Back to 04/24/01 Agenda

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Agency:

1) Consider the attached recommendation of the Social Services Transportation Advisory (SSTAC) Committee;

2) Accept staff's responses to comments received from the February 27, 2001, unmet transit needs hearing;

3) Determine that the existing level of transit service as detailed in the 2001/2002 Transit Needs Assessment and the staff responses to comments, reflects the level of transit service that is reasonable to meet for each claimant jurisdiction out of its individual Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment for 2001/2002; and

4) Approve Resolution No. 01-08 which reflects the Agency's formal unmet transit needs findings and Local Transportation Fund allocations, and adopt a Transportation Development Act (TDA) budget for fiscal year 2001/2002, and;

5) Approve 2001/02 Transportation Development Act (TDA) claims as submitted by eligible claimants. Claim amounts by jurisdiction are reflected on Exhibit B.

6) Adopt a weighted average 19% farebox standard for the RABA service area where services are jointly funded in the rural and urban areas.

SUMMARY

Adoption of the Staff recommendation will allow Agency staff to distribute TDA revenues to be received in 2001/02 and to complete the 2001/2002 Unmet Needs Process.

DISCUSSION

A brief chronology of the Unmet Needs and TDA claims process is as follows:

February 27, 2001 - The Agency considered the 2001/02 Transit Needs Assessment and received public testimony regarding unmet transit needs. Staff subsequently met with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (SSTAC) and presented the information generated from the hearing for formulation of the SSTAC recommendation. Staff prepared responses to comments and prepared draft findings regarding unmet needs that were reasonable to meet in each jurisdiction.

March 29, 2001, the Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee met and made findings that there are Unmet Transit Needs that are reasonable to meet based on the adopted RTPA definition. The recommendation SSTAC is attached. The differences between RTPA Staff and the SSTAC are discussed further below.

During this year's unmet needs process, the Agency received 32 letters and e-mails, 6 phone calls, and heard from 27 people who spoke during the February 27, 2001 unmet needs hearing. During the comment period the major unmet needs that were identified were as follows:

Transit service to Cottonwood

Transit service to outlying communities such as Palo Cedro, French Gulch, Old Shasta and Lakehead

Transit service to the Airport Road Corridor

Extended hours for the existing fixed route system and Sunday service

RTPA staff has prepared a matrix with detailed staff responses to all comments received. The SSTAC recommendation is also attached. Responses to major unmet needs identified are as follows:

Cottonwood - Comments received regarding Cottonwood represent requests for fixed route and express type services. Census data for Cottonwood indicates there is a potential for 15 one-way transit trips per day. That number of passengers would not support a fixed route with complementary paratransit service to that area. RTPA staff and the County will be seeking additional public input from Cottonwood residents to determine the specific type of transit service that would meet the needs of the Cottonwood area and also be reasonable to meet. The County has scheduled a public meeting in Cottonwood for May 10, 2001 to seek this additional input. It needs to be recognized that transit service was provided to Cottonwood in the mid 1990's but failed the fare box test and was curtailed.

This strategy seems appropriate when viewed in the context of the requests for additional service. The testimony of Mike Evans, Chairman of SSTAC, indicates that Express service to Cottonwood is needed and would meet the "reasonable to meet" test. Whereas Staff does not necessarily disagree with Mr. Evans and SSTAC we were unable to find any survey responses requesting service to Cottonwood. The concern of Staff is that Express service may not meet the specific needs of Cottonwood residents, and, would therefore, fail the "reasonable to meet" test. Mr. Evans and SSTAC also requested Express-type service to other outlying areas, however, Cottonwood was the only specific example presented.

Service to Outlying Areas - The geographic extension of fixed route transit service to outlying areas has been found not reasonable to meet. Census data indicates that there is a low transit demand for the communities of Palo Cedro/Millville, French Gulch, Happy Valley and Lakehead. Additionally, in the last ten years, transit service was attempted for some of these areas and failed to meet the 10% farebox required for rural areas.

Airport Road Corridor - Census data for this area indicates there would not be enough ridership to meet the 20% farebox for a fixed route service. The Redding Area Bus Authority is considering ways to possibly serve the Fairway Oaks Mobile Home Park and other mobility impaired riders within the Airport Road Corridor with existing demand response vehicles that use the corridor to transport Anderson residents to Senior Nutrition and Golden Umbrella programs near Shasta College. SSTAC is recommending an Express service for this area. Based upon the demographics of this area Staff respectfully disagrees with the SSTAC recommendation.

Extension of Hours and Sunday Service - The analysis for the extension of hours and Sunday service are similar. Ridership trends during evening hours and weekend service show a significant reduction in ridership for those times. Ridership data for the fixed route for a twelve day period from March 21st through April 3, 2001 was reviewed in reaching this conclusion. For this twelve day period 890 riders used the fixed route from 6:30 to 7:30 P.M. generating $723.50 in revenue. The cost to provide this service was $7,020 yielding a farebox ratio of 10.3%. It has, therefore, been determined the extension of the full RABA system for additional hours and Sunday service would not be reasonable to meet. An analysis for deviated routes or a dial-a-ride service indicated that the fare to meet the 20% farebox would need be $3.50 for a one-way trip. This was determined to be too expensive and would not be supported.

SSTAC is recommending that a limited fixed route Sunday service and extending the current fixed route until 8:30 in the evening. For the reasons stated above RTPA Staff respectfully disagree with this recommendation.

Finally, SSTAC is recommending Express service from Burney to Fall River Mills. The rationale for this service is that the current Burney Express is meeting the required farebox so this service would as well. Dial a Ride service was offered in the Intermountain area in the mid-1990's and was curtailed due to low fare box ratio. Inasmuch as the demographics and population density of this area have not changed dramatically Staff respectfully disagrees with SSTAC on the viability of an Express service.

In conclusion the RTPA staff recommends that the existing level of transit service as detailed in the 2001/2002 Transit Needs Assessment and the staff responses to comments, reflects the level of transit service that is reasonable to meet for each claimant jurisdiction out of its individual Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment for 2001/2002. TDA revenues available after the unmet transit needs are met are available to the jurisdictions for other purposes, i.e., streets and roads.

In October 1998, the RTPA took action to reduce the RABA fare revenue ratio to operating costs to 15% for 1997/98, 17.5% for 1998/99, and 19% for 1999/00. The farebox standard recommended for 2000/01 and thereafter is 19% and is based upon the percentage of service hours provided in the urban area and the percentage of service hours provided in the rural areas (Anderson area). The RABA fare revenue ratio to operating costs for 2000/01 was 19.1%.

Similar to previous years nearly all transit services will be provided by the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA). The costs associated with fixed route and demand response services provided by RABA have been allocated to the three cities and the County based 80% on service hours provided by that jurisdiction and 20% based upon the population served in each jurisdiction. This formula is the same formula that has been used by the RTPA since 1993 to allocate jointly funded RABA services.

Exhibit "A" is a spreadsheet that apportions the available revenues to the local agencies based upon population and allocates transit costs to those jurisdictions. This schedule also deducts each claimant's transit obligation from its apportionment to arrive at amounts available for other uses.

"Off-the-top" allocations for CTSA services provided by Shasta Senior Nutrition Services ($235,000) and for Administrative costs ($200,955) have been deducted before funds are apportioned to the cities and the County. Funds to be used to match Overall Work Program (OWP) core functions have been deducted from funds available for apportionment. These funds will flow to the local agencies as they perform OWP functions.

The RABA budget for 2001/02 contains $1,604,273 in FTA Section 5307 funds. Consistent with RTPA Policy 6-3, receipt of these funds will reduce TDA obligations on a dollar for dollar basis. These FTA grant funds reduce the transit obligations for Shasta Lake and Redding by $175,742 and $1,428,531, respectively. In the event these grant revenues are not received by RABA, their respective transit obligation will increase by the same relative percentages.

A summary of apportionments and transit obligations for 2001/02 are presented as follows:

ALTERNATIVES

The Agency could choose to allocate transit costs differently than proposed and adjust the farebox standard differently than recommended. The farebox standard can be set anywhere from 15% to 20%. Adjusting transit cost allocations is not recommended because all local agencies have reviewed the attached exhibits and concur with the Staff recommendation. The amount to be provided to RABA has been reviewed with them and they concur that RTPA Policy 6-3 has been correctly implemented.

Adjusting the farebox standard is not recommended because the currently adopted standard of 19% reflects the mix of service hours provided in the rural and urban areas.

The Agency may also continue this item and request additional information. This alternative is not recommended as the next RTPA meeting is scheduled for July and continuation of this item would require scheduling a special meeting. Furthermore, it is unclear what new information could be provided that is not already available. In any case, the RTPA reserves the right to amend claims at any future meeting.

OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

All claimants, including the Redding Area Bus Authority, Shasta Senior Nutrition Program, Shasta County, and the cities of Anderson, Redding, and Shasta Lake, have been consulted throughout the TDA claims process, both through their participation on the Technical Advisory Committee, responses to comments, and through informal consultations.

FINANCING

Final action consistent with the attached resolution will have the impacts to the Local Transportation Funds for transit service operations as outlined in Exhibit B. The TDA Budget funds RABA's transit needs in accordance with the RTPA's adopted Policy No. 6-3, entitled "Policy to Determine Transportation Development Act (TDA) Revenue to Be Made Available to Eligible Transit Operators" that was adopted by the Agency on October 27, 1998.

This budgeting process includes $400,000 of FTA Section 5307 funds and $92,904 of FTA Section 5311 funds.

Daniel J. Kovacich, Executive Officer

/jmg

Attachments:

1) Resolution No. 01-05
Attachments 2 through 6 available at RTPA office
2) Exhibit A - Apportionments and Transit Allocations for 2001/02
3) Exhibit B - Schedule of Annual Claims/ TDA Budget
4) Staff Responses to Comments Received during 2001/02 Unmet Needs Process
5) March 20th RABA letter
6) SSTAC April 3rd recommendation (including conceptual Cottonwood Express Service)