Loading...
09 September 2, 1987 CommissionCOMM-COMM-00117 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No. 10-87 July 29, 1987 Call to Order. The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Melba Dunlap at 2:05 P.M. on Wednesday, July 29, 1987, at the 14th Floor Conference Room of the Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Members present: Kay Ceniceros Susan Cornelison Carmen Cox Melba Dunlap Alternates present: Jean Mansfield Roy Wilson Norton Younglove Jack Clarice Ray Tanner Dick Deininger Public Comments. There were no public comments. Local Sales Tax for Transportation - November Ballot Copies of the expenditure plan, Ordinance No. 87-1 and Resolution No. 87-1 were distributed to members of the Commission. Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director, stated that a decision to place the local sales tax measure on the November 1987 ballot would require Commission adoption of Resolution No. 87-1, Ordinance No. 87-1, approval of the expenditure plan and the submission of the material to the County of Riverside for action by the Board of Supervisor at their August 4th meeting. Paul Blackwelder continued and said that the expenditure plan was mailed to all the cities and the County for review and comment. To date, only 3 of the 20 cities have responded. Since the cities and the County will receive approximately 50% of the sales tax revenues, it would be valuable in the development of the Commission's educational program for each of the cities and the County to provide a statement indicating the need and the purposes for which these funds would be used. He noted that there are limitations for Commission staff to discuss the measure once the Board of Supervisors is requested to place the measure on the ballot. Staff would be able to conduct educational Agenda Item No. 4A September 2, 1987 RCTC Minutes July 29, 1987 programs on the need for transportation improvements and funding problems. He said that while the Commission may technically be ready to proceed and place the measure on the November 1987 ballot, it would be more practical to place the measure on the June 1988 ballot. Unlike San Bernardino County, there has not been sufficient time in Riverside County to organize a private group to promote the measure. Commissioner Younglove stated there is no doubt that there is support from the business community if the measure was placed on the June 1988 ballot but not in November 1987 because of time constraints. He suggested that Recommendation No. 5 be amended to say "Direct staff to prepare an educational program..." Commissioner Ceniceros asked what the timeframe would be to place the measure on the June 1988 ballot. She noted that staff recommends approval of the expenditure plan. One reason for recommending waiting until the June 1988 election is to obtain additional feedback on the expenditure plan from the cities and the County. She said that the Commission needs to be able to modify the expenditure plan in a reasonable way. Paul Blackwelder replied that if the Commission intends to place the sales tax measure on the June 1988 ballot, they will be able to amend the expenditure plan to respond to comments between now and February 1988. Action by the Board of Supervisors to place the measure on the June 1988 ballot would have to be taken on March 1, 1988 and all material would have to be submitted to the Clerk of the Board by the second week of March. Ace Atkinson, Executive Director of Developmental Disabilities Area Board No. 12, spoke and said that he agrees with the statement on the expenditure plan to expand transit services and lower fees for the elderly and handicapped but the Commission's informal policy in the Coachella Valley area that transportation services for the elderly and handicapped will not be expanded when other social service agencies are providing that service is not in keeping with the Commission's statement on the expenditure plan. He requested that a Commission statement be included in the expenditure plan that is supportive of reasonable expansion and planning of transportation services to the elderly and handicapped. Commissioner Younglove said that if a change would have to be made on the expenditure plan, it should relate to the argument that 5% for transit is too much or too little. RCTC Minutes July 29, 1987 M/S/C (YOUNGLOVE/DUNLAP) that the Commission: 1. Support a local sales tax for transportation as a necessary revenue source to provide the transportation improvements system needed in the immediate future for Riverside County. 2. Receive and file the resolution and ordinance for the local sales tax measure. 3. Approve the Expenditure Plan, subject to consideration of comments made by the cities and the County. 4. Determine that the 1/2 cent local sales tax for transportation measure will be placed before the voters of Riverside County in .the June, 1988 election. 5. Direct staff to prepare an educational program for the Commissioners, staff and others to educate civic groups, social groups, and community leaders throughout the County of the need for immediate and future improvements to the transportation system in Riverside County and the need for additional funding for those improvements. Commissioner Younglove questioned the statement on the staff report that Commissioners are not allowed, except as individuals on personal time, to campaign for the passage of the ballot measure. He noted that there are no specific required work hours for a County Supervisor and that, therefore, all of his time is personal time. Joe Rank, Legal Counsel, stated that this restriction applies primarily to Commission staff during working hours. Commissioners are not considered as part of staff and are not limited by the same constraints. Commissioner Ceniceros related that in her previous experience as co—chairman of the County's Prop. 51 effort, she was told that there were serious restrictions on elected officials' activities. Joe Rank stated that at this time, the Commission is simply making a determination that their intent is to have the measure ready for the June 1988 election. Neither a resolution or an ordinance had been adopted. Once that occurs, it will put a different light on what the Commissioners or staff could do. At this point, there are no restraints. ROTC Minutes July 29, 1987 Chairman Dunlap said that Commissioners should develop a list of service organizations in their respective areas to enable Commission staff to present its educational program on the need for transportation improvements and funding problems. The Commission requested Joe Rank to present a report at the next meeting on restrictions on Commissioners and staff related to the promotion of a local sales tax measure. Wes McDaniel, Executive Director of SanBAG, informed the Commission that the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission unanimously acted to place the local sales tax measure on the November 1987 ballot this morning. 4. Adjournment. Chairman Dunlap adjourned the meeting at 2:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, aul B ackwelder Acting Executive Director nk RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No. 11-87 August 5, 1987 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Melba Dunlap at 1:05 p.m. on Wednesday, August 5, 1987, at the 14th Floor Conference Room of the Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Members present: Kay Ceniceros Susan Cornelison Carmen Cox Melba Dunlap Bill Edmonds Norton Younglove Alternates present: Don Baskett Jack Clarke Russell Beirich Ray Tanner 2. Public Comments. There were no public comments. 3. Presentation of Plaque. On behalf of the Commission, Chairman Dunlap presented a plaque to Barry Beck in appreciation for his dedication and outstanding work as the Commission's Executive Director from August 1977 to May 1987. 4. Consent Calendar. M/S/C (MURPHY/CORNELISON) to approve the following consent calendar items: A. Approval of Minutes. Approve the minutes of the June 11, 1987, July 1, 1987 and July 17, 1987 Commission meetings. B. Budget Adjustment. Approve an adjustment of the FY 1987-88 Commission budget to increase the Special Departmental Expense Account by $2,500 and reduce the Contingency Account by $2,500. C. Quarterly Financial Report. Receive and file the financial report of the Commission's account for the quarter ending June 30, 1987. Agenda Item No. 4A September 2, 1987 RCTC Mi nii August 5, 1987 5. Consultant Agreement - Contract Amendment. Copies of the invoice from D.J. Smith Associates were distributed to members of the Commission. Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director, stated that the Commission contracted with D.J. Smith Associates in May to provide assistance in obtaining legislation to authorize a local sales tax measure, develop a public opinion poll questionnaire, and to interpret the poll results. The agreement included an option to provide additional assistance at the discretion of the Commission. Phases II and III of the agreement included assistance in developing the ordinance and expenditure plan, and the development of action leading to serious consideration of a sales tax for transportation by the voters. Because of the fast pace that the Commission was proceeding, D.J. Smith had provided a significant amount of assistance on Phase II and III during the month even though he had not been formally requested by the Commission as required in the agreement. He recommended that the Commission approve payment of $3,363.86 to D.J. Smith for services and expenses for the month of July. He advised the Commission that he had requested D.J. Smith to submit a proposal to the Commission for developing an educational program and to assist in developing a strategy for putting the sales tax measure on the June 1988 ballot. M/S/C (MURPHY/DUNLAP) to approve the payment of $3,363.86 to D.J. Smith Associates for services and expenses rendered in July. Commissioner Ceniceros asked if the Commission is required to put the proposal for the consultant out for bid. Paul Blackwelder said that he did not believe it is required but would check and will report back to the Commission at its next meeting. Commissioner Beirich stated that the Commission, to expedite the process, could authorize staff to proceed with an RFP if it is necessary. M/S/C (CORNELISON/CENICEROS) to authorize the Acting Executive Director to proceed with obtaining consultant assistance to develop an education program and on strategy for the sales tax measure, and send out a request for proposal if it is necessary. 2 1 RCTC Minutes August 5, 1987 6. Commission Activities Regarding Promotion of Ballot Measures. Joe Rank, Legal Counsel, stated that there is a recognized prohibition for a collective group, either in supporting or opposing a proposal, to use their own personal funds or funds of the respective agency that they represent. The Commission, at its last meeting, asked whether there are restrictions on commissioners speaking in favor of the sales tax proposal. He said that as long as the commissioner is not on "company payroll" when making the support statement, he/she is entitled to any of the constitutional rights to speak on the issue. Because of the difficulty in determining when a commissioner is on the company payroll or not, he suggested that each commissioner use their own judgment. Since the sales tax measure is based on an expenditure plan which is going to go before the electorate, only a part of the funds would be discretionary at some point because there is some flexibility included in the expenditure plan. As to those monies, it is very difficult to say that there won't be some discretion exercised by the Commission. It is his opinion at this time, however, that the Commission has taken enough discretion out of this particular proposal that they are going to bring something back to themselves that they have some vested interest in. Since the Commission has not yet taken action to place the measure on the ballot, there are no restrictions on them speaking for the proposed sales tax measure. Commissioner Murphy stated that during her involvement with Prop. 51 for Riverside County for the League of Cities, she was given a list of guidelines which included prohibiting the use of any letterhead connected with being an elected official, the use of city autos and telephones, and no expense reimbursements to promote the measure. Commissioner Cox said that some of the Commissioners are elected officials appointed by the Mayors and Councilmen Conference to represent the 20 cities on the Commmission. She asked whether a commission member is prohibiting speaking for the cities. Joe Rank stated that the commission members could only speak for herself or himself as an individual but could not speak for the cities. He suggested that commission members who are unclear of the restrictions should call him prior to engaging in activities related to the local sales tax measure. 3 RCTC Minutes August 5, 1987 7. Personnel Matters - Closed Session. At 3:19 p.m., the Commission recessed in a closed session to interview applicants for the Executive Director position. At 4:05 p.m., the Commission resumed open session. At this time, the Commission determined to continue the meeting to 4:00 p.m. on Friday, August 7, 1987 to discuss personnel matters. No other action was taken by the Commission. 8. Adjournment. nk At this time, Chairman Dunlap adjourned the meeting to 4:00 p.m., Friday, August 7, 1987 at the Riverside County Administrative Center, 14th Floor Conference Room, Riverside. Respectfully submitted, aul Blackwelder Acting Executive Director 4 nk RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting No. 12-87 August 7, 1987 Ca11 to Order. The meeting of the Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chairman Melba Dunlap at 4:00 P.M. on Friday, August 7, 1987, at the 14th Floor Conference Room of the Riverside County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. Members present: Susan Cornelison Melba Dunlap Carmen Cox Alternates present: Jack Clarke Pat Murphy Personnel Matter. At 4:02 p.m., the Commission recessed in a closed session. Open session was resumed at 4:38 p.m. No action was taken. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Dunlap at 4:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, aul Blackwelder Acting Executive Director Agenda Item No. 4A September 2, 1987 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Riverside State Transit Assistance Fund Claim The City of Riverside has filed a State Transit Assistance (STA) fund claim for street and road improvements in the amount of $540,055. This claim represents the balance of funds for which the City of Riverside is eligible per the Commission's distribution of STA funds received through a trade of UMTA Section 9 funds last year. The three projects and amount claimed for each project are listed below: Alessandro/Arlington/Chicago Tyler @ Riverside Canal Kane Street Ramp @ 91 Freeway Total RECOMMENDATION $340,000 90,000 110,055 $540,055 Adopt Resolution No. 88-1-RIV allocating $540,055 in State Transit Assistance funds to the City of Riverside for three street and road improvement projects as listed above. PB : nk Attachments Agenda Item No. 4B1 September 2, 1987 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PRSOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is designated as a "Regional Entity" by the State of California and is, therefore, responsible for the adminis- tration and allocation of funds from the State Transit Assistance Fund, WHEREAS, the City of Riverside has filed a claim with RCTC for State Transit Assistance Funds, WHEREAS, RCTC has reviewed and determined that the claim conforms to the State law and regulations, and WHEREAS, RCTC finds that priority consideration has been given to claims to offset unanticipated increases in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, to offset reductions in federal operating assistance, and to meet high -priority regional, countywide, or areawide public transportation needs. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the RCTC hereby approves the allocations as shown on the attached Allocation Instruction Number(s) 88-1-RIV. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of RCTC is hereby authorized to transmit allocation instruction. to the County Auditor -Controller. DATE: September 2, 1987 Riverside County Transportation Commission I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at a regular meeting thereof held this 2nd day of September, 1987. Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION' STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS ALLOCATION INSTRUCTIONS CLAIMANT: CITY OF RIVERSIDE ATTENTION: H.E. Brewer, Finance Director PROJECT Alessandro/Arlington/Chicago Tyler @ Riverside Canal Kane St. Ramp @ 91 Freeway AMOUNT T $340,000 $ 90,000 $110,055 DATE:September 2, 1987 No: 88-1-RIV ADDRESS-: 3900. Main St, Riverside, CA 92522 PROJECT AMOUNT rX) This is an Original Allocation Instruction. j This is a Revision to Allocation Instruction No. to be voided. / Other. PURPOSE: 6731(d) Streets & Roads - Disburse from Unallocated. - Disburse from Reserves. - Reserve from Unallocated.. $ 5402055 COMMISSION USE ONLY - Reserve Status Project Original Amount Increase lDecrease, Drawdown New Reserves The above amount is to be later than the last day of MO MO disbursed/reserved in the month designated. FY: 1988 installment as follows no MO MO 10 1 4 8 11 2 540,055 D 5 9 12 3 6 R - Reserve D - Disburse Signed: Date: September 2, 1987 Paul Blackwelder, Acting Exec. Director CC: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Norco State Transit Assistance Fund Claim The City of Norco has filed a State Transit Assistance (STA) fund claim for street and road improvements in the amount of $95,823. This claim represents fund for which the city is eligible per the Commission's distribution of STA funds received through a trade of UMTA Section 9 funds last year. These funds will be used to perform maintenance and repair of various city streets. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 88-2-NOR allocating $95,823 in State Transit Assistance funds to the City of Norco for street and road improvements. PB:nk Attachments Agenda Item No. 482 September 2, 1987 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is designated as a "Regional Entity" by the State of California and is, therefore, responsible for the adminis- tration and allocation of funds from the State Transit Assistance Fund, WHEREAS, the City of Norco has filed a claim with RCTC for State Transit Assistance Funds, WHEREAS, RCTC has reviewed and determined that the claim conforms to the State law and regulations, and WHEREAS, RCTC finds that priority consideration has been given to claims to offset unanticipated increases in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, to offset reductions in federal operating assistance, and to meet high -priority regional, countywide, or areawide public transportation needs. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the RCTC hereby approves the allocations as shown on the attached Allocation Instruction Number(s) 88-2-NOR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of RCTC is hereby authorized to transmit allocation instruction to the County Auditor -Controller. DATE: September 2, 1987 Riverside County Transportation Commission I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at a regular meeting thereof held this 2nd day of September, 1987. Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS ALLOCATION INSTRUCTIONS CLAIMANT: CITY OF NORCO DATE: September 2, 1987 NO: 88-2-NOR ATTENTION:Jim Ashcraft,_ City Manager ADDRESS-:P.O.-Box 428, Norco, CA 91750 PROJECT AMOUNT Maintenance & repair - Various $ 95,823 streets PROJECT AMOUNT XI This is an Original Allocation Instruction. / This is a Revision to Allocation Instruction No. to be voided. Other. PURPOSE: 6731(d) Streets & Roads - Disburse from Unallocated. $ 95,823 - Disburse from Reserves. $ - Reserve from Unallocated. $ COMMISSION USE ONLY - Reserve Status Project Original Amount Increase (Decrease) Drawdown New Reserves The above amount is to be disbursed/reserved in installment as follows no later than the last day of the month designated. MO 7 MO 10 95,823 FY: 1988 D MO MO 1 4 8 11 2 5 9 12 3 6 Signed: R - Reserve D - Disburse Date: September 2, 1987 cc: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Exec. Director RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director SUBJECT: City of Corona State Transit Assistance Fund Claim The City of Corona has filed a State Transit Assistance (STA) fund claim for street and road purposes in the amount of $171,411. This claim represents the funds for which the city is eligible per the Commission's distribution of STA funds received through a trade of UMTA Section 9 funds last year. These funds will be used to resurface various city streets. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 88-3-COR allocating $171,411 in State Transit Assistance funds in the City of Corona to resurface various city streets. PB:nk 112 Attachments Agenda Item No. 4B3 September 2, 1987 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS WHEREAS, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is designated as a "Regional Entity" by the State of California and is,- therefore, responsible for the adminis- tration and allocation of funds from the State Transit Assistance Fund, WHEREAS, the City of Corona has filed a claim with RCTC for State Transit Assistance Funds, WHEREAS, RCTC has reviewed and determined that the claim conforms to the State law and regulations, and WHEREAS, RCTC finds that priority consideration has been given to claims to offset unanticipated increases in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, to offset reductions in federal operating assistance, and to meet high -priority regional, countywide, or areawide public transportation needs. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the RCTC hereby approves the allocations as shown on the attached Allocation Instruction Number(s) 88-3-COR. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Executive Director of RCTC is hereby authorized to transmit allocation instruction to the County Auditor -Controller. DATE: September 2, 1987 Riverside County Transportation Commission I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission at a regular meeting thereof held this 2nd day of September, 1987. Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director Riverside County Transportation Commission RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION' STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS ALLOCATION INSTRUCTIONS CLAIMANT: CITY OF CORONA DATE: September 2_2 1987 NO: 88-3-COR ATTENTION:John B. Grindrod, Deputy City M_g_r.ADDREss`:815 W.. 6th Street, Corona, CA 91720 PROJECT AMOUNT Resurface various streets $171,411 PROJECT AMOUNT This is an Original Allocation Instruction. This is a Revision to Allocation Instruction No. to be voided. Other. PURPOSE: 6731(d) Streets & Roads - Disburse from Unallocated. $ 171,411 - Disburse from Reserves. $ - Reserve from Unallocated. $ COMMISSION USE ONLY - Reserve Status Project Original Amount Increase (Decrease' Drawdown New Reserves The above amount is to be disbursed/reserved in installment as follows no later than the last day of the month designated. MO r MO FY: 1988 MO MO 10 171,411 D 4 8 11 2 5 9 12 3 6 R - Reserve D - Disburse Signed: Date: September 2, 1987 Paul Blackwelder, Acting Exec. Director cc: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director SUBJECT: SB 821 Projects Evaluation Criteria Last December, the Commission established policies to insure that agencies allocated SB 821 funds for bicycle and pedestrian facilities projects used the funds for construction within a reasonable time. The policies requires the funds to be used within the year allocated with an extension of six month granted if requested by the agency. Bill Gardner of the City of Riverside noted that there are legitimate reasons that can cause delays making it difficult to comply with this time period. He suggested that a criteria should be added to give priority to continuing projects. Under this arrangement, an agency could receive funds for engineering and right-of-way in one year and be assured of receiving funds for construction in the next year. The Commission requested a review of the SB 821 evaluation criteria prior to allocating funds this year. A copy of the current SB 821 evaluation criteria is attached. The Commission's current evaluation criteria has worked well for a number of years and staff does not recommend any changes. Funding of a project over a 2-3 year period can be accomplished without amending the selection criteria. The Commission could accept and approve applications for multi -year funded projects as part of its annual program. The initial project application would provide total costs for engineering, right-of-way, construction, etc. Staff has no problem with the concept of approving multi -year projects since this is a continuing program. The approved project would be assured of receiving total funding approved over a 2-3 year period. While this would decrease funding available for new projects in subsequent years, it would allow funds to be allocated to additional "ready to go" projects in the current year. Over the long haul, there would probably be more construction accomplished as funds would not be tied up due to project delays while inflation decreases buying power. Staff's only concern is that construction costs could be estimated low in the initial project application if the agency expected to amend the application and receive additional funding in the following year when construction funds were allocated. To avoid this situation, staff recommends that the amount of SB 821 funding for a multi -year project should be established using the original cost estimate and that actual costs in excess of the estimated costs should be funded by the agency. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Approve multi -year projects for funding in the Commission's SB 821 program with assurance that committed project would be funded in programs for subsequent year prior to approving funds for new projects. Agenda Item No. 5 September 2, 1987 2. SB 821 allocations for multi -year projects should be established using cost estimates in the initially approved application and any additional funding required to fund actual costs will be the responsibility of the local agency receiving SB 821 funds for the project. PB:nk "IY) Attachment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTO$ USE The extent of potential use of a bicycl0 or pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of number of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project. SAFETY MAXIMUM POINTS 35 Points are awarded on the basis of a project's 20 potential to correct current safety problems. IMPORTANCE AS TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile. MISSING LINK OR EXTENSION Points are awarded to projects that link existing facilities or are extensions of existing facili- ties. HATCHING FUNDS This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding for a project - not just an application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each five percent of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. POPULATION EQUITY The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum ten points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit". 15 10 18 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director SUBJECT: Consultant Services Agreement Attached is a proposal from D.J. Smith Associates for providing assistance to the Commission relative to the local sales tax for transportation measure to be submitted to Riverside County voters in June, 1988. The proposal provides assistance in three areas: 1) refinement of the expenditure plan; 2) development of a community outreach and education program; and, 3) development of a strategic plan to define the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and the private sector from now until the June election. The proposed cost for assistance is $15,000 plus out-of- pocket expenses for travel, etc. Assistance would be provided from September, 1987 through May, 1988. Commission bylaws do not require that consultant services be obtained through a request for proposal or competitive bidding process. Staff did not seek other proposals and recommends that the Commission retain D.J. Smith Associates for several reasons: 1) the price is in line with the price for similar assistance in San Bernardino County; 2) the consultant was involved and is familiar with work accomplished to date, including the poll, expenditure plan, etc.; and, 3) the quality of work received from this consultant has been excellent. RECOMMENDATION Authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with D.J. Smith for consultant service for the local sales tax for transportation measure in an amount not to exceed $15,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses as outlined in the consultant's proposal. PB : nk $ Attachment Agenda Item No. 6 September 2, 1987 J. SMITH ASSOCIATES HOTEL SENATOR BUILDING •SUITE 510 1121 L STREfT *SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 TELEPHONE 1916) 446-5506 700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD *SUITE 320 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596.3822 TELEPHONE (415) 947-1966 August 24, 1987 Mr. Paul Blackwelder Director Riverside County Transportation Commission 4075 Main Street, Suite 302 Riverside, California 92501 Dear Paul: Per your request, I have developed the following proposed work program that will prepare the Riverside County Transportation Commission for a June 1988 transportation sales tax ballot measure. I, Expenditure Plan Refinement Hopefully, the expenditure plan can be viewed now as a starting point by the Riverside County Transportation Commission for preparations for next year, and not as a document that is chiseled in rock. If the private sector support group decides to hire a campaign consultant in the next month or so, the consultant should also have an opportunity to impact the expenditure plan to make it as viable as possible with the voters. As you know, I believe you and others in local government in Riverside County came a long way in the development of an expenditure plan in a very short period of time. However, there were some issues that could be explored further in the western county area. We now have time to adequately deal with those issues toward gaining more consensus, and therefore support for the program. Some of these issues were: whether or not mandatory developer road fees should be tied to passage of the sales tax as was proposed in the Coachella Valley; refinement of transit improvements to be funded with the sales tax that we know will have the support of our senior population; and there were several major arterial/primary projects which needed further clarification relative to Caltrans versus local elected officials desires. Mr. Paul Blackwelder August 24, 1967 Page Two I would also like to spend a good deal more time relating our current expenditure plan to the poll results that were recently summarized for the Commission by John Fairbank. As you know, while most of the key projects were included, some additional research may be required on a project -by -project, voter area -by -area basis. The expenditure plan was pretty much put to bed before John was able to give us his conclusions/analyses on the poll. We should be involved in some professionally organized focus groups that test the various elements of the expenditure plan, ballot language, graphics, and ballot pamphlet materials. Finally, it is my feeling that given the short period of time in which the current expenditure plan was developed, we did not have the opportunity to test it in various community forums and with various interest groups in the County. I would very much like to help develop a systematic program of "public education" relative to the expenditure plan that again would allow us to present the basics of the plan, but still be in a position to make changes based on input from the community. In other words, we need to do some reality testing regarding some of the specific projects as well as the general orientation of the plan with some of the specific interest groups in the community such as seniors, local chambers of commerce, no growth interests and other interest groups. II. Community Outreach Program As described above, I recommend pursuing a systematic process for communicating the need for various elements of our program to the voters. In order to accomplish this we will need to develop a speakers program by which you or members of the Commission or other appropriate private individuals will be trained in the questions and answers of the issue, and armed with appropriate audio visuals (charts, graphs, slide shows, etc.). In a grass roots sense, you will begin to communicate the need for the program and the specifics of the program throughout the county. It is important that respected private sector folks, as well as elected officials, get involved in discussing the program with their peers. In order to accomplish this we should develop; 1. A limited but positive list of speakers available to address various community groups; 2. A ten- to fifteen -page question and answer manual for the speakers; Mr. Paul Blackwelder August 24, 1987 Page Three 3. A basic graphic that has been tested with some of the focus groups for displaying the major projects in the expenditure plan in the most positive light possible; 4. A one- or two -page handout that answers some of the key questions, lists some of the key projects and has a copy of our graphic display of the projects; 5. A slide show which documents the needs and displays the key questions and answers and graphics; 6. Conduct an orientation for these key speakers that trains them in the use of the above tools and generally prepares them for any type of audience we can reasonably anticipate. III. Development of a Strategic Plan I recommend early development of a strategic plan that factors in appropriate actions by the public sector so that there is a sense of coordination between the appropriate roles and responsibilities as we near the June 1988 election. This strategic plan should be developed with the participation of key commissioners and staff, key local government agencies, Caltrans and transit operators. Obviously, if a campaign consultant has been hired by the private sector they may also wish to be a participant in the development of this strategic plan. The plan would describe in detail roles and responsibilities along with time lines or deadlines for the various activities to be accomplished. IV. Fees I would anticipate that unlike the last couple of months effort, that the work described above could be accomplished in a much less intense manner. I therefore would expect that the involvement would require less intensity in the next few months, increasing during the months of December, January and February, and lessening again when we get closer to the actual election in June. Accordingly, my proposed fee would be $1,500 per month for the months of October and November 1987; $2,500 per month for the months of December 1987, January and February 1988, and $1,500 per month for March, April and May 1988, for a total of $15,000, plus expenses. Mr. Paul Blackwelder August 24, 1987 Page Four Since I have worked on sales tax programs for six other counties, I believe this reflects quite well my anticipated involvement in the effort. Given the potential benefits to the County, I believe it is a very worthwhile investment in purchasing the cumulative experience base from San Bernardino and the other counties I have worked with. As you know, I believe that the election is there to win, but will require a serious pro -active campaign to sell it to Riverside County voters. Given the time that we now have available to us, and hopefully support from the private sector, it appears that we have the opportunity to "do it right". I very much look forward to working with you and the Commission to present the best possible alternate to the voters in June of 1988. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this proposal. I look forward to the Commission's response. Sincerely, DJS/if RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director SUBJECT: Route 91 Ramp Metering Project Caltrans District 8 has completed a project report and is proposing a project to install ramp meters on 4 westbound on -ramps along Route 91 in Riverside County. The 4 ramps to be metered are Green River Golf Course, Green River Road, Serfas Club Drive, and Maple -Street. The estimated cost is $150,000. Funding for the project will come from "Minor A" funds available to the District. A contract for the project should be awarded in the Spring of 1988. Caltrans District 8 requests the Commission to support this project. A copy of the project report is attached. Staff recommends that the Commission support the Route 91 ramp metering project as proposed by Caltrans District 8. This project will help to alleviate the severe bottleneck that occurs daily during the morning peak hours when residents commute to Orange County. Ramp metering will make the use of residential streets to bypass congested freeway segments much less attractive. The use of residential streets causes two problems. First, it create problems for local residents accessing local roads and increases hazard for school children walking or riding bicycles to and from school. Second, it causes side friction at the point of freeway access adding to the slowing of traffic. The proposed project is expected to: o Increase freeway throughput by 400 vehicles per hour. o Reduce the attractiveness of residential streets as a bypass of congested segments. o Provide a better balance of user delay ratio between the through traveler and locally generated freeway user. This project will be the initial phase leading towards the eventual metering of all eastbound and westbound on --ramps on Route 91 from Orange County line to Route 60/I-215. RECOMMENDATION Support the Route 91 ramp metering project proposed by Caltrans District 8 for westbound on -ramps at Green River Golf Course, Green River Road, Serfas Club Drive and Maple Street. PB : nk Pb Attachment Agenda Item No. 7 September 2, 1987 Approved By: z W. F. ErDMONDS District Director To: W. F. EDMONDS District Director Approval Date -7 08-Riv-91-R0.0/4.2 Install WB Entrance Ramp Meters 08--351-305500 PROJECT REPORT From: S. LISIEWICZ Deputy District Director Planning Programming, and Traffic Operations INTRODUCTION It is proposed to install detectors, signals, and signs for metering the Route 91 westbound entrance ramps at the Green River Golf Course (Orange County Line), Green River Road, Serfas Club Drive and Maple Street. The project will optimize traffic flow. Cost is estimated at $150,000 to be funded from the 20.20.030.200 (HB42) program. District "Minor A" funds will finance the project in the 87/88 fiscal year. PROJECT CATEGORY This is a Category 5 project. It is of minimal economic, social, or environmental significance. BACKGROUND Route 91 is the only east -west freeway that links San Bernardino and Riverside, areas of more affordable housing, to employment centers in Orange County. There are no parallel State routes or local arterials which connect Riverside and Orange Counties. The rapid population growth of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties is resulting in the phenomenal growth of long distance commuters using Route 91 to reach Orange County. 1 Following is a chronology of events which have led to the current need for the project proposal: 1983 - Recurrent congestion (defined as average vehicle speeds less than 35 MPH which continue at least fifteen minutes) begins to occur during the AM peak on WB Route 91 between I-15 and the Orange County Line. 1984 - As average speeds on Route 91 decline commuters begin to use local residential streets to bypass freeway congestion and enter the freeway at the head of the queue. - In an attempt to respond to increasing complaints from local residents affected by the continuous stream of high speed commute traffic on the local street system, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors requests Caltrans' assistance in defining and resolving the problems. 1985 Caltrans participates in a three-month study which includes temporary closures of local roads acid westbound 91 entrance ramps. Freeway congestion and the resulting diversion to residential bypass routes rapidly continue to increase. - The Riverside County Board of Supervisors formally request the permanent closure of the WB on -ramp at Green River Golf Course. The request was withdrawn when the Board was informed of the lengthy process required for a permanent ramp closure. 1986 - Delay per vehicle reaches thirty minutes and delay as high as forty-five minutes is not uncommon. - Riverside County reacts to the continuous complaints of local residents by alternating the closure of various bypass routes during the AM peak. 2 1987 - Assembly Concurrent Resolution Number 8 is introduced which requires Caltrans to prepare a report identifying the problem and possible solutions by December, 1987. - Local political leaders form the "Route 91 Coalition". group's goal is to accelerate development of a project increase capacity on the Route 91 Corridor. - Riverside County formally requests the temporary closure of the Green River Golf Course ramp. - The Green River Golf Course on -ramp is closed until it is metered. The to - Caltrans' Districts 7 and 8 begin preparation of a Project Study Report addressing the feasibility of adding lanes to Route 91 from Magnolia Avenue in Riverside to Route 55 in Orange County. EXISTING FACILITY Within the 4.2 mile project area, Route 91 is a divided eight - lane freeway. There is an isolated WB on -ramp at the Green River Golf Course, full -diamond interchanges at Green River Road and Serfas Club Drive, and a trumpet connection to northbound Route 71. The Maple Street Interchange is a spread -diamond with a loop to westbound Route 91 in the northeast quadrant. Proposed Control and Detection Equipment Locations Location 1: Green River Golf Course is an isolated single PM R0.0 lane on -ramp to westbound 91. The storage capacity is 27 vehicles. (Figure 3) Green River Road is a full -diamond interchange with a single lane on -ramp to westbound Route 91. Storage is available for 16 vehicles. (Figure 4) Serfas Club Drive is a full -diamond interchange with a single lane westbound on -ramp. The storage capacity is 27 vehicles. (Figure 5) The Maple Street westbound on -ramp is a single lane loop located in the northeast quadrant of the interchange. Storage is available for 19 cars. (Figure 6) Location 2: PM R1.1 Location 3: PM R3.7 Location 4: PM 4.2 3 TRAFFIC DATA Average Daily Traffic Route 91 at the Orange County Line Year 1975 1980 1985 Average Annual ADT Growth Rate 75,000 98,500 6.3% 146,000 9.6% The average daily traffic (ADT) on Route 91 through Corona doubled between 1975 and 1985. Traffic volumes on this section of Route 91 are expected to increase at an average annual rate of 4.6% during the next twenty years; however, traffic volumes in the project area are currently increasing at a much higher rate (1985 to 1986 = 7.6%) WB On -Ramp Volumes On -Ramp Location PM R0.0 PM R1.1 PM R3.7 Green River Golf Green River Road Serfas Club Drive PM 4.2 Maple Street * Virtually all of this on -ramp traffic is bypass traffic entering the freeway at the head of the queue. **Sixty-six percent of the on -ramp traffic was generated by commuters exiting and re-entering the freeway. Accident Rates The most recent three-year accident history identifies 94 accidents on this 4.2 mile WB section of Route 91 occurred during the AM peak period from 0500-0800. Seventy-two percent of the AM peak accidents were rear -enders which is typical of stop -and -go congested traffic flow. AM Peak (VPH) 1985 1987 % Growth Course 846 1136* 58 238 548 1033** 1110 1658 34% 410% 88% 49% DEFICIENCIES AND JUSTIFICATION The primary problem is that peak period demand for Route 91 through Corona exceeds current capacity. The lack of any 4 alternate roads through the Santa Ana Canyon creates a true "bottleneck" situation. The immediate problem to be solved by the project proposal is the excessive use of residential surface streets to bypass congestion and enter the freeway at the head of the queue. The number of residents affected by steady streams of high speed traffic continues to grow as new residential bypass routes are discovered. The major concerns of local residents include (1) the difficulty they have in accessing the local roads from their driveways due to the continuous stream of traffic, and (2) the hazardous conditions their children encounter when walking or riding their bikes to school. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors is under constant political pressure to relieve the concerns of residents affected by this growing bypass problem. Metering the four WB on -ramps immediately upstream of the bottleneck is expected to: • Increase freeway throughput by approximately 400 VPH. • Respond to local concerns by reducing the attractiveness of residential streets as a bypass. • Provide a more balanced user delay ratio between the through -traveler and the locally generated freeway user. This project is the initial step leading toward metering the WB and EB entrance ramps on Route 91 between the Orange County Line and Route 50. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposal includes installation of detection and control devices at the noted Route 91 WB on -ramps and mainline detectors at Green River Golf Course, Green River Road, Serfas Club Drive, and Maple Street. HOV bypass lanes are not included in the initial stage of metering the corridor; however, they will be considered as part of subsequent ramp meter and lane addition projects. The Project Study Report for the lane addition project is currently being prepared. The estimated construction cost of the project proposal is $150,000. Traffic control and contingencies (5%) are included in the cost estimate. The project does not require acquisition of right of way, a route adoption or freeway agreement. 5 F PROPOSAL FUNDING This project will be funded from the District's 1987/88 HB Minor Program allocation and is included on the "1987/88 FY Minor Program List" submitted to HQ on June 15, 1987. State funds will be used per Mr. Martin Kiff's December 10, 1986 "Federal Aid Policy" memo. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - Riverside County, the City of Corona, and CHP support the project proposal. - A portion of the WB entrance ramp at Green River Golf Course is located within District 7. On July 10, 1987 Mr. Gary Bork, Chief, District 7 Traffic Operations Branch, provided written concurrence to meter the ramp. PROJECT REVIEWS The project proposal has been reviewed and approved by Lubin Quinones, FHWA Area Engineer (7-15-87) and Norm Wingerd, HQ Traffic Operations Reviewer (7-2-87). ENVIRONMENTAL CERTIFICATION The work herein is categorically exempt in accordance with Class 1 of the Department Environmental Regulations and is a categorical exclusion under Federal Highway Guidelines. �1**C.) H. J. SAWY Chief, Environmental Studies Date: RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION I have reviewed the right-of-way data contained in the R/W Data Sheet attached to this Project Report and find it to be complete, current and accurate. i W lliam B. Day Deputy District Director Right of Way 6 Date: 9� 7 RECOMMENDATION Approval of the Project Report for 1987/88 fiscal year construction is recommended. ATTACHMENTS Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Attachment 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 - Vicinity - Location - Location - Location - Location - Location Map Map 1 2 3 4 Categorical Exemption Right of Way Data Sheet RECOMMENDED BY: -57 S. LISIEWICZ Deputy District Di ctor Planning Programming, and Traffic Operations 7 Date: .S f S% T0: FR SU In Tr Tr th an bu th Th fr fa ca St fr as Pr in in in le th RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Riverside County Transportation Commission M: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director JECT: SunLine Transit Agency Short Range Transit Plan Amendment - FY 1988 May, the Commission approved the SunLine Transit Agency Short Range nsit Plan (SRTP) as part of the Riverside County Short Range nsit Plan for FY 1988-1992. Staff, at that time, pointed out that proposed SunLine FY 1988 budget was higher than shown in the SRTP that amendments would be necessary following approval of the get by the SunLine Board. SunLine has requested an amendment to SRTP to accommodate the approved FY 1987-1988 budget. plan amendment requested increases proposed operating expenses m $4.384 million to $4.682 million (+$298,000) decreases expected e revenues from $907,000 to $879,800 (-$27,200), and decreases ital projects from $728,000 to $717,400 (-$10,600). ff had expressed concern over the increase in operating expenses m FY 1987 to FY 1988 when the SRTP was adopted in May. The imated cost for operations in FY 1987 were $3.845 million. posed operating costs per the requested amendment represent a 22% rease for FY 1988. SunLine's explanation for the increase are an rease in service miles, expected increase in diesel fuel costs, and reased wages resulting from negotiations last year. A copy of the ter from SunLine explaining these increases and revised tables for SRTP are attached. Th= SunLine budget was approved by the SunLine Board on May 27, 1987. St=ff was present at the meeting and full consideration was given to ou comments prior to approval of the budget. The CVAG Technical Ad isory Committee, comprised of city managers from all cities re resented on the SunLine Board, requested the SunLine Board to re iew its approved budget due to the increase in costs and the impact on TDA funds available for street and road purposes in the Coachella Valley area. The SunLine Board reviewed the budget and has reaffirmed its approval. TD funds available to Coachella Valley in FY 1987-88 are adequate to fu d the operating costs and capital program proposed by SunLine in its requested amendment. A revision to the TDA allocation for transit pu poses will be required and presented next month when actual amounts of federal transit assistance (UMTA Section 9) and State transit assistance (STA) funds for FY 1988 should be available. A request by qu Line to reserve $239,452 for future bus replacements will be _ncluded in that report. Agenda Item No. 8 September 2, 1987 RE OMMRNBATION Approve the revisions to the Riverside County Short Range Transit Plan fo FY 1988 requested by the SunLine Transit Agency. At achment0 PB nk unLine Transit ME BER AGENCIES thedral City achella Desert Hot Springs I dio Quinta P:im Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage R verside County s i r. Paul Blackwelder iverside County ransportation Commission 075 Main Street.- Suite 302 iverside, CA 92501 ear Paul: June 22, 1987 ua1 • F4000 ap!si Crai '31411 unLine Transit is amending its Short Range Transit Plan for FY 988-1992 to reflect an increased operating budget for Fy 1988 and dditional capital items. Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been modified and re attached. The tables were approved at SunLine's Board of irectors+ meeting on May 27, 1987. we ask that you schedule this mendment for the next available Commission meeting. lso, as you requested, are copies of pertinent overheads used at the unLine Transit Agency Board of Directors meeting, May 27, 1987. hese overheads were used to explain the difference between FY187 rojected expenditures and FY188 budget. he leading causes of the increase of the FY188 budget over the FY'87 rojected expenditures are increased service miles, changes in the emorandum of Understanding and projected cost of diesel fuel. e changes in service miles were: 1) Line 19's service to Mecca was erouted along Tyler Road; 2) supplemental mileage was budgeted on ine 19 and Line 20 to compensate for higher traffic levels in the -ak season; 3) a holiday shuttle was budgeted; 4) a small increase of rvice to Thousand Palms on Line 2 and on the Special Services was eluded; and 5) the Sun Special was projected to operate full season ctober through May). T e changes in the MOU resulted in a 5% increase in pay levels plus 3% Aril through June 1988 for bargaining unit employees. This increase aso entailed increases in fringe benefits. 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail • Thousand Palms, California 92276 • (619) 343-3456 r. Paul Blackwelder une 22, 1987 age Two he third item which impacts the budget level is the projected cost of iesel fuel. Diesel fuel is one of the single largest line items. In ddition, the cost of fuel impacts other petroleum -based products. he difficulty is that SunLine must insure that enough money is udgeted so that SunLine will not fall short. SunLine investigated arket projections of the cost of diesel fuel and selected $.85 cents er gallon as a reasonable estimate. This was not the highest stimate nor was it the lowest. Last year SunLine's research showed hat $.90 was a reasonable estimate. Last year, petroleum prices did of rise as they were expected to. Therefore, SunLine did not require 11 of the budgeted cost of diesel fuel for FY'87. This may occur gain in FY'88. However, SunLine's staff has researched the price of iesel and has selected an estimate cost. The Board of Directors greed with staff and approved the budget using these price figures. egarding Item 5 of the TDA claim, as I understand the process, no ustification statement is necessary as the increase of budgeted FY'88 ver FY'87 is less than 15%. For your own information, SunLine does of prepare the budget using inflation figures. SunLine uses a form f zero based budgeting and inflation is captured by obtaining current nd projected item prices. have included several tables showing the vehicle replacement chedule, the amount•needing to be reserved and expected expenditures er year. Also included is a table showing expected operating xpenses, operating revenues, capital requirements and capital evenues. I have assumed no STA funds, a stable UMTA funding level at ast year's level and an increasing LTF at the rate of 5% per annum. f you have questions on this matter, please call me. ours very truly, NLINE TRANS'T, AGENCY ebra Astin Senior Planner e /n : file cl: SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FY 1988-1992 TABLE 3 SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency Prepared By: Debra Astin FLEET CHARACTERISTICS: FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Peak Hour Fleet 250 28 31 33 35 35 35 Spares 251 16 13 11 9 9` 9 Spare Ratio (251/250) 252 57% 42% 33% 26% 26% 26X Energy Reserve 253 -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- Vehicles Unavailable for service 254 10 10 10 10 10 10 Total Vehicles 255 54 54 54 54 54 54 EXPANSION Vehicles to be deliverd 256 -0- -0- -0- -O- -0- -0- REPLACEMENT Vehicles to be delivered 257 -0- 1 2 18 1 1 FINANCIAL DATA:////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Fare Revenues (000's) Operating Costs (000's) 266 740.60 880.00 924.00 970.20 1018.71 1069.65 267 3925.50 4682.30 4916.42 5162.24 5420.35 5691.36 M OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS://///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Revenue Bus Miles (000's) 258 1557.30 1608.70 1689.14 1773.59 1862.27 1955.38 Total Bus Miles (000's) 1681.88 1775.40 1858.05 1950.95 2048.50 2150.92 Revenue Bus Hours (000's) 260 85.90 87.70 92.09 96.69 101.52 106.60 Total Bus Hours (000's) 92.77 94.72 97.76 102.64 107.77 113.16 Linked Passengers (0001s) 1226 1451 1523 1600 1680 1764 Unlinked Passengers (000's) 263 1291 1527 1604 1684 1768 1856 Full Time Equivalent Employees 86 87 89 91 94 98 TRANSIT PROJECTS TABLE 5 SCAG FY 1988-1992 SRTP/RTIP Prepared by: Debra Astin County: Riverside Date: 5-27-87 Agency: SunLine Transit Agency Funds in $1,000's PR EX UMTA UMTA UMTA PROJECT DESCRIPTION YR YR TOTAL Sec 3 Sec 9 Sec 18 STA TDA FARES OTHER Three Replacement Coaches 87 89 450 360 45 45 FY 88 Operating Assistance 88 88 4682 247 47 158 3310 880 40 Two Replacement Lift Equipped Bus (25') 88 89 154 123 31 One Replacement Used Bus (Double Deck) 88 88 30 30 Thirteen Replacement Fareboxes 88 88 35 35 _40 Non -Revenue Vehicles 88 88 16 16 Office Equipment 88 88 11 11 Bus Evap Cooler 88 88 8 8 Facility Improvement 88 89 7 7 General Maintenance Equipment 88 88 7 7 FY 89 Operating Assistance 89 89 4935 142 47 158 3550 998 40 Seven Replacement Buses (Full Size) 89 90 1260 864 144 252 One Replacement Used Bus (Double Deck) 89 89 30 30 Five Replacement Lift -Equipped Vans 89 90 200 88 72 40 One Replacement Lift -Equipped Buses (25') 89 90 77 62 15 90 Operating Assistance 90 90 5182 142 47 158 3699 1096 40 One Replacement Used Bus (Double Deck) 90 90 30 30 TRANSIT PROJECTS SCAG FY.1988-1992 SRTP/RTIP Prepared by: Debra Astin County: Riverside Date• 5-27-87 Agency: SunLine Transit Agency Funds in $1,000's PR EX UMTA UMTA UMTA PROJECT DESCRIPTION YR YR TOTAL Sec 3 Sec 9 Sec 18 STA TDA FARES OTHER FY 91 Operating Assistance 91 91 5441 142 47 158 3850 1204 40 One Replacement Used Bus (Double Deck) 91 91 30 30 FY 92 Operating Assistance 92 92 5713 142 47 158 4122 1204 40 One Replacement Used Bus (Double Deck) 92 92 30 30 Seven Expansion Buses 1�1111 Size, Lift Equipped) 92 93 1260 370 638 252 7Z'Z E'£ 76'Z 7L'E LZ'Z 08'1 SZ'£ S7'E 6E'Z H39N3SSVd/AQISOAS 6I' i' EI' Z1' OZ' 7Z' TT' ZI' 9T' ES' OS' 79' I5' L5' LS' 17' ISOO '83d0/'A38 38VJ HRAN3SSVd/'A31I 3HV3 3AV 8Z'61 6'ST LL'SI 9S'ZI 08'81 LS'ZZ 8S'7I E9'£I 68'8I 'HH '113A/SH3ON3SSVd LO'I Z'I 61'1 Z8' 90'I LT'T IO'I 6S' LZ'I 'IW 'H3A/S830N3SSVd 09'Z 6'£ ZS'E LO'E 17'Z OT'Z LZ'£ 50'Z 90'E ' IW ' H3A/,LSOO I3N• 86'Z 9'9 70'7 69'E ZO'E LL'Z 89'£ EE'Z 09'E 'IN ' H3A/IS00 'IVIOI 'T'E7 9'99 99'97 86'99 L9'Z7 Z5'09 T7'L7 86'99 LO'S7 'NH 'H3A/1S00 I3N' W ES 9'ES 8£'ES 8E'ES 8E'ES 8E'ES 8E'ES 8E'ES 8E'ES ' HH ' H3A/ISOO 1VZOI O'6ESE £'6 9'LZZ 6'ZE L'E6L 0'907I L'88£ Z'8£E 9'ZVE (S,000S) LS00 9NIIVH3d0 J3N 6'E78 7'I 0'9£ S'7 £'661 9'999 0'69 I'97 L'97 (S,000$) 3HN3A38 31IV3 6'Z8E7 L'OI 9'I9Z 9'LE O'E66 S'Z58T 8'L£7 9'98E L'507 (S,000$) IS00 ONIIVHad0 O'EL7I 9'Z L'79 L'OI I'6ZE 9'699 6'811 I'S9I L'ZIT (S,000) S31IW 3` ARA HAN3A3H I'Z8 Z' 6'9 L' 9'81 L'7E Z'8 Z'L 9'L (S,000) SHAH 310IHHA 3HN3A3H O'ESSI 8'Z £'LL 9'8 9'67E Z'E8L 9'6I1 I'86 9'E7I (S,000) SN39N3SSVd 43ANI'INH S1VIOI 31IIAAS 7VIOUS 1VIO3dS OZ 3NI1 61 3NI1 S 3NI1 7 3NI'i Z 3NI7 30IAN3S AVOI'IOH NAS dI 8961 Ad AONHOV IISNVHI 3NI1NHS :HOIVEd0 HUM ARIA :MAI 30IAUS clIHS Z66I-8861 S3SASV314 30NVWHOD13d :9 318VI 67'Z Th'Z 70'S £0'L 9Z'7 E6'E 76'5 2130N3SSVd/AQISEHIS! 61' 61' 81' 91' SI' I£' 60' IS00 'H3d0/'A311 MAI 85' 9S' LO'T 7E'I EL' SL'I 6S' H30N3SSVd/'A3H 3HVd 3AV ih'LT 00'8I OL'8 SE'9 59'0I TZ'6 7Z'8 'HH 113A/SH39N3SSVd' 56' 00'T 9E' EZ' 8E' 8Z' LS' 'IW 113A/SH39N3SSVd 9E'Z T7'Z Z8'I 6S'I Z9' I OFT LE'E 'IN 113A/I500 13N I6'Z 96'Z TZ'Z 06'1 06'T 8S'T 'IW 143A/ISOO 'IVIO1 7E'Eh TUE/ E8'E7 99'77 W S7 91'9E TO'67 'HH 'N3A/1503 IIN LEES 8E'£S LT'ES W ES LI ES 8Z'ZS L8'ES 'HH 'N3A/IS00 11/10I E'Z08E S'SSSE 8'97Z 5'6Z S'6E I'S9 L'ZIT (S,000$) IS00 9NIIVH3d0 I3N O'088 7'LZ8 9'ZS 9'S 8'9 0'6Z Z'IT (5,000$) 30N3A3H 3HV3 £'Z897 6'Z9E7 7'66Z I'SE E'97 I'76 6'EZI (S,000$) ZS00 9NIIVH3d0 L'809I O'EL7T L'SEI S'81 7'7Z 7'6S 7'E£ (51000) MIN 3'IOIH3A 3I1N3A3H L'L8 T'Z8 9'S L' 6' 8'T £'Z (5,000) SHOOH 310183A 311NHA3H Z'LZST Z'8LVI 0'67 Z'h E'6 9'91 0'6I (5,000) SH39NHSSVd Q3XNI'IN❑ S'IVIOI SIVIOI SIVIOI I213530 WIVd 00/Sd x3'PIVAH3INI SHQ 30IAH3S ; OHM ad HQ 9861 Ad 0N39V ITSNVNI 3NI' OS :HOIVH3d0 3SNOdS3H ONVW3Q 30IAMS &PIS Z661-8861 xd :S3HOSV3W 30NVWH04213d :9 318VI Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency Prepared by: Debra Astin TABLE 4 CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Proiect Detailed Description: Purchase an Evaporative Bus Cooler r Project Justification: SunLine is currently experimenting with a bus eva- portive cooler which may provide more effective air conditioning for the desert climate. Should the experiment prove successful, SunLine will purchase the cooler. Project Utle! Description Purchase Bus Evaporative Cooler Primary Fund Source: Sec. 3 Sec.3 fAU LTF 8.0 STAF State local . Prog. Exp. Total Phase Year Year Fnst Fed. m c v c a 8.0 8.0. arr over Fundin : Recommendation: Transit System: SunLine Transit Agency Prepared by: Debra Astin Prolect Detailed Descriotion• TABLE 4 DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Purchase and install radio modifications which will allow the bus operators' a "talk around" capability when needed. r Pro.lect Justification: As part of Coachella Valley's Disaster Preparedness Program, SunLine Transit is purchasing and'install- ing a "talk around" capability for the current radio network. This will allow drivers to communi- cate directly with each other during times of emer- gency eliminating the need of the Edom Hill repeater. Proiect Title: Description Facility Improvements Primary Fund Source: Sec. Sec.3 FAU LTF 6.5 STAF State local . Prog. Exp. Total Phase Year Year fast FPd . cn e c e n tl. 6.5 6.5 . arr over Fundtn: Recommendation: Transit System: Sunline Transit Agency Prepared by: Debra Astin Proiect Detailed Description: TABLE 4 CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Purchase general Maintenance equipment which includes a forklift/backhoe and a post hole digger. r Project Justification. The forklift/backhoe will enable SunLine to accomplish relocation of shelters, benches, and trash receptacles. In,the past, SunLine rented the equipment and work was forced to be deferred due to lack of 'available equipment. The post hole digger will improve the installatio and security of sign posts,.will enable install- ation in cement and will reduce worker compen- sation claims resulting from heavy manual labor. Proiect_Title: Descrlption General Maintenance Equipment Primary Fund Source: Sec. Sec.3 FAU LTF 6.5 STAF State Local . Prog. Exp. Total Phase Year Year r'^st Fee. rn c v G u.. 6.5 : 6.5 arr over Fundin : Recommendation: . Transit System. SunLine Transit Agency Prepared by: Debra Astin TABLE 4 CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Protect Detailed Description: Major items include an additional computer, soft- ware and miscellaneous computer related items, and a rebuilt coin sorter/counter. Pro.lect Justification: The additional computer equipment is for an addi- tional staff member added in FY '87 and to provide inhouse typesetting capability. The coin sorter is over twelve years old and must be rebuilt. Pro_lect Title: Description Purchase Office Equipment Primary Fund Source: Sec. 13 Sec.3 FAU LTF 11.4 STAF State local Prog. Exp. Total Phase Year Year rmst Fed 11.4 °cal Carr over Fundin: Recommendation; 5_tate L 11.4 Trans 1 v TABLE 4 Prepared by: Debra Astin CAPITAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND JUSTIFICATION Proiect Detailed Description' Purchase two (2) replacement supervisor auto- mobiles Prolect Justification: These two: vehicles will replace the two oldest staff cars having over 90,000 miles by the replace- ment date and which are no longer economical to main tain. Projecj Title: Description Two Replacement Non -revenue Vehicles Primary Fund Source: Sec. 9 Sec.3 FAU LTF STAF State Local 16,0 111 Prog. Exp. Total Phase Year Year imst Fed, rn c .w v a W 16.0 • j16.0 arr over Funding: Recommendation: RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Paul Blackwelder, Acting Executive Director SUBJECT: Acting Executive Director's Report The Legislature is scheduled to recess on September llth. Staff will overview various transportation -related bills and may request Commission action in support or opposition. Staff will provide an update on the Cajalco Parkway Study, the formation of a coalition to support transportation improvements in Western Riverside County and other items of interest, as appropriate. PB : nk Agenda Item No. 9 September 2, 1987