REPORT TO SHASTA COUNTY RTPA
|
SUBJECT |
|
MEETING DATE |
ITEM NUMBER |
|
Unmet
Transit Needs - Consider Approval of 2003/04 Transportation Development Act
(TDA) Allocation Instructions and Claims Budget and Unmet Needs
Findings. |
04/22/03 |
7 |
|
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Agency:
1)
Accept
the Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee’s (SSTAC) presentation
and recommendation;
2)
Accept
staff=s responses to comments
received from the February 25, 2003, Unmet Transit Needs hearing;
3)
Determine
that the existing level of transit service, with the exception of the Burney
Express, as detailed in the 2003/2004
Transit Needs Assessment 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
2003/2004;
4)
Approve
Resolution No. 03-03 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
2003/2004;
5)
Approve
2003/04 Transportation Development Act (TDA) claims as submitted by eligible
claimants. Claim amounts by jurisdiction are reflected on Exhibit B; and
6)
Increase
the required farebox to 20% effective July 1, 2004 to reflect the inclusion of
Anderson in the Redding Urbanized Area.
SUMMARY
Adoption
of the Staff recommendation will allow Agency staff to distribute TDA revenues
to be received in 2003/04 and to complete the 2003/2004 Unmet Needs Process.
DISCUSSION
A brief
chronology of the Unmet Needs and TDA claims process is as follows:
q
February
25, 2003 - The Agency considered the 2003/04 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. During
this year’s Unmet Needs process, the Agency received 3 letters, 2 emails, and 9
people spoke during the February 25, 2003 Unmet Needs public hearing. During
the comment period the unmet needs that were identified were for extended hours and Sunday
service.
Staff
prepared responses to comments and prepared draft findings regarding unmet
needs that were reasonable to meet in each jurisdiction. RTPA staff has prepared a
matrix with detailed staff responses to all comments received (Attachment A and
B).
q
March 13, 2003 - the Social Services
Transportation Advisory Committee met and discussed the results of the unmet
needs hearing and responses from the RTPA and RABA. The SSTAC will meet on April 16 to prepare the SSTAC
recommendation, which shall be heard at the April 22 Board meeting.
q
March 17, 2003 to March 22, 2003 – an onboard survey
was conducted on all fixed routes busses.
The survey was to gain transit information for extended hour
service. Survey results were analyzed
to determine the areas with the highest level of ridership, ridership days and
hours, and cost for extended hour service (Attachment C).
q
April 7, 2003 – RTPA staff met with the Redding Area
Bus Authority (RABA) staff to discuss the Burney Express. With the termination of the Intermountain
Express, RABA has charged Shasta County Rural Transit for three hours of
“dead-heading” time. This charge has
increased the cost to operate the Burney Express by $3,000 per month, causing
the farebox to fall below the required 10% farebox. Operating this service from November 2002 through October 2003 is
expected to cost the County $108,970 and the fare revenue is projected to be
$9,949. The projected farebox ratio is
9.13% (Attachment D). Staff recommends that this service is no longer
“reasonable to meet”. The cost of this
service will be presented on the 2003/2004 TDA Claim form for Shasta County as
a voluntary service. Shasta County may
choose to continue funding this service voluntarily from their TDA funds.
q
April 9, 2003 – Fixed route trip surveys were
documented for all routes to determine the most concentrated passenger times on
the busses. Drivers logged the number
of passengers boarding and deboarding at each stop. Trips were entered into a
database and line charts were prepared for each individual route. A total “system-wide” chart was also
prepared (Attachment E).
An analysis was completed projecting the fares and
costs of running four fixed routes with required demand response. These routes were selected because they
serve areas that received the highest responses in the poll conducted. This analysis assumed the same ridership as
the period from 4:30 to 6:30 P.M. adjusted for the reduction in demand as a
result of an increase in fares. This
analysis uses the same elasticity of demand factor as presented in the Redding
Area Bus Authority’s (RABA) short-and long-range master transit plan developed
by LSC Transportation Consultants (LSC).
This theory is that “fare increases will reduce general public
ridership.” The RABA LSC report uses a -35% factor for general riders and -25%
for senior/disabled riders (Attachment F).
The analyses assumes that the fare for extended
hours would be $2.00 for fixed route and $4.00 for demand response with no
transfers and no discounted passes. The
analysis also used $1.00 for fixed route and $2.00 for demand response. No attempt was made to adjust ridership for
the time of day.
These analyses show that the best performing route
would be route 11. Assuming a $2.00
fare it is projected that for each hour it ran it would cost $46.76 and yield
$5.97 in fares for a farebox ratio of 12.8%.
Assuming a $1.00 fare would yield the same cost of $46.76 with fares of
$9.59 resulting in a farebox of 20.5%.
Although this exceeds the 20% threshold it would be reduced when demand
response is considered.
In summary, to run the four most responsive routes
with demand response (1 vehicle) for four additional hours per day for six days
would cost $292,000 and yield $43,000 in fares and result in a farebox ratio of
14.7%. Since this is below the adopted
“reasonable to meet” standard it is the recommendation of staff that this
service is not reasonable to meet.
In conclusion, although
extended evening service is a recognized benefit, there is a low probability
that these services would meet the farebox requirements.
The RTPA staff recommends that the existing level of transit service as detailed in the 2003/2004 Transit Needs Assessment with the exception of the Burney Express 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 2003/2004. TDA revenues available after the unmet transit needs are met are available to the jurisdictions for other purposes, i.e., streets and roads.
Staff recommends that there are no “unmet needs that are reasonable to meet” at this time.
In February 2002, the RTPA took action to reduce the RABA fare revenue ratio to operating costs to 16.5% for 2001/02, 17.5% for 2002/03, 18.5% for 2003/04 and 19% thereafter. The farebox standard 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 2001/02 was 19.8%, which exceeds the required farebox ratio.
Effective
with the 2000 Census, Anderson has been included in the Redding Urbanized
Area. The Department of Transportation
has provided a GIS map (Attachment G) that includes Anderson within the Small
Urban Area within District 2. Consequently, it seems appropriate that jointly
funded services be assigned an “urban” farebox standard of 20% effective July
1, 2004.
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 AA@ 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.
AOff-the-top@ allocations for CTSA
services provided by Shasta Senior Nutrition Services ($296,912)
and for Administrative costs ($211,589) 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 ($2,034). These funds will flow to the local agencies
as they perform OWP functions.
As a
result of the 2000 Census, Anderson is now considered part of the Redding
Urbanized Area. This means that
Anderson should share the benefits of the FTA 5307 grants, rather than FTA
5311. It is expected that a similar
adjustment will be made for the 2002/2003 year as part of the “true-up” in
December.
The RABA
budget for 2003/2004 contains $447,200 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 Anderson by ($40,359), Shasta Lake ($40,684)
and Redding ($366,156). 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 2003/04 are presented as
follows:
|
Claimant |
Total Revenue -
All Sources |
Total
Cost Allocated for Transit Services |
Available for Other
Uses |
|
City
of Redding |
$3,200,664 |
$2,648,364 |
$552,301 |
|
City
of Anderson |
$352,791 |
$163,790 |
$189,001 |
|
City
of Shasta Lake |
$355,629 |
$196,585 |
$159,044 |
|
Shasta
Senior Nutrition Program (CTSA contractor) |
$296,912 |
$296,912 |
Not Applicable |
|
Shasta
County |
$2,335,347 |
$403,028 |
$1,932,319 |
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.
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 APolicy 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.
Daniel
J. Kovacich, Executive Officer
SLC/jac
Attachments:
1)
Resolution
No. 03-03
2)
Exhibit A & B-
Apporstionments and Transit Allocations for 2003/2004
4)
2002 Population Estimate
5) Staff Responses to Comments Received During 2003/04 Unmet Needs Process
6)
March 12 RABA Letter
7)
Results of Onboard Survey
8)
System Total Graph
9)
Elasticity of Demand Chart
10) Burney Express Farebox
11) DOT
FTA Section 5307 GIS Map