request that the Commission authorize staff to submit a request to the California Transportation Commission for the allocation of programmed State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).funds for the purchase of additional 'Smart' Call Boxes to be installed on the CMP network. RCTC has $1.1 million programmed over fiscal years '99/00 and '00/01 for the purchase of Smart Call Boxes. The request for allocation will occur over the summer in the amount of $500,000. The Pilot Project Evaluation Report was presented to the TAC at their May 17, 1999 meeting. The TAC recommended approval of the Pilot Project and to move forward with staff's recommendation to proceed with implementation of the 'Smart' Call Box program. Financial Assessment Project Cost $500,000 Source of Funds STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Included in Fiscal Year Budget Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed 99/00 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 99/00 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable Y PLANS AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve staff to request allocation of $500,000 of State Transportation Improvement Program funds for Fiscal Year 1999/00 for the purchase of additional 'Smart' Call Boxes on the Congestion Management Program network. 000� J b_i_. EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM - `SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM Prepared for: Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Ave., Ste. 100 Riverside, CA 92501 (909)787-7141 VRP� "Iti GI Ifl V IwJI:IF:9 Prepared by: YRPA Technologies 4746 W. Jennifer, Ste. 103 Fresno, CA 93722 (559) 271-1200 or (619) 566-1766 May 17, 1999 00016 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM 'SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM Riverside County Transportation Conunfssion TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 `Smart' Call Box Program Components 2 2.0 PILOT PROGRAM - IMPLEMENTATION 4 Step 1 — Identify Pilot Program `Smart' Call Box Locations and Infrastructure 4 Step 2 - `Smart' Call Box Installation Procedures 4 Step 3 - Information Downloading Procedures 6 Step 4 - Information Conversion Procedures 6 Step 5 - Information Uploading Procedures 7 3.0 `Smart' CALL BOX MONITORING PROGRAM DATA EVALUATION 7 3.1 `Smart' Call Box Potential Technical and Administrative Risks 8 3.2 Cost Benefit Assessment 9 3.3 `Smart' Call Box VS Conventional Count Program Analysis Results 11 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 11 4.1 Advantages 12 4.2 Next Steps 13 APPENDICES LIST OF FIGURES, EXHIBITS AND TABLES FIGURE 1, IMPORTANCE OF THE TRAFFIC COUNT 2 FIGURE 2 `SMART' CALL BOX COMPONENTS 3 FIGURE 3 `SMART' CALL BOX LOCATIONS IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY 5 FIGURE 4 CALL BOX COUNT MANAGER DATA MANAGEMENT AND OUTPUT 8 TABLE 1 SUMMARY: CONVENTIONAL COUNT VS `SMART' CALL BOX PROGRAM COSTS 10 000163 YRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM 'SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM Riverside County Transportation Commission EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM `SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following summary report has been prepared as a synopsis of the `Smart' Call Box Pilot Program report to be provided for distribution on May 17, 1999. This summary provides a review of the purpose of the Pilot Program, Program components, State/Federal and CMP traffic count collection requirements, required steps to implement the Program, Program evaluation including a cost comparison between Pilot Program Call Boxes and Conventional Program traffic count equipment, and Program conclusions. 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this summary report is to provide the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and other affected agencies with a clear understanding of the Enhanced Congestion Management Program (CMP) Traffic Monitoring Program in Riverside County utilizing `Smart' Call Boxes. This Evaluation has been prepared to reflect results of the `Smart' Call Box Pilot Program authorized by the Commission in September 1997. The Pilot Program involved the installation of ten (10) additional `Smart' Call Boxes in Riverside County. These 10 boxes plus the existing 10 boxes were used to identify actual `Smart' Call Box capital, installation, operating, and maintenance costs. In addition, the Pilot Program was developed to identify the ease of use of `Smart' Call Box and its components, operational constraints, and the quality of count data compared to conventional count/level of service processes. The Enhanced Count Program utilizes the existing Call Box infrastructure, thereby maximizing RCTC's investment in the County SAFE Program. In addition, the Enhanced Count Program constitutes compliance with the CMP Land Use Coordination Program. Previously, the Land Use Coordination Program focussed on the development and review of Traffic Impact Studies" to identify. CMP System deficiencies and required improvements. Having access to continuous and accurate data, as compared with incomplete, inaccurate, or outdated traffic data (manual or extrapolated counts from year to year counts or from three year count census programs), provides a more efficient and accurate means of enhancing transportation planning and engineering studies, developing and updating transportation models, and targeting scarce funding for transportation improvements. The Enhanced Count Program will also provide traffic monitoring suitable to meet the needs of the CMP and other State/Federal program requirements (Congestion Management System - CMS, Traffic Management System - TMS, Highway Performance Monitoring System - HPMS, etc.). To identify the extent of the monitoring system for Riverside County, the CMP System of Highways and Roads was reviewed to determine those locations where counts would be necessary in order to adequately monitor traffic. In addition, federal TMS and HPMS Program requirements were evaluated. Based upon that analysis, the primary types of data that could be collected using a `Smart' Call Box included traffic volume data and classification data. It is envisioned that Riverside County, in association with Caltrans, District 08 and local agencies, could expand the Smart Call Box program. This system will not only collect additional traffic data and utilize the data for CMP, CMS, l VRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 003164 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM •SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM Riverside County Transportation Commission TMS, and HPMS transportation management and monitoring efforts, but will also establish a vital ITS framework that future ITS implementation efforts can build upon. With the Swart Call Box Traffic Monitoring Program in place along CMP facilities in Riverside County, significant improvements can be made in the provision of quarterly and annual count data. This Program also could provide for a wide variety of transportation model input data and would enhance traffic LOS monitoring efforts. Moreover, Smart Call Boxes can be configured to provide a variety of other monitoring including adverse weather detection, vehicle classification, Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) operations, and other similar functions. Transportation Management Centers (TMCs) and law enforcement agencies could also utilize data collected by Smart Call Boxes. Most decisions related to transportation planning and traffic engineering begin with `traffic counts.' Accurate traffic counts are mandatory in order to design, build, and update traffic models, conduct corridor studies, develop traffic impact assessments, and monitor LOS along the transportation system. Figure 1 below illustrates the important relationship between traffic counts and transportation planning, engineering, and the modeling process. As can be seen, success of transportation planning, engineering, and modeling is largely dependent upon the quality and quantity of accurate count data. FIGURE 9 - IMPORTANCE OF THE TRAFFIC COUNT Traffic Monitoring Data: The Foundation of Transportation and Air Quality Fianntj. Corridor Studies, General Han Aitestrllves/A neatimenu Atrlrsls, Traffic Impact Analysis, Muncie! IahasuucturefPrngramming and Prkrity Analysis, HOV Facility A /yels, Multi.enada Alterstives Atd als �. Mad' Assumptions ! Data Impuu (Regional and Local Traffic/ Air Quelity Modals) Capad4 Analysis (LOS), Air Quality Affair's —Aesulteat VarYllos/Data: Daily and Peek Hour vaiuoter, dsa'flotlea counts, apse/ data, etc. Traffic MonneringDala (Cffonts) tb limo -ad ' warms t.d tam rnr-r-a eM.• r err r.r runt aromm o,r os n-s..rs a.iel•-... t-r C1011 binn••••, 1.2 'SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM COMPONENTS RCTC has deployed a network of `Smart' Call -Box traffic counters that collect traffic count information on a 24 hour -per -day, 7 day -a -week basis within Riverside County. Efforts to streamline the CMP have led to opportunities to integrate this count data with other sources of traffic count information, thereby benefiting all users of the data. Caltrans, SCAG, the County of Riverside and other cities within Riverside County currently collect traffic counts. The 0u 165 2 VRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORIIYG PROGRAM •SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM Riverside County Transportation Commission combination of providing ready access to traffic count information, and actively working to coordinate traffic count programs, should decrease total expenditures to acquire this information while improving accessibility to the data. A review of existing traffic monitoring programs in the County including, the traffic counter infrastructure, travel demand, count equipment and staff operations, has been conducted considering the integration of `Smart' Call Box technologies as an ITS application (as described in the adopted 1998 Inland Empire ITS Early Deployment Plan). It has been shown, through the cost/benefit analysis that significant short- and long-term advantages will prevail with the use of `Smart' Call Boxes along CMP facilities. ' The Smart Call Box is a modified standard call box and wireless communication device often taking advantage of existing infrastructure. Existing infrastructure and traffic demand are two primary driving forces that help select appropriate locations for the implementation of Smart Call Boxes. Selection criteria for the existing infrastructure usually includes the location of regional count stations, pre -installed inductive loop detectors, cellular network configurations, physical conditions, input from RCTC, Caltrans, and local agency planners and engineers. These criteria facilitate the functional requirements of the various Smart Call Box components. Configuration of these components requires direct connections to inductive loop detectors installed in each lane of a roadway segment. A modified controller card with an integrated Diamond traffic tally counter facilitates the processing and storage of traffic volumes detected from the loop detectors. After a period of time, usually one (1) week, the traffic data is remotely downloaded through the Smart Call Box via the cellular network during specified time windows. The `Smart' Call Box is very similar to Caltrans' permanent traffic counter except that downloading the data occurs through a modem call via the cellular network to the .`Smart' Call Box. Currently, Caltrans manually retrieves or downloads the data in the field at the count location site to a computer. Figure 2 depicts the `streamlined' process using a `Smart' Call Box connected to loops or to infrared traffic detectors. FIGURE 2 - `SMART' CALL BOX COMPONENTS Modified Proeessor MI1111 Overpass Source: VRPA Technologies 3 VRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 000166 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM 'SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM Riverside Cowry Transportation Commission Smart Call Boxes have a capacity to perform a variety of other data collection tasks. Depending on the specific needs in Riverside County, Smart Call Boxes can be configured to record vehicle classifications, incident detection/viewing (CCTV sites), weather monitoring, etc. Traffic Management Centers (TMCs) and law enforcement agencies could also take advantage of the data collected by Smart Call Boxes. Under a Smart Call Box Program, RCTC, acting as the CMA, would be in a position to manage a comprehensive data base filled with enhanced travel data needed by its own planners and engineers and by various other agencies and organizations. Pilot Program Components ♦ Install 10 additional `Smart' Call Boxes (10 boxes currently exist). ♦ Monitor `Smart' Call Box sites along the State Highway System. ♦ Collect count data at each location over a 2-week period. ♦ Evaluate the count data and provide 24-hour counts. ♦ Evaluate the count data and provide LOS results using VRPA Technologies' Counts Manager Program. ♦ Identify resulting capital, installation, operating, and maintenance costs. 2.0 PILOT PROGRAM - IMPLEMENTATION ➢ STEP 1 — Identify Pilot Program 'Smart' Call Box Locations and Infrastructure The locations and infrastructure of the `Smart' Call Boxes that have been installed for the Pilot Program were determined through a balance of existing infrastructure and legislative needs. The existing infrastructure of motorist aid focused Call Boxes served as the platform from which a natural extension of a `Smart' Call Box infrastructure could be built. With these potential physical sites in hand, the existing Call Box infrastructure it was then overlaid with the needs of the Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Potential Smart Call Box locations were identified based upon a set of selection criteria including: ♦ Interstate and Federal routes; ♦ availability and location of existing loop detectors; ♦ Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT); and ♦ the location and quantity of temporary and permanent count stations/hardware per site. An initial group of `Smart' Call Boxes have already been installed and have been operating since 1997. The first set of ten (10) `Smart' Call Boxes in Riverside County are currently collecting traffic volume count data along I-215, I- 10, SR 60, SR 74, SR 79, SR 86, and SR 243 (reference Figure 3). The data from these sites have been collected, downloaded and stored on a monthly basis since 1997. An additional set of ten, for a total of twenty (20) `Smart' Call Boxes have been commissioned for the Pilot Program (reference Figure 3). ➢ STEP 2 —'Smart' Call Box Installation Procedures Preliminary Site Evaluation Preliminary Site Evaluation involves checking the proposed `Smart' Call Box locations for functionality. This entails testing the loops to ensure all are working properly, opening the Traffic Cabinet to check connections to the Terminal Block (to identify the possibility of tying into Caltrans loop connections), and making sure the physical site is ready 0� �6/ 4 VRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 �ZIDonowosz d.A o,106 Ql ® - J000.16 'PAS Mein ® •'9rM • 10011k09 0 10010-9I AOIDAA+s40JO'3 BrM-CVOO-0l 16 MO 'S 95 - C IIi091 16 'kJ 10 'N :SJN • OLV091 :IMiO ko+S 0 9M - 9C90• Ill 91.110'3 VOA 9L00-16 91-I 10 M - CL00-16 1S DPW 0 :WI 9900- l6 (6660 tlini6c1d !Glad SNOUV S 09 ThM JO 'N :9rS • 1r91099 woman 00'S:9M - SOLD-SPC lS ePIS J0 "N :9JN - LCC0.6L 09 11J JO'S:aM • 06C0-91C '1400:3 OUIDUAlJ b 'N 33/N • OdCO-91 C IL "kJ JO 'N :9Rd - 99L0-91 L 01-110 'Al :91M - C000-09 1S uPVI :OA-1110-09 91.10'319-9L10-VL PucKJ 10 'M :913- ►1101.1 WOJEc+1d xc8 noo paw (16614 fuIVsix3 xoa Two (6661 uotolpJ<41 R+cJ6001 i6nOo JCB PO OXUS um16014fold (L661 Pe1PW) gplP bl klooO u39 PO .WiuS 64PG waist MO w SUPP1811,1 1110126 di30 uo 00,61131H O ON3931 .AlNnoo 3019.J3A121 NI SNOINDO1 XO811VO 12JWVS vo0, o.�"' -c E; e. g r EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM `SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM • Riverside Corny Transportation Co nunitsion for `Smart' Call Box installation. Also, identifying site type is important when considering how to mount the pole and house the `Smart' Call Box unit. Testing `Smart' Call Box infrastructure is another important part of the installation process. Loops, cellular transceiver, CDG component, and the traffic counters must be working properly. Finally, the cellular transceiver must be programmed with a cellular phone number that can be remotely dialed into via the CDG to access the counter in the field Field Installation Once the Site evaluation and the `Smart' Call Box components have been successfully tested, they arc now ready for field installation. Installation of the CDG `Smart' Call Box takes several hours. The cost of installation is included in the cost of the `Smart' Call Box. This assumes that all necessary components have been checked and are working properly before field installation. The first step in field installation is to upgrade the original Motorist Aid Patrol (MAP) Call Box (reference Appendix A) to an enhanced `Smart' Call Box (reference Appendix B). The next step is to replace the solar panel with a larger, stronger solar panel to accommodate recharging of the upgraded battery in the `Smart' Call Box. Wire connection runs from the solar panel, down the inside of the pole, and is eventually fastened to the `Smart' Call Box. Loop connection is the next step in the field installation process. Once all road tubes are marked, it is then time to cut each cable to establish the tie-in. The road tube connection is the final field installation step. Once complete, the `Smart' Call Box should have power (produced by the upgraded battery and larger, stronger solar panel), a remote cellular connection (via the cellular transceiver and it's cellular phone number), connection to the road tubes (via the installation procedures as stated above), resulting in access to traffic count data 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. ➢ STEP 3 — Information Downloading Procedures Once field installation has been successful, the next step is to establish a computer connection to the `Smart' Call Box. To do this, there are several hardware and software components that will be needed. Diamond's Trafman is a PC -based software program that allows the user to program, recover, and process files from traffic counters. It will process counter data in count, speed, and axle bins. Furthermore, Trafman will calculate AM and PM peak how periods, peak day, peak how factors, averages per how, ADTs, speed percentiles, and applies seasonal and correction factors to data. The versatility of Trafman is difficult to match, and the set is relatively straightforward and user friendly. Another software component that will be needed is called TrafModem (a.ka. TT -Link). This software program allows connection via modem to a field counter, and retrieves data through this connection. TrafModem is an.integral component to the `Smart' Call Box data downloading process. The TraNadem connection provides for one of the best telephone modem communication packages in the industry today. Once software installation has been completed, the next step in the downloading process is to dial into the .`.Smart' Call Box and retrieve information. The time associated with this process is 11 minutes. Sample data from this process is provided in Appendix C. ➢ STEP 4 - Information Conversion Procedures Conversion of the raw data into an appropriate format for evaluation using the `Smart' Call Box Counts Manager is required. `Smart' Call Box traffic count data is stored and downloaded in a binned format. The conversion from a binned format to textual format allows the Counts Manager to process the information. The data conversion software 000165 6 VRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM'sMAItr CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM • Riverside County Transportation COMMi/TiOn is an enhanced Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with enabled macros that reformats raw Call Box data into usable data for the Counts Manager. Raw binned files are converted into specialized text files that are now ready for uploading to the `Smart' Call Box Counts Manager. The time associated with this process is fast, ranging from 1 to 2 minutes. Sample results are included in Appendix D. ➢ STEP 5 - Information Uploading Procedures Once the data conversion software saves the `Smart' Call Box traffic count data as text files, data can be analyzed in the Counts Manager. In the Counts Manager, a number of peak volume characteristics are derived from the traffic count data. These various characteristics are considered vital inputs in transportation computer modeling and LOS monitoring efforts. The Counts Manager application identifies `peak' characteristics as a documented `worst case' traffic volume condition. Peak volume characteristics include: ♦ 15-minute intervals aggregated by directional split; ♦ 1-hour intervals aggregated by directional split; ♦ estimated ADT and AADT for weekly and monthly time intervals; ♦ temporal graphs for daily, weekly, and annual (seasonal variations); ♦ Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Based LOS Tables segment LOS estimation; ♦ peak hour (daily only); ♦ peak rates of flow; ♦ peak hour volumes; ♦ peak hour factors; ♦ D-factors; ♦ K-factors; and ♦ true ADT and AADT. Data received and processed by the Counts Manager averages worst case conditions over several time intervals that include hourly, subhourly, daily, weekly, monthly, and annually (reference Figure 4). Traffic census and LOS outputs can also be printed directly from the applications and bound for hard copy documentation saving considerable time and expense. The approxim_ ate time needed to develop a peak hour count (both directions) and LOS estimate is S minutes. Sample results are provided in Appendix E. 3.0 `SMART' CALL BOX MONITORING PROGRAM DATA EVALUATION The purpose of this section is to provide a detailed evaluation of the `Smart' Call Box Pilot Program. To provide this necessary evaluation, an analysis of `Smart' CaII Box risks, Pilot Program costs versus conventional count program costs, and a comparison of `Smart' Call Box and LOS results versus conventional count program data has been developed. 7 YRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 000170 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM `SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM Riverside County Transportation Commission FIGURE 4 - CALL BOX COUNT MANAGER DATA MANAGEMENT AND OUTPUT Yteaget Roadside Taming pRT) at Den Oily Sandakan Roadside Taman(SRT) Dan road or ASCOT d Rle: (IS ne •waaeae•aeasOW • •• 15 le • Al a -70 - • • R ft a • • a It tl • • 79 rl n • • a . le OS • tl R 70 • • 40 7, 74.....• • a H R •I STEP 1 Traffic Data Collection Source: YRPil Technologies sem i • w4•4•e1m6w•O-4 13•4••••••1/144•Wwe . Toe a•a••1••e • OOP ••••tea • G•.••S••••/lw • Rom/ meow - r+r••reMea • p•••a•• 0e•elaSa lt•lea - s9•4.6'9011••.1••9 0•••a••a•i 16••a wooer essommtos Esimee sts OupR Cal Bra Courts Meagan hoplealion: • lbw r. •• o • • e0/5..:r111 -SO 74 • • ee70 R a a • • twe 1S'. _71. n • • 01136 a t n • • 01s0 n n n . • eras. -. a a e • • ROD R a 70 • • .021S -. NS 13 N • • 0230 IS •1 R • STEP 2 Traffic Census Data Management snd Output 3.1 `SMART' CALL BOX RISKS Potential Technical Risks I o•tauw•t.tr Integrated LOS Meade llesc Mira• .•ae••-••LOS e••m •r amok 0•49 ••••0 sal Cleft /aw.7nne.•la. Weekday Dab Peek Paned Ie• •c PM Pee# He• VWna.•.SR 2Aa •212 Peet Nov Fedor " ft a ADT 15,21S STEP 3 LOS Monitoring / Generate Model Inputs • • I °I" Tenrpaftllan Mudd Anshan end A2MeerGla Ries: STEP 4 Transportation Madhya* Modeling / Archiving The first step in the evaluation process is to identify associated integration and technical risks that may impact project success. Among the areas to discuss are the results of earlier ITS Call Box efforts, difficulties experienced during earlier phases of the RCTC `Smart' Call Box program, the current status and functionality of the ITS Call Box compliance with federal CMS and TMS requirements, and the applicability of other technologies that may impact the need for Call Boxes or `Smart' Call Boxes. ➢ Risk: If there are associated integration and technical risks that may impact project success, they can be attributed to computer maintenance, ITS Call Box problems, and/or Diamond Traffic Counter problems. Computer maintenance problems may arise when new software upgrades become available, outdating the previous software. ➢ Solution: These `add -on' modules enhance the performance of the software, thus maintaining the state -of- . the —art traffic data collection system. YRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM `SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM Riverside County Transportation Commission ➢ Risk: Other computer problems that may arise are computer crashes, software/hardware glitches, modem connection hang-ups, and driver malfunction ➢ Solution: All of these problems are avoidable if the system is set up and maintained properly. ITS Call Box problems may be associated with the call -in windows. Currently, there are two windows (time ranges) that `Smart' Call Box information can be downloaded; 9:00-9:45am and 11:00-11:30am. Problems will arise if there is not enough time to download `Smart' Call Box information (as the system increases, so too does the data). To bypass this problem, the `Smart' Call Box operator either widens the window, or accesses the Call Boxes at greater intervals. Another technical risk associated with the `Smart' Call Box is the Diamond Traffic Counter. ➢ Risk: The traffic counter may shut off intermittently, leaving gaps in the data collection. ➢ Solution: To avoid this problem, the traffic counter firmware and/or hardware should be updated. Assuming the `Smart' Call Box has been installed and is operational, traffic count data is stored in the Call Box Phoenix Counter. The Phoenix counter is currently configured to download data on a quarterly basis, as this is the minimum traffic monitoring requirements as part of the CMP mandate. Also, memory in the Call Box can store months of information, thereby eliminating the need to download data more regularly. ➢ Risk: Other technologies that may impact the need for Call Boxes or `Smart' Call Boxes include the enhanced use of cellular phones for purposes of motorist aid. If cellular phones become available to a majority of the public, the use of Call Boxes may be reduced or eliminated. ➢ Solution: Currently, the industry does not envision access on the part of a majority of the public to cellular phones within the near future. Further, technological advances will be necessary in order to eliminate spots or locations where cellular service is either not available or the signal is not strong enough to enable a call. Potential Administrative Risks ➢ Risk: If the Enhanced CMP Traffic Monitoring Program using `Smart' Call Boxes is not implemented, Riverside County could be found in non-compliance with the CMP; specifically, the Land Use Coordination Program. Non-compliance would also set the stage for a finding of non-compliance with federal CMS requirements for the entire SCAG region. In addition, the current traffic count program lacks the number and frequency of traffic count data that is needed to monitor the CMP System. ➢ Solution: The monitoring data is not only needed to comply with CMS and TMS requirements, but it is also needed to identify those primary locations along the CMP System that should be targeted for improvement and funding. 3.2 COST BENEFIT ASSESSMENT Results of the Pilot Program provided the data and other information necessary to update the cost/benefit analysis provided in Table 1. Table 1 examines the Capital, Operational, and Maintenance costs associated with utilizing conventional type permanent and temporary traffic counters (hose counters, card counters and permanent count equipment) versus a program focusing on the utilization of `Smart' can Box technologies. From a capital cost standpoint, 5 permanent and 5 temporary counters under the Conventional Count Program and 10 `Smart' Call Boxes under the Pilot Program are assumed to be purchased. 9 VRF'A Technologies May 17, 1999 ' u �'11 EVALUATION OF THE ENIIANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM 'SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM 0 Riverside County Transportation Commission f--". -1I TABLE 1 SUMMARY: CONVENTIONAL COUNT VS SMART CALL BOX PROGRAM COSTS 10 COUNTERS PLACED AT CURRENT PILOT PROGRAM SITES Reference Tables 1 end t In Appendix F for Anther explanation end detail of applied oasis CONVENTIONAL COUNT PROGRAM COSTS SMART CALL BOX PROGRAM COSTS Site Location Count Location Total No. of Lanes Freewayl Convent. Highway Total 10 Y► Operation Cost', Total ,10 Yr Malnt Cosr2 Total Capital Coati Total 10 Yr Cost% Total Cost Per Count% Total Cost Per Count (No Capitalr8 Total 10 Yr Operation Coati Total 10 Yr &taint. Corti Total Cipital Coati Total 10 Yr Cost% Total Cost Per Count% Total Cost Par Count Capitalr0 1 1-215/SReWSR91IC wwleound A Maln 0 F $5,256 $800 $14,500 S20,556 $114 S1111 i585 $370 $14,225 $15.160 $379 `(No $23 2 1-215 So. of SR 60 a F $5,364 $800 $17,500 $23,684 ' $662 $165 $585 $370 $17.225 $18,160 $464 $23 3 1-215 SR60-SR74 4 F S5,717 $800 ' $11,500 $18,017 $460 4 $163 SSW $370 ' $11225 '$12,180 $304 $23 4 1-215 So. of SR74 4 F , $8,152 $800 $11,500 $18,452 $441 $174 $505 $370 $11,22S $12,160 $304 $23 6 1-10 No. of SR60ASR70 a F 4 $5,870 $800 $17,500 $24,170 $604 $167 $565 $370 $17,225 $15,180 $464 $23 6 SR 74 2 C $5,549 $1,350 $1,630 $8,529 $213 4 $172 $585 $370 $8225 $0,160 $228 $23 7 SR 74 Eastof1-l5 2 ' C $5,434 $1,350 $1,630 $8,414 $210 $170 $585 $370 1822 ,180 S2sa $23 6 SR 79 110 - SR74 2 C 55,280 $1,350 $1,630 $8,260 $207 3168 SUSS $370 $8225 $9,180 %5229 $23 0 SR 243 So. of 1.10 2 C $5,152 $1,350 $1,630 $8,132 $203 $/63 $5115 $370 $8225 $9,180 1220 $23 10 SR 86 So. ofSR111 2 C $8,432 $1,350 $1,630 $9,412 $238 $166 $585 $370 $8225 ;9,180 $229 i23 TOTAL: $68,226 $10,750 $10.660 $147,1120 $3.691 $1,674 $6,660 $3,700 $112,250 6/21,600 53.040 $2$4 NAZI=S: •1 Total 10 Year Operation Cost Total annual operation cost x 10. (see Appendix F) '2 Total 10 Year Maintenance Cost Total annual maintenance cost x 10. (see Appends F) '3 Total Capita Cost Total capital cost (see Appends F) •4 Total 10 Year Cost Total 10 year operation, maintenance and capita costs '5 Total Cost Per Count Total 10 year Cost / 40 (4 counts per year for 10 years) 18 Total Cost Per Count (No Capita Costs): Total 10 year maintenance and operation coats / 40 (4 runts per year for 10 years) 10 VRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM `SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM Riverside Cornty Transportation COM Mittion The scenarios are meant to reveal the operational advantages of `Smart' Call Boxes as traffic monitoring devices in contrast to the conventional methods of traffic counting currently used by various agencies. The cost/benefit analyses is considered to be a `worst case' scenario since it is likely that costs will be reduced given the availability of existing loop detectors along the Congestion Management Program (CMP) System and the likelihood that bulk purchase and installation of `Smart' Call Boxes for Phase 1 and 2 of the CUP Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Programs will result in further cost savings. Referencing the Table, the Proposed `Smart' Call Box Program will definitely result in significant cost savings (on an annual or ten-year basis), especially when compared to those costs associated with conventional count program operations. The Proposed `Smart' Call Box costs are lower than providing for an Enhanced Traffic Monitoring Program utilizing conventional counter equipment. The costs associated with purchase and installation of greater than 10 boxes at any one time should provide significant cost savings. Costs estimated for purposes of this Pilot Program do not assume such bulk purchase/installation savings. 3.3 `SMART' CALL BOX VS CONVENTIONAL COUNT PROGRAM In order to validate data collected by a `Smart' Call Box, conventional methods (e.g., manual volume counts, machine tube counts, floating car runs, etc.) of collecting traffic volume data can be utilized. On May 4, 1999, conventional methods of counting were utilized to test `Smart' Call Box Station #74-0176, which is located on State Route 74, just east of Interstate 15. Traffic volumes were manually counted for the PM Peak Period between 4 and 6 PM. These volumes were then compared to data collected for the same day and time period using the `Smart' Call. Data from both methodologies were nearly identical; the `Smart' Call Box counted a total of 2600 vehicles, while staff counted a total of 2659 vehicles over the same 2 hour period. The difference in volumes may be due to human error. Over the two-hour period, with a 95% level of confidence, the volumes are statistically insignificant. Floating car runs were also performed at Smart Call Box Station # 74-0176 to identify delay, which can then be equated to a Level of Service (LOS). This analysis indicated that there was no change in the delay when comparing the Counts Manager output with the floating car run delay analysis. A LOS B resulted in both cases. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS It has been shown that utilizing `Smart' Call Boxes as an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology, can provide for significant improvements in the amount and quality of traffic count data for transportation planning, engineering, modeling, and funding allocation purposes. Moreover, traffic count data management and results, as well as Level of Service (LOS) analyses can be directly linked to `Smart' Call Box monitoring efforts and transportation modeling programs to significantly reduce staff' operations costs. In addition, the Enhanced CMP Traffic Monitoring Program using `Smart' Call Boxes can aid agencies in monitoring the street and highway system to determine remaining capacity and determining how well an individual facility or the entire system is operating. There are clearly significant short- and long-term advantages by utilizing `Smart' Call Boxes. Utilization of the existing infrastructure to streamline the installation of `Smart' Call Boxes and thereby reduce Capital Costs is highly recommended. With an extensive inductive loop infrastructure currently in place. savings in Capital Costs 11 VRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 000174 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM •SMART' CALL BOX PIIAT PROGRAM Riverside Comity Transportation Commission are likely. `Smart' Call Boxes are typically an extension of existing count programs, so phased implementation is recommended. Moreover, the `Smart' Call Box employs computer technology for speedy data conversions and archiving, resulting in greatly reduced staff time spent collecting and managing data Year-round count data is also extremely vital in properly generating model output and Level of Service (LOS) estimations that reflect existing conditions; especially for purposes of addressing CMP and federal CMS, TMS, and HPMS requirements. A description of these requirements is provided in Appendix G. More importantly, `Smart' Call Box implementation means that RCTC, Caltrans, and other agencies will have a working motorist aid infrastructure (with call boxes) and an established ITS backbone that can be integrated with other transportation management and information technologies. 4.1 ADVANTAGES The benefits of implementing a Smart Call Box system go beyond the region's ability to enhance it's existing regional count program. If a Smart Call Box system exists, that means an extensive call box network and motorist aid system is in place. Moreover, an important ITS backbone has been established through which future ITS strategies can be deployed and built upon. The Smart Call Box however, is an integrated data collection tool that aids in regional transportation management efforts and can provide up-to-date traveler information to broadcast services and other transportation agencies and centers. In addition, Smart Call Boxes have certain fiscal and operational advantages including: ♦ a one-time materials and installation fee; ♦ reduced staff time utilized for operation and maintenance; ♦ `Smart' Call Boxes can download traffic counts 365 days a year thereby providing the ability to continually monitor system operations and the amount of remaining capacity along congested facilities; ♦ all Smart Call Boxes are permanent; ♦ automatic data archiving and conversion; ♦ CCTV, vehicle classification, adverse weather and incident detection; ♦ low operational, capital, and maintenance costs (short and long-term costs to implement and maintain the `Smart' Call Box system are less than costs associated with conventional counting methods. Additional costs associated with Smart Call Box implementation can also be reduced through the utilization of existing infrastructure and phased implementation based upon previously mentioned Smart Call Box location and selection criteria; ♦ reasonable capital and maintenance costs; ♦ implementation of the `Smart' Call Box system will ensure compliance with CMP and federal and State monitoring requirements; ♦ the `Smart' Call Box system enhances the local investment made in the SAFE program by using the existing Call Box infrastructure; and ♦ the `Smart' Call Box system implements a project contained in the Inland Empire ITS Strategic Deployment Plan. As a fixed structure, the Smart Call Box collects data year-round. Data transfer is streamlined through utilization of existing cellular networks. A data conversion tool (the Counts Manager application) further automates the process through data archiving and data conversion. This greatly reduces the amount of staff time needed to . operate traditional equipment and manage vast amounts of traffic data. 01) 3 /' J 12 VRPA Technologiu May 17, 1999 EVALUATION OF THE ENHANCED TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM 'SMART' CALL BOX PILOT PROGRAM Riverside Cowry Transportation Commission 4.2 NEXT STEPS The great majority of data that is collected for the CMP Traffic Monitoring Program is traffic volume data. In order to implement a traffic monitoring process, it is necessary to define a number of strategic traffic volume count locations to provide the necessary information at a minimum cost. In order to establish the CMP Traffic Monitoring Program, it was necessary to define a system of roadway links on which data will be collected. Due to the limited availability of traffic count data, it is envisioned that the Phase 1 of the Traffic Monitoring Program should include a minimal system of roadway links (90 links or stations) on which limited data will be collected. Later on, the Program can be expanded to include additional roadway links (290 links or count stations — Phase 2), more frequent count intervals, and the collection of additional data. Phase 1 (Minimum) System Components ♦ Monitor each CMP roadway link between intersections/interchanges with other CMP roadways. ♦ Count each location quarterly (four times per year). ♦ Collect twenty-four hour counts, by direction. ♦ Estimated number of count locations: ' ■ Caltrans: 60 • Riverside County: 15 ▪ City of Riverside: 15 ■ Coachella Valley: Retain existing count program ♦ Includes 10 existing and 10 Pilot Program `Smart' Call Boxes. Phase 2 (Ultimate) System Components ♦ Monitor freeways at all links between interchanges. Where the number of general purpose through lanes changes between interchanges, create a new link where the lane change occurs. ♦ Monitor arterial roadways between intersections/interchanges with other CMP roadways, except that new links will be added when any of the following roadway characteristics change: - Number of general purpose through lanes - Divided/Undivided characteristic of the roadway - A significant change in traffic levels (5,000 ADT, unless otherwise determined). ♦ Count each location quarterly (four times per year). ♦ Collect twenty-four hour counts by direction. ♦ Estimated number of count locations: • Cattails: 200 • Riverside County: 50 • City of Riverside: 30 ♦ Coachella Valley: 10 13 VRPA Technologies May 17, 1999 000176 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget & Implementation Committee Shirley Medina, Staff Analyst II THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: TEA 21 Surface Transportation Program (STP) Local Program Fiscal Years 99/00 - 02/03 The STP Local Program gives the local agencies the opportunity to program transportation improvements in an equitable manner which is based on the old Federal Aid Urban/Federal Aid System program that pre -dates the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991. In an effort to continue the Commission's commitment to program a portion of the available Surface Transportation Program (STP) to the local agencies, staff has met with most of the local agencies to identify projects to program over the duration of TEA 21 (Fiscal years 99/00 - 02/03). Typically, STP local program projects have consisted of projects that are exempt from conformity analysis (i.e. rehabilitation/resurfacing, signal installs, intersection improvements, and shoulder widening). A project listing will be distributed at the meeting. Although there is no deadline to program STP local program funds, the funds are available beginning fiscal year 99/00. Local agencies may submit projects later but will be programmed in the outer years. The project listing -will be included in the next administrative amendment to the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) which will be due to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) on July 2, 1999. 000177 Financial Assessment Project Cost Source of Funds Surface Transportation Program Included in Fiscal Year Budget n/a Year Included in Program Budget n/a Year Programed 99/00 - 02/03 Approved Allocation n/a Year of Allocation Budget Adjustment Required n/a Financial Impact Not Applicable Y BUDGET & IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the TEA 21 Surface Transportation Program Local Program for fiscal years 99/00-02/03, and to include the projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Cu 1Th TEA 21 STP LOCAL PROGRAM FY 99/00 - 02/03 AGENDA ITEM 10 AGENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTION LENGTH STP FUNDS AVAILABLE STP FUNDS REQUESTED MATCH AMOUNT TOTAL PROJ COST FISCAL YEAR BANNING Rehab on Wilson - Wilson/Mountain 1.4 MI $126,018 $126,018 $473,982 $600,000 00/01 99/00 _ 00/01 00/01 99/00 99/00 99/00 99/00 BEAUMONT Rehab on 6th St - 110/SR60 & Maple 4,200 ft $242,001 $242,001 $316,091 $558,092 *BLYTHE $42,156 *CALIMESA $77,260 CANYON LAKE Rehab Railroad Canyon, Sidewalks Si_gnal, Median 5 MI $251,628 $261,628 $28,862 $280,490 CATH. CITY Rehab Date Palm Bridge @a Whitewater River, Widen 850 FT $666,071 $189,000 $26,000 $215,000 West Cathedral Channel Bridge - Engineering Only 150 FT *COACHELLA $307,370 CORONA Rehab on Promenade - Cresta to Buchanon, Buena 2.2 MI $693,856 $693,856 $156,144 $850,000 Vista-Ontario/Railroad, Third St -Grand to Arroyo *DESERT HOT SPGS _ _ $166,523 HEMET Rehab on Stetson - Warren/Cawston, Warren - $266,950 $266,950 $1,034,050 $1,300,000 Esplanade/Florida, Menlo - Santa Fe/State St *INDIAN WELLS 2.3 MI $83,904 INDIO Rehab Various Locations $182,279 $182,279 $210,000 $863,773 LAKE ELSINORE Rehab on Railroad Canyon Rd - I-15%Easterly City Li $223,773 $223,773 -$27,721 $640,000 LA QUINTA Rehab on Ave 50 - Park Ave/Jefferson 4,750 FT $125,484 $125,484 $238,045 $363,529 99/00 MORENO VAL Rehab on Ironwood Ave - Day St/Pigeon Pass Rd 5,330 FT $1,725,359 $1,672,400 $243,600 $1,816,000 00/01 MURRIETA Rehab on Whitewood - Alta Murrieta/Murrieta Hot Sp, 1.43 MI $193,612 $193,612 $25,388 $219,000 99/00 00/01 00/01 - 00/01 Alta Murrieta - Rockerest/Whitewood *NORCO $1,091,140 - $211,314 $500,000 PALM DESERT Widen Bridge 4 to 6 Ins -Fred Waring @ Palm Val Ch 110 FT $288,686 $288,686 PALM SPRINGS Sidewalks & Bike Trail on Gene Autry, Widen Indian 2.5/.5 MI $426,107 $426,107 $59,300 $485,407 Canyon Dr 2 to 4 Ins PERRIS Rehab on Perris Blvd - Ramona Expwy/4th St 6 MI $210,885 $210,885 $24,188 $235,073 RANCHO MIRAG Rehab on Ramon Rd - Da Vall/Mission Hills .5 MI $130,596 $106,200 $13,800 $120,000 99/00 **RIVERSIDE Rehab on Chicago - Le Conte Dr/MLK Blvd, Indiana- 5 MI $5,039,032 $1,260,000 $145,500 $1,405,500 99/00 Madison/Arlington, Lincoln - Jefferson/Madison, Madison - Magnolia/Evans, Main - Third/SR60, Market- First/City Limits, Alessandro- Chicago Ave to 500' my T21 FORM AGENCY PROJECT DESCRIPTION RIVERSIDE CO. Rehab on Belleg_Tve=Hamner/Etiwanda, 42nd St - Yucca Ln/Glass St, Alessandro - Alexander/1215, Serfas Club - Ranco Corona/Rt91, McCall-Valley/I-21 Scott Rd - Murrieta/1215, Varner - 1.9 mi SE'ly Chase/ Berke Dillon Rd - Long Cyn/Bennett, Limonite-115/ Etiwanda, Box Canyon Rd-110/Shavers Well, Ca' La Sierra/Kirkpatrick, Ramon Rd- Vista del Sol/ Thousand Palm Canyon Dr STP FUNDS STP FUNDS MATCH TOTAL PROJ FISCAL LENGTHAVAILABLE REQUESTED AMOUNT COST YEAR $8,411,614 $8,410,614 $1,089,684 $9,500,298 99/00-02/03 SAN JACINTO Rehab Various Locations $202,640 $202,640 $23,231 $225,771 TEMECULA Extend Diaz Rd - 1,000 ft No of Dendy Way 1,000 FT $238,461 $238,461 $61,539 $300,000 TOTAL $21,302,296 $16,209,494 $4,838,439 $20,047,933 'Will come back to the Commission with a list of project(s) in the near future. 'City of Riverside listing for 99/00. Project list for remaining years will be submitted annually. T21 FORM 00/01 00/01 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMM/SS/ON DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager Tanya Love, Program Manager ' THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director SUBJECT: Specialized Transit Analysis for Western Riverside County In November 1998 the Commission obtained the services of AMMA- A Menninger Mayeda Altemative, to conduct a study of specialized transit services provided in the western Riverside County. The Commission desired an analysis of existing services supported with Measure A Specialized Transit funds as well as feedback on whether the funds were being used effectively, whether their were opportunities to make better use of existing resources, and suggestions for program improvements. As you will recall, in the western Riverside County, 2.5 % of Measure A revenues are identified for specialized transit services. Over $9.8 million in specialized transit fund have been programmed since the Measure was passed. The funds have been used to support an array of transit services for seniors, persons with disabilities, and the truly needy in western Riverside County. The Commission's goal for this program was to provide service for these groups in areas where public transit was simply unable to cost effectively operate due to low population densities, long trip lengths, or specialized needs of the riders. AMMA has completed their review of this .program using a variety of evaluation techniques. Included in your agenda packet is an Executive Summary of their report for your review. A copy of the entire report is available upon request. The consultants will be present at the meeting to present an overview of their findings as well as proposed Strategic Plan including program goals, objectives and work plan elements. PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the Western Riverside County Specialized Transit Strategic Plan as presented in the attached report. 0 0179 A• II E N N INGER • III A YED A• A L TER NATIVE Riverside County Transportation Commission Analysis of Specialized Transit Services in Western Riverside County, California Prepared by: A-M-M-A Claremont, California In association with: Transportation Planning and Policy Costa Mesa, California May 17, 1999 000180 2932 RNODELIA AVENUE CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA 11711 • Ill 121 3111 ■ FAX 111 121 1317 Riverside County Transportation Commission SPECIALIZED TRANSIT ANALYSIS FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Executive Summary . INTRODUCTION This study was undertaken to provide direction to Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) policy makers and staff regarding the future of the Measure A Specialized Transit Program. The program is the result of the 1988 authorization by the Riverside County electorate to allocate one half -cent sale tax revenue to transportation issues. In response to a long-time commitment to meeting the special transit needs of seniors and persons with disabilities, the Commission established this Specialized Transit Program. Its goals are to improve transit access for Western Riverside County residents, particularly those in hard to serve rural areas, for inter -community travel and for riders with very special transit needs. The objectives of this study were: 1. To determine what, if any, levels of duplication of specialized transit services currently exist. 2. To identify areas and types of unmet specialized transit need in Western Riverside County and to propose related service goals and objectives for meeting these that the Commission might consider. 3. To identify tools to evaluate future Measure A Specialized Transit proposals by which to extend and enhance specialized transit operations. STUDY APPROACH This study included the following: • A performance review of program outcomes, based upon statistical and operating data of Measure A programs. • On -site operational assessments of five directly operated Measure A transportation services. • A demographics analysis of current and projected populations in Westem Riverside County that may require specialized transit services. • A consumer input program to obtain direction from potential customers as to improvements in specialized transit useful to them. Specialized Transit Analysis for Westem Riverside County 'noun fs1 Executive Summary DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE A PROGRAM Measure A awards have totaled between $1 million to $1.5 million annually, over the past five years. Awards all have the general goal of improving transit access for people with special mobility needs, these funds largely support programs and services operated by not -for -profit providers with limited funding to the public operators. The reasoning for this has been two -fold. One, not -for -profit, usually social service agencies have no other access to transit funds but can tap non -transit funding sources • for "match" purposes. Secondly, these agencies are sometimes more able to provide the personal assistance that these frail and special needs ridership groups may require.. . Over the past five years program awards have include the following (Exhibit A): • directly -operated specialized transit — transit services provided by not -for - profit agencies with a social service orientation • capital support — provided to not -for -profits for match on vehicle capital grants and to the public operators for selected projects. • TRIP mileage reimbursement program -- supported jointly with the Riverside County Office on Aging, this is a unique program that reimburses mileage costs when volunteers or neighbors transport frail elderly and younger persons with disabilities. • Fare subsidy and free bus ticket distribution programs — assisting one public operator in making its minimum fare box requirement and supporting the distribution of free bus tickets for emergency trip purposes. • Consumer training in use of fixed -route transit. Exhibit A 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% RCTC Measure A Specialized Transit Five Year Award Distribution ($7.5 million, 1995 - 2000) 30% 16% 7% 1% Qm• 6k if � 5 Specialized Transit Analysis Western Riverside County iv Executive Summary There are two important themes to this Measure A program. First, Measure A funds leverage other funding sources. The requirement that agencies match the Measure A award with outside dollars has brought funds from a wide array of sources that include: the Older Americans Act, Ryan White Care Act, United Way, Community Development Block Grants, city general funds, Inland Regional Center, various service club donations (Kiwannis, Lyon's and Optimists), an insurance company safety award, and private fund raising activities. The second theme is that Measure A funds support transportation services that reach out to persons who may not be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA, enacted in 1990, changed the face of specialized transit with its requirement that public operators provide paratransit services complementary in hours and service areas to the fixed -route services and that they certify as eligible riders those persons who are "substantially disabled." Western Riverside County has, in response to the ADA, maintained an historical transit commitment to seniors and people with disabilities through RTA's local dial -a - ride system, while augmenting the local services with ADA-only intercity dial -a -rides. Measure A funds to not -for -profit agencies are intended to support transit services to special needs populations, where a human service orientation may better meet consumers' mobility needs, a focus not easily replicated by the public operators. Measure A funds contribute to a network of services to this broader population of seniors and people with disabilities. Westem Riverside County's response is commendable and increasingly unusual as many transit properties react to the considerable requirements of the ADA by retrenching and refocusing specialized transit services to only the ADA population. DEMOGRAPHIC FINDINGS Western Riverside County is growing. The 1998 population projections as reported in the Inland Empire Quarterly Economic Report (John Husing, July 1998) reflect 3.3% per annum regional rates of growth -- from 746,000 persons in 1990 to a 26.5% increase of 944,000 persons in 1998. The 2005 population of Western Riverside County cities and selected unincorporated communities is projected to be 1.2 million. Areas of the county reflect widely varying rates of growth, with the mid - county growing fastest, a 6.7% per annum growth rate, followed by the south county at 5.0% increases per annum. The population of potential users of specialized transit is defined as persons over age 651 and younger persons with mobility limitations, notably who need assistance in one or more activities of daily living, the latter a U.S. Census Bureau indicator. ' Although the transit properties include persons younger than age 65 as seniors, the breakdown of age categories in census data necessitate establishing 65 years as the cutoff for this analysis. Specialized Transit Analysis Western Riverside County v -000183 Executive Summary The potential specialized transit population amounts to 11 % of the total population of Western Riverside County, an estimated 105,000 persons (1998). The majority of this population is over age 65, with just a few under age 65 who have significant mobility impairments. As with growth rates, the distribution of these persons across the region varies considerably, highest in the mid -county communities of Hemet/ San Jacinto and in the: pass communities of Banning, Beaumont and Calimesa (Exhibit B). Exhibit B Potential Pop. as%of Total Population 35% Westem Riverside County — Potential Specialized Transit Population As Proportion of Community Total Population 30% _ 0% 23% 15% 1 26% 10% 31% 1 • li Ca g by +04130.:*. Potential Pop.ee % of 1999 lacy Taal Pap. Countywide Moen - 11% Of this population of potential users, few are actual users of specialized transit. Most are still driving, have networks of family and friends and other mobility resources. An estimated 5% of the potential user population are actual users -- between 5,000 to 6,000 persons (1998). This is a fluid group however, with seniors "aging" into it and/or out of it, with some younger disabled persons able to move about independently during some periods of their lives and less able as they grow older. PERFORMANCE, OPERATIONS ASSESSMENT AND SURVEY FINDINGS Five Measure A -funded transit programs provide 75,000 trips annually, about 13% of the 604,000 specialized transit trips provided in Western Riverside County in FY 98. Most specialized transit trips are provided by the public operators: RTA`s dial -a - rides provided almost 190,000 (31 %) and the municipally -operated services in Specialized Transit Analysis Western Riverside County obui84 vi Executive Summary Riverside, Corona, Banning and Beamont provided 340,000 trips (56%). Measure A -supported, not -for -profit providers are: Care -A -Van, the Family Services Association of Westem Riverside County, the Friends of Moreno Valley Senior Center, the Inland AIDS Project, Inc. and Transportation Specialists, Inc. 1. General Findings from On -Site Assessments On -site reviews of the five Measure A directly -operated services were conducted: to assess operating data reliability; to identify short-term improvements in policies and procedures; and to identify what further technical assistance might be required. • Operating and performance data reported quarterly to RCTC varies significantly between operators definition and accuracy. Data procedures need to be specified and performance measures clamed. • Except for the South Loop and InterLlNK services operated by Transportation Specialists, Inc., the services assessed demonstrate a pronounced "social service" orientation, emphasizing client assistance over operational efficiency. These services meet special customer needs which public transit sometimes has difficulty addressing. • There are significant differences in the policies and procedures being used to schedule and operate the reviewed services. All five services could be improved to increase efficiency, operating performance and service quality. • To varying degrees, technical assistance could be beneficial to these systems in specified management and operational areas. 2. General Findings from Performance Review of Other Measure A Programs Outcome assessments of the other Measure A program are briefly summarized. Capital • Section 5310 match funding brought in $526,000 in Federal funds. • Vehicle capital replacement programs are in place for public operators, supporting a fleet size of 94 vehicles.' • No formal program of vehicle replacement exists for the not -for -profit operators, fleet size of 45 vehicles. Fare Subsidy and Bus Ticket Distribution • City of Corona assistance to meet the minimum required 20% fare box for a general public dial -a -ride has increased steadily over eight years. • Volunteer Center's Transportation Access Program (TAP) distributes free bus tickets oriented mostly to emergency trip needs (homeless and Specialized Transit Analysis vii Westem Riverside County 000/ s5 Executive Summary newly employed; job training trips; seniors; youth), with voluntary distribution by 190 participating agencies. Modest on -going consumer use at selected sites with TAP monitoring capabilities currently limited to paper review. Of 98,000 tickets distributed last year, 75% were within metropolitan Riverside where fixed -route services are concentrated. TRIP Mileage Reimbursement Program • Innovative program responding to needs for trips that are not typical "public transit trips." • TRIP is an effective supplement to existing paratransit at $4.54 per trip (FY 97-98), with consumers fairly well distributed across county and reflective of distribution of specialized transit population (Exhibit C). • TRIP assists in meeting long distance, medical trips not otherwise met. • Population is very frail, with multiple disabilities, most unable to use fixed route or public specialized transit; a few do so for local needs, using TRIP for longer, intercity trips. Exhibit C 60% 0% Western Riverside County TRIP Participants and Population by Area (279 TRP Participants as of February1999) 53% Metropolitan Western Riverside Communities Mid -County South County ■ % TRIP Participants ■ % General Population 0 % Specialized Transit Population Consumer Training • Riverside County Office of Education — training of high school students with developmental disabilities; very limited continued fixed -route bus use (2 of 50 trained using fixed -route 2 years later). Costs are for passes only. Specialized Transit Analysis Westem Riverside County 0 U a 1 8 6 viii Executive Summary • Blindness Support Services — FY 98 training of 57 consumers with visual impairments to use fixed -route for selected trips, relieving demand on Bial- a -rides. Cost per participant is $630 with outcomes too recent to assess. 3. Detail on Key Measure A Issues The Commission desired a review of the relative cost-effectiveness of Measure A programs and the level of duplication of these services with publicly -operated services. Critical findings follow. Cost Effectiveness • TRIP reimbursements at $5 and lower per trip cost, are very inexpensive for the longer, out-of-town medical trips for which the program is often used. • Subsidy per one-way trip varies considerably by operator, relating strongly to trip - lengths, with those providers serving longer trips showing higher per trip costs. This measure reflects the transit -based funding only and does not include passenger fares or other funding sources (Exhibit D). Exhibit D Subsidy Per One -Way $20 $16 $12 $8 $4 $0 Western iiverside County Specialized Transit Transit Funds Subsidy Per Trip, FY 97-98 $4.26 $5.15 $8.95 $>0:26 $12.32 $13.67 $5.97 $6.78 ee �cd �5 t� �� 0m� o�G 0s 5• p (O 0 a � � � �� G$ G Cr �� � �%V Py 46 Q6 Sources: RCTC quarterly reports from providers and RTA FY 97/98 Annual Report. • Measure A directly —operated transportation units of service (service miles and hours, trips) are not consistently reported, making comparisons difficult. Reported costs by Measure A providers show costs per revenue hour of service range between $26 to $33 per hour, lower due to low overhead and in -kind facility contributions.. For the publicly -operated dial -a -rides, costs per revenue hour are somewhat higher, ranging from $25 to $49. Specialized Transit Analysis Western Riverside County IX -0187 Executive Summary' Duplication of Services Twenty-three dial -a -ride services include the not -for -profit providers, the municipal operators and RTA dial -a -rides, providing an array of service types, with minimal duplication. A graphic depiction of the regional trip distribution follows (Exhibit E). • Metropolitan Riverside — Eight services (including Inland AIDS Project) with differing service areas, service hours and trip types. Quantities of service provided are consistent with the population. The exception is Moreno Valley where the seniors and disabled population is half that of the countywide mean (5% versus 11 % countywide mean), yet trip levels provided are still weN below the countywide mean (0.2 trips per capita vs. 0.6 countywide mean). • Mid -County Area — Two public operators and one not -for -profit. Some overlap in service area and one rider group (seniors) between RTA's Hemet/San Jacinto Dial -a -Ride and Care -a -Van, the latter more likely to provide medical trips (three out of four trips) and Valley ReStart trips. Hemet/ San Jacinto has the highest countywide proportion of senior and disabled persons, 31 % of area population. Care -a -Van provides some additional capacity at a low per trip cost, although coordination between these services is limited. • Pass Area — Three municipal providers (Banning, Beaumont and RTA's Calimesa) all serving different areas. Calimesa Dial -a -Ride, with 26% senior and disabled resident population, is at half the countywide mean in per capita trips (0.3 versus 0.6 countywide mean). Omnitrans' Yucaipa Dial -a -Ride does transport some Calimesa residents although this service will be discontinued by Omnitrans during FY 2000. Western Communities — Two public operators and one not -for -profit serve Norco, Jurupa and the other northwestern communities. The Norco service is oriented to Norca and"Corona trips, not overlapping with the Jurupa area trip origins. The RTA Jurupa Dial -a -Ride and Family Services Association Jurupa transportation program overlap. considerably, with no apparent coordination. PTA's Jurupa Dial -a -Ride tends to serve longer medical or local school trips, with a median age ridership of age 58, younger than most E&D services. Family Services trip logs show overlapping trip origins and destinations and'include child care destinations; few consumer survey responses (n of 5) making conclusions about their ridership groups difficult. • South County Area — Three public operators and one not -for -profit provider whose multi juridictional service area overlaps the city -oriented dial -a -ride services. Trip purposes and trip lengths are very different, although ridership populations are similar, largely older riders. TS/ coordinates its services carefully with RTA programs. South County has a low proportion of the target population with per capita trip levels similarly low. Specialized Transit Analysis Western Riverside County 000188 x Executive Summary. Exhibit E Trips to Total Population Western Riverside County — Per Capita Specialized Transit Trips, FY 1998 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 ...o.t., _Iv 404 _to" 04, jo. ,on, 6} Ap lip A. Ae se ‘• <, 4� ',�" `i 0, C. \. �, to d, �c \o.j. G aaalPer Capita Specialized �e v er by - - - Cwmtyk Ida Mean - 0.64 �� 'o. Note 1- Servrees In Beaumont. Corona. Celanese. Hemet/San Jacinto. Nome. Penis end Sun City nCkde general public dials -des. serving a broader population that servsas n the other grams focusing exclusively on specialized user groups.. Note 2 Per Capita trips are annuli specialized gonad tripe divided into the community's total population for 199e. 4. Customer Service issues Rider and community member surveys generated information about the travel -patterns and requirements of consumers. With 1,110 responses well distributed across the region, return rates were 21 % from municipal and not -for -profit providers, 18% return from RTA dial -a -rides and almost an 8% retum of community surveys. Consumer Trip Purposes/ Trip Lengths Basic trip needs for medical and grocery shopping are most common. Medical trip purposes are most frequently reported — by 60% to 70% 'of consumers. These are • usually longer trips of 4 to 9 miles or 10+ miles. Grocery trips as the second most frequent trip type (6 to Tof 10 respondents) most likely to be short trips of less than 3 miles. Personal trips (banking, post office, hair appointments) are third most frequent, also usually short trips. Social and recreational trips are less frequently reported (40% of respondents), with work and school trips least reported (20% to 30% of respondents). These trip lengths were shorter, under 3 or 4 to 9 miles. Consumer Mobility Choices, Knowledge and Needs Dial -a -Ride services are a primary mobility choice for one-third or respondents overall. Consumers report a range of mobility choices (Exhibit F). "Other" choices include walking, facility vans and HMO services. Specialized Transit Analysis Westem Riverside County xi -0U0189 Executive Summary Exhibit F Western Riverside County Specialized Transit Transportation Choices of On -Board Survey Respondents (it 727) _ 3% e � i% Oec fi �, % o� . v- ''r� F�4 B% Ord' • 41* J i ��1 ♦� 0% s% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% • A 4, Proportion of Total R � oapondonto od" 29% 34% • Of community survey respondents, one-fourth currently drive (98 persons); of these, 77% expect they may not be driving within three years. • ADA certification was reported by between 20% to 40% of survey respondents. This ranged from a high of 35% of consumer survey respondents to a low of 15°I° for riders on municipal services. Almost 37% of RTA responding riders overall report ADA certification, although the proportion on the ADA services exceeded 80%. - Another quarter to a third of respondents reported they don't know about the ADA or are unsure about ADA certification. Critical mobility concerns and needs faced by responding consumers include: • Assistance availability (no friend available). • Multiple trip requirements (trip chaining needs). • Transit availability (calling ahead and unable to book a trip). • Physical safety (concem for safety in waiting .for van or bus). • Long waits (concem about waits and retum trip wait). • Evening service (selected requests for later evening service). Service Ratings The majority of riders surveyed were very pleased with services received, 86% of respondents rating either Excellent or Good; 3 % rated Poor or Very Poor. Most services were at or very close to mean ratings of service quality. Those suggesting Specialized Transit Analysis Western Riverside County xll Executive Summary closer review of operations were RTA's Norco and Murrieta/ Temecula dial -a -rides and the City of Corona service. Consumer Ranking of General Dial -a -Ride Improvements 1. On -time performance (23%) 2. Other (26%) [description follows] 3. Dispatcher courtesy (18%) 4. Clear customer information (9%) 5. Clean buses and vans (7%) 6. Safe vehicle operations (6%) Other improvements included a wide array of comments ranging from: problems with call taking and dispatching; allowing trip chaining; allowing prescheduled market trips; giving ADA riders more priority; reducing the frequency of lost trip requests; adding more service/ vehicles; creating same day service request capabilities; expansion of the operating hours or service areas; calling out stops on fixed route service; modifying grocery bag policies. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SPECIALIZED TRANSIT STRATEGIC PLAN, 1999 - 2003 What follows is the proposed strategic plan, including goals, objectives and workplan elements responsive to the findings of this study. This strategic plan utilizes the Measure A funding as an implementing tool, seeing it as only one of several implementing resources. 1. Proposed Goals A. Respond to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) basic requirements; recertifying current ADA enrollees and managing demand with training of ADA users to use fixed -route services. B. Carefully administer Measure A discretionary funds to balance specialized transit opportunities and to improve transit services to seniors and non-ADA certified persons. C. Expand the Measure A philosophy of "leverage" to integrate public and private, fixed -route and demand response, salaried and volunteer workers so that different providers are working collaboratively to improve mobility of persons with special needs. D. Develop long-term capabilities to address mobility needs of the specialized transit populations. • Specialized Transit Analysis Westem Riverside County xiii _ 0 0 Q 9?t Executive Summary 2. Proposed Obiectives and Work Plan Elements In light of these goals, the following objectives are proposed, with work plan elements under each that are drawn from the study findings. A. Promote Balanced Specialized Transit Opportunities Target Measure A contracts geographically, • TRIP administration encouraged to continue targeting TRIP reimbursements primarily to rural and transit underserved areas; in urban areas, TRIP emphasis should focus on serving trip purposes or types not served by public transit. • TAP administrators, with RCTC staff, should develop mechanisms to ensure that TAP bus ticket distribution by area is proportionate to the availability of fixed -route services. Target Measure A to support trips/mobility needs not served by public operators. • Measure A funds should support directly -operated services that focus on trip types/ services not provided by public operators, only incidentally serving trips that augment the capacity of local public operators. • RCTC staff should coordinate the Measure A annual or biennial RFP process with RTA staff so that planned modifications to existing RTA fixed - route and demand response services are considered in terms of Measure A RFP areas of focus. • TAP administrators should be provided resources for some modest monitoring activities, limiting the free bus ticket program to emergency, non -recurring uses by human service organization clientele; recommend discontinuing provision of tickets to public or private secondary schools. B. Improve Specialized Transit Services Integrate Role Of Not -For -Profit Operators. • Specialized Transit Providers should ensure that all dispatchers have mutual referral numbers, with mutual training as to the types of trips that can be appropriately referred. • RCTC should standardize reporting expectations of Measure A directly - operated providers so that these services are more accurately represented. Consider adopting standardized Transportation Development Act definitions for key operations data elements. • RCTC to redefine the concept of "match," either establishing a ceiling for match from contract funding (15% to 25% of total project costs) or phasing out the use of contract funds as an eligible match source. Specialized Transit Analysis Western Riverside County 00192 xiv Executive Summary Capital Replacement. • Continue Measure A support of Section 5310 Vehicle Match Program for agencies requesting 20°% capital match funding, possibly expanding this to 100% vehicle replacement for exemplary services. • Discontinue Measure A capital match for public agencies with vehicle replacement programs in place, given that other funding sources, including LTF, STA and AB 2766, are available. • Consider Measure A capital match for public provider projects not otherwise covered under existing vehicle replacement programs but consistent with Measure A goals. Specialized Transit Improvement Demonstration Projects. • Approve Measure A support for two to three demonstration projects aimed at improving the productivity of specialized transit services through strategies such as variable pricing of off-peak services, development of local shopper shuttles, expanded trip planning, vehicle sharing and service routes • Consider other demonstration projects by which to improve specialized transit services, including creating same -day service capability, testing dispatch single -number reservation procedures, improving access to services or other innovations responsive to identified consumer needs. C. Enhance Coordination and Cooperation Grantsmanship • RCTC staff to provide Section 5310 technical assistance, Section 5313 rural transportation planning technical assistance, assistance in pursuing other special funding opportunities (e.g. welfare -to -work funding). Capacity Building Training • Establish a --Measure A set -aside for capacity building training activities of a wide variety. • RCTC staff to develop an annual Western Riverside County training calendar, with a balanced training program oriented to all levels of personnel involved in specialized transit, including: - Obtain no.cost training courses from the National Transit Institute (NTI); Partially subsidizing a minimum enrollment for fee -based courses on specialized transit offered by NTI; Obtaining no -cost NTI Fellows on subjects of interest and value to providers; Assisting providers in obtaining training scholarships for the CALACT/ Ca!trans Transit Management course; Developing a mentor training program to import presentations from major sites outside of Riverside County. Specialized Transit Analysis Western Riverside County xv 0 0193 Executive Summary • Enlist provider members traveling to professional meetings of APTA, TRB, Project ACTION, CTAA and CALACT to become mentor/presenters of information obtained on specialized transit to providers in Western Riverside County. • Consider improving services with hands-on technical assistance at provider sites. RCTC Advisory Body • Reconfigure existing RCTC advisory body to support and extend specialized transit goals for Westem Riverside County: - Consider establishing a single advisory body with expanded membership — public operator representatives, social service agency representatives, selected consumers — encouraging horizontal communication over vertical communication. - Balance participation from specialized transit constituencies, including operators, agencies and consumers to encourage problem solving. • Develop by-laws and workplan consistent with adopted specialized transit goals if advisory body reconstituted. • Maintain and actively use a specialized transit database as a mailing list for prospective participants in capacity building opportunities, from among the 125 identified specialized transit stakeholder agencies. D. Manage Specialized Transit Demand RCTC shall encourage human service agency management of specialized transit demand. • RCTC, RTA and the municipal.providers should promote social service agency roles in fixed -route trip planning for consumers. • RCTC, through its advisory body, can promote demand management roles for human service agency representatives. • RCTC can consider developing annual workshop for "stakeholder agencies" on specialized transit issues. Specialized transit providers shall work to manage the demand for specialized transit services. • RCTC and providers should promote use of public transit services through fixed -route training of consumers. • Specialized transit providers can develop periodic rider promotions encouraging desired rider behaviors. • Specialized transit providers should train drivers of both fixed -route and paratransit to assist in fixed -route trip planning for consumers. The funding and administrative implications of these recommendations do not represent extensive change from current practice with two exceptions. RCTC is Specialized Transit Analysis WesternRiverside County 01)01:)1 xvi Executive Summary encouraged to consider its Measure A program in the context of a "contract" with specified parameters and project -oriented goals, rather than the more open-ended grant process which was appropriate to the earlier history of the program. Secondly, RCTC staff roles in monitoring the program are not expected to change much, with the proviso that additional reporting definitions be included in the RFP offering Measure A opportunities, or in the subsequent contracts. The staff -level procedural change these recommendations do represent is in the area of capacity - building, a new role envisioned for RCTC staff. The distribution of funding awards by category follows (Exhibit G). Exhibit G 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Proposed Measure A Award Categories Annual Allocation of $1.0 to $1.2 Million 0% 40-45% 15-20% to-TS% 7-10% 7-10% 3-5% 06 OQe�a _ Q<c* �J b��a -S\ 413 �e `NO e�5 GaQ -0' Specialized Transit Analysis Westem Riverside County xvu Cr00195 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: June 2, 1999 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Plans & Programs Committee Cathy Bechtel, Program Manager Tanya Love, Program Manager . THROUGH: Eric Haley, Executive Director - SUBJECT: Findings Regarding Measure A Specialized Transit Services Operated by Family Services Association of Western Riverside County The Commission requested a review of specialized transit service levels provided in the Jurupa area since there was a concern that a duplication of service may be present resulting in ineffective use of Measure A Specialized Transit funds. Both the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and Family Service Association of Western Riverside County have been operating in the area for a number of years serving seniors and persons with disabilities. The Commission provides funding to support the operation of two vehicles by Family Services, specifically to serve seniors and persons with disabilities. The service as proposed by Family Services was to operate one vehicle for demand -response trips to medical appointments, shopping, and general appointments on a call -in schedule basis. The second vehicle was to be used to provide a shopping and medical shuttle service on a modified fixed -route. The consultants completing the Specialized Transit Analysis for Western Riverside County, AMMA, were directed to conduct a thorough review of the Family Services' Measure A Transportation 'Program. They, completed a review of detailed trip scheduling information including the dispatch master log, telephone logs, and client database. Quarterly operating 'data for a three and a half year period were also analyzed. They conducted two on -site visits and had numerous conversations with Family Services' staff to clarify data. An on -board rider survey was also conducted, however, of the 150 surveys provided, only six surveys were completed and returned. The consultants provided a Letter of Findings which highlighted a pattern of concerns over the effectiveness and efficiency of the Family Services' Measure A Transportation Program. This included a review of trip origins and destination which showed overlap with RTA's Jurupa Dial -A -Ride service, leading to the consultant's determination that there is, in fact, service duplication occurring in this area. The following is suggested to improve the effectiveness of Measure A expenditures OU0196 in the Jurupa area: ► Reaffirm the Commission's June 1998 action to allocate $72,500 to Family Services in FY 2000 to be used to support the operation of one vehicle in the Rubidoux/Jurupa area. This vehicle should focus on providing service for the Swan Lake area as well as interjurisdictional, trips not served by the Jurupa Dial -A -Ride. ► A written plan for improvement should be developed by Family Services which identifies measures that will be taken to: - improve documentation of policies and procedures for vehicle operations - improve operational reporting for the Measure A funded program - define services which will be provided to seniors and persons with disabilities with a single vehicle - coordinate activities to minimize overlap and duplication with the Jurupa Dial - A -Ride. ► RCTC Staff should work closely with Family Services to provide technical assistance as needed as well as clearly defined reporting requirements. Financial Assessment Project Cost $72,500 Source of Funds Included in Fiscal Year Budget Measure A Specialized Transit Funds in the Western Riverside County Y Year Included in Program Budget Y Year Programed 2000 Approved Allocation Y Year of Allocation 2000 Budget Adjustment Required N Financial Impact Not Applicable PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission approve the suggested improvements listed above for Family Services' Measure A supported service in the Jurupa area. Ob0197 ARA A•MENNINGER•MAYEDA•ALTERNATIVE MEMORANDUM June 1, 1999 TO: Cathy Bechtel FROM: Heather Menninger, A-M-M-A SUBJ: Items Raised by Family Services Association in 5/26/99 Letter This briefly reviews A-M-M-A activities undertaken as part of the Specialized Transit Analysis, as they relate to issues discussed in Dom Betro's letter to the Commission: 1. Trip Sheets A-M-M-A's trip sheet analysis included the following: • From the Family Services' Master Dispatch log, a four -day sample of trips was computer -loaded and analyzed to compare with RTA Jurupa dial -a -ride trips for the same period. Trip pick-up times and odometer readings were computer loaded, for analysis of trip lengths and times of trips/ trip volume through the day. Trip length data were not available from the Family Services' logs provided. A total of 78 Family Services' trips were computer loaded, all trips listed for the four sample days. • The Master Dispatch log and the telephone log were generally reviewed to get a sense of common destinations and pick-up points. The same review was undertaken of RTA's Jurupa Dial -a -Ride driver -originated trip sheets. • The A-M-M-A Letter of Findings (5/12/99) details our unsuccessful efforts to obtain copies of the Family Services' driver -originated trip sheets which we expected would contain a full record of Measure A vehicle trips provided. Please note that the A-M-M-A analysis related to duplication of services involved identification of differences and similarities between services. In the case of RTA's Jurupa Dial -a -Ride and the Family Services Association Jurupa transportation project, the various analyses detailed in the Specialized Transit Analysis found more similarities than differences between the two services, hence the finding of probable duplication between the two programs. Of the Master Dispatch log trips computer -loaded for analysis, the 78 trips (100% of the four sample - day period) represent 20.7% of the 470 average weekday trips provided, based upon Family. Services total trips counts reported to RCTC. This is consistent with the consultant estimate that 26% of trips reported are actually Measure A trips, and reflects the fact that upwards of 75% of trips FSA reports quarterly to RCTC are actually IRC trips. 2132 RUOOELIA AVENUE CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA 91111 ■ III 621 3111 • FAX 919 621 9311 Memorandum to Cathy Bechtel, June 1, 1999, page 2 2. IRC Passengers A-M-M-A recognizes that the Commission and Family Services had previously agreed to allow the IRC service as the "match" component of the agency's Jurupa transportation program. The Specialized Transit Analysis discusses the implications of this agreement. Use of a dedicated contract (e.g. the IRC contract services) as match limits access to outside funding to offset the costs of Measure A -provided trips. The availability of outside funding in the program was one dimension of A-M-M-A's evaluation for Service Utilization of Measure A Dollars rated Family Services with a medium score. The dedicated contract as match has the effect that Measure A fully funds operational expenses for the two vehicles in the Jurupa transportation project. In the other transportation projects reviewed, outside funding offsets the costs of trips provided, thereby stretching limited Measure A dollars farther. Our report notes that in relation to Measure A subsidy per trip "...Family Services [is] at $5.14 per trip; this figure would likely be higher if calculated only against the Measure A grocery and shopping trips provided" (p. 1-34, Specialized Transit Analysis, May 1999). In fact, assuming that just 26% of trips reported by Family Services are specifically Measure A trips and not the IRC trips, the Measure A subsidy per trip is actually $19.79 per trip. This almost $20 per trip cost is well above all of the other Measure A providers and in the range of RTA's expensive ADA intercity services (op cit., page 1-48). This analysis contributed to the evaluation criteria rating of moderate for the Service Utilization of Measure A Dollars. We gave it a moderate rather than a low rating because this match arrangement had been a long-standing agreement with RCTC, although it has an adverse impact on the utilization of the Measure A funds. 3. Trip Counts/ Origins/ Destinations The consultants did not review Family Services' driver trip sheets, although these were requested. We understood from Family Services' staff that the provided telephone log and the Master Dispatch log represent an incomplete picture of actual transportation provided since some regular passengers do not appear on either but are simply "known" to the drivers. For example, group trips often originated at selected pick-up addresses, were listed on the Dispatch log as a single pick-up (e.g. "Frances W. to Staters on Limonite") but could represent a handful of boardings. This is consistent with the fact that just 78 trips represented 100% of trips from the Master Dispatch log four -day sample period, accounting for just 20% of average daily trips reported quarterly to RCTC. Typically, one expects the dispatch log to represent a very high percentage of actual trips carried, upwards of 90% while only escorts, companions or a few flag pick-ups are unlikely to be listed on the dispatch log. It was therefore important that we attempt to reconstruct actual service delivered in the streets, something possible only with the driver -originated trip sheets. Memorandum to Cathy Bechtel, June 1, 1999, page 3 Modest revisions to driver trips sheets would enable an accurate counting of trips provided and are among the recommendations made by the consultants for further definition of data elements and specific reporting forms to be required of Measure A providers. On the issue of service duplication, we spoke to the fact that the analysis revealed Family Services Jurupa dial -a -ride service to be more similar to than different from RTA's Jurupa dial -a -ride. Additionally, the lack of any visible coordination between these two organizations suggests the unlikelihood that services will complement one another. For example, in Moreno Valley, the Mo-Van's Friday shopping shuttle is known•to RTA dispatchers, thereby in hopes that some RTA overflow trips for shopping purposes can be funneled to this Measure A provider. Additionally, agency staff report that local trips are only provided on Mo-Van if the individual has already been unsuccessful in obtaining that trip on RTA. Evaluation criteria ratings for Family Services of low for Coordination Achievements and a moderate rating for Service Utilization of Measure A Dollars were influenced by these facts. 4. Policies and Procedures In response to questioning by A-M-M-A team member Roy Glauthier, Family Services staff stated that there was no existing document presenting service policies or describing the service, although work was in progress on an informational brochure. The evaluation criteria of Quality Control received a low ranking because these materials were not available. 5. Surveys It is regrettable that so few surveys were returned. For other services, notably the Mo- Van and the Inland AIDS Project, other collateral information served to document the service differences from other publicly provided specialized transit service. In these cases, while we would like to have heard from more consumers, these added information sources provided us with a level of comfort as to findings related to service duplication. The services were basically different. This was not the case for the Family Services Association Jurupa transportation project. The analysis of trip sheets did point to service overlap with the RTA Jurupa dial -a -ride and we could not definitively show, through the survey returns, that different ridership populations were served. The evaluation criteria of Customer Service Rating could not be rated as a result of the low survey return. Finally, while other Measure A providers did not score highly on every evaluation category used by the consultants, the Family Services Association Jurupa Transportation Project was the only service with lower scores in each of the five evaluation categories. It was on this basis that we encouraged the Commission to Memorandum to Cathy Bechtel, June 1, 1999, page 4 review its agreement with Family Services and to request that Family Services prepare a plan of correction, with input from RCTC staff, if transportation services are to continue to be provided with Measure A funds. We understand Family Services Association are concerned that their program be accurately portrayed in our report. According to the criteria described and the analysis conducted, we believe this to be the case. At your request, we are certainly willing to revisit any aspect of our assessment. Memorandum to Cathy Bechtel, June 1, 1999, page 5 Exhibit 3-7, Measure A Program Award Evaluation 1999-2000 Evaluation=, - , Ater. Service utilization/ - Measure A dollars .- Unduplic'td,Quality Service Niches t Control _ � " -Customer Service Rating Coordination Achiev'mnts DIRECTLY OPERATED SERVICES: Care -A -Van High Moderate Moderate High High Family Services Association Moderate High High (no rating — low response Friends of Moreno Valley/ Mo-Van High (no rating - low response) High Inland AIDS Project High High Moderate (no rating - low response) High TSI/ So. Co./ InterLink High High High High High OTHER PROGRAMS: TRIP Mileage Reimburs'mnts High High High High High TAP Bus Ticket Distribution High Moderate Moderate Not assessed High County Office on Education Moderate High Not assessed Blindness Support High High Not assessed Not assessed High Corona Farebox Match Not assessed High 5310 Capital Match Program High High High to Moderate High to Moderate High "Other" Capital Match Moderate Not assessed Not assessed revise Evaluation Criteria Kev: Service Utilization/ Dollar High - High utilization, high return per Measure A dollar invested. Low service utilization per Measure A dollar invested. Unduplicated Service Niche High - Only service available for group, area or trip type. ® - Other equally accessible choices of service available. Quality Control: [High - Clear, well maintained records; strong indication of use. Poor or absent records. ®- Customer Service: High - High rating by surveyed consumers; positive perception. ® - Poor customer response, poor customer perception. Coordination: High - Active participation with other organizations, including other funding supplementing Measure A services. 1111 - Non participation with other agencies, no coordinated outcomes. 74014 Solace Adocatio* di; Woteut Zoe:Jae &wade' Admigatzettlue sew 3634 Elizabeth Street • Riverside, CA 92506 (909) 686-1096 • FAX (909) 686-5382 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Paul Jensen, Chair Norman Buchanan, Vice Chair Linda Wray, Vice Chair Judith Wood, Secretary Kenneth B. Cohen, Treasurer EstherVelez Andrews Jane Block William Carter Susan Divine Holly Gunnette Irving Hendrick Rosemary Morgan Jeff Rajcic Johnny Thomas Barbara Tooker Corri Windsor -Stevens Paul Zellerbach President / CEO Dom Betro, A.C.S.W. Locations Corona Lake Elsinore Mead Valley Murrieta San Jacinto Sun City Riverside Rubidoux FAMILY SERVICE COUNCIL May 26, 1999 Cathy Bechtel Riverside County Transportation Commission 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, CA 92501 Dear Cathy; 463 3 Thank you for supplying me with the letter from AMMA detailing their findings relative to their review of our Measure A services. Please note the following in this regard. 1) Trip Sheets It is unfortunate that AMNIA did not take the time to fully review the trip sheets as offered by FSA staff. As I understand it, a one time 3 hour on site visit occurred, with no follow up visit. The trip sheets referred to are literally hundreds, which could have been easily reviewed. Although FSA staff should have handled this request differently, it could have been helpful to have had an appointment to discuss this finding and for further investigation by AMMA prior to the finalizing of the report. 2) "RC Passengers These findings are confusing. The IRC, subscription type service has always been known to, and accepted by, RCTC as a Match service. Statistics are clearly delineated in your quarterly report. It only stands to reason that subscription/group transportation services will have higher passenger rates. I would be interested in knowing why this is an issue - in other words not considered as part of the total Measure A services. 3) Trip Counts/Origins / Destinations The inability to verify trip counts is difficult to understand. Passengers are clearly listed on the driver trip sheets. I don't see what a phone log would prove. Perhaps the most full proof approach to this would be to have passengers sign in, which we would be happy to do. I would be interested in knowing what other providers do to "verify" trips. I also would like to request an on site visit by you and an AMMA representatives to look at these trip logs. " FAMILY STRENGTH IS COMMUNITY STRENGTH " Serving the Community Since 1953 a rwrowa.. A United Way Agency As RTA data was not reviewed, it is hard to understand how an indication that we cover similar destinations , could result in a finding of duplication. We know we cover the same areas, the issue is that seniors can not get on the DAR service. (Please note that, based on our conversations, RTA never complied with the data requested by Supervisor Tavaglione and RCTC, while Family Service supplied data exceeding expectations). As a result, to assume that 450 passengers per month will be absorbed by the RTA-DAR seems to be an unfounded conclusion. 4) Policies and Procedures We have Driver, Safety, Personnel Manuals, and Brochures/Flyers of all kinds, which are proven tools, refined over many years of operation. It would be helpful to know what specifically, AMMA found problematic with these tools. 5) Surveys It is regrettable that so few surveys were returned, but it is interesting that other providers also had similar low return rates. Finally, I strongly object to the overall findings of "concern with the effectiveness and efficiency .. and accuracy of the data". I would like to suggest the following as a result. A) An on site visit to be conducted by a representative of RCTC and AMMA to review daily trip logs, and policies/procedures. B) A re -issuing of the passenger survey. C) A comparative analysis compiled, from RCTC quarterly reports, of the following results across Measure A Funded providers: Cost per Trips Per Hour Miles Per Hour Passenger/Trip Cost per Hour Passengers per Miles per Passenger hour D) A similar -analysis of data requested in item C above for RTA service operating in Jurupa. (So that a true comparison of services can be conducted.) Thank you for your attention in this matter. Feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, 49617„... Dom Betro, A.C.S.W. President/CEO DB:kv cc: Supervisor Tavaglione Eric Haley, RCTC Executive Director