REPORT TO SHASTA COUNTY RTPA

SUBJECT

MEETING

DATE

ITEM

NUMBER

Consider 2004/05 Transit Needs Assessment and Conduct 2004/05 Unmet Transit Needs Hearing

02/24/04

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Agency:

1) Consider the 2004/05 Transit Needs Assessment that generally discusses transit needs within Shasta County; and

2) Hold a public hearing and take testimony on unmet transit needs in Shasta County; and

3) Direct staff to present the information generated from today=s hearing to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (SSTAC) and claimant agencies for formulation of their recommendation; and

4) Direct staff to prepare recommendations, written responses to comments, and draft findings in anticipation of final Agency action at the April 27, 2004 RTPA meeting.

SUMMARY

Annually, the RTPA is required to address the issue of unmet transit needs. This is a prerequisite to making annual Transportation Development Act (TDA) allocations in each jurisdiction. Generally, the unmet transit needs process involves a three-part review as follows:

1) A general assessment of transit needs within Shasta County jurisdictions in accordance with '99401.5(B) of the TDA and as provided in the 2004/05 Transit Needs Assessment;

2) A public hearing to consider specific unmet transit needs; and

3) Participation by the SSTAC, including a recommendation to the RTPA regarding unmet needs that are reasonable to meet. The SSTAC meeting is scheduled for March 9, 2004.

DISCUSSION

2004/05 Transit Needs Assessment

The 2004/05 Transit Needs Assessment meets the requirements for part one of the unmet needs process outlined above. The report is attached and concludes that the Redding Area Bus Authority’s (RABA) system wide farebox has decreased and does not meet the required 17.5% farebox ratio approved by the RTPA. The 2002/03 RABA farebox ratio is 16.97%. This shortfall places RABA in non-compliance with required farebox revenue. Had RABA collected $15,000 more in fares the fare ratio standard set by the Agency would have been met.

The lower farebox ratio is directly attributed to reduced ridership. Fixed route ridership decreased by 108,133 passenger-trips when compared to 2001-02. Had ridership remained stable the farebox ratio would have been met. Adjacent and nearby counties are also experiencing declines in ridership, with no apparent explanation. Several of these counties are undergoing route modifications and route restructuring, or eliminating routes entirely.

The first year for which an operator does not maintain the required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost is deemed a grace year, and does not result in any penalty or loss of funds. If RABA is able to meet the Agency farebox standard for 2003-04 of 18.5%, it recoups the “grace year” and there would be no penalties. If RABA does not meet this standard in 2003-04, that year then becomes the “Noncompliance Year” which will result in reduced TDA eligibility in 2005-06 equal to the revenue shortfall necessary to meet the farebox standard. Further, if the farebox standard is not met in 2003-04 RABA will be required to submit to the Agency a strategy to meet the farebox standard in 2005-06. Any penalties to be assessed would be done as part of the TDA true-up for 2005-06.

The 2004/05 Transit Needs Assessment is intended to provide background information when reviewing more specific transit needs identified at the public hearing, and when considering the SSTAC recommendation. Final action by the Board on the 2004/05 transit needs and proposed TDA allocations to claimant agencies is scheduled for Tuesday, April 27, 2004.

The 2004/05 Transit Needs Assessment concludes that, generally, public and private transit operators serve the primary areas of high transit demand as well as many other specialized transit needs throughout the county. TDA-funded transportation services, with the exception of the Burney Express, are currently operating below the established RTPA performance standards, including those found in the Aunmet needs@ and Areasonable to meet@ definition.

Where funding is available, new or expanded services can be required under the Transportation Development Act where an Aunmet transit need@ is found Areasonable to meet@ by the RTPA. Where services do not meet the TDA criteria, the service may still be provided with TDA funds under one of the following conditions:

1. The service is approved by the RTPA as a Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) service which meets the criteria for services; or

2. The service is funded at the discretion of the individual Cities or the County.

Again, it should be noted that this general assessment is intended to provide background information when reviewing more specific transit needs during today’s public hearing and when considering the SSTAC recommendation.

TDA Fund Claims

One of the duties of the RTPA is to distribute TDA funds, including those deposited in the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). These funds are derived from 1/4 of 1 cent of the 7 1/4-cent retail sales tax raised within the County and are returned by the State to the RTPA for apportionment to eligible claimants on the basis of population.

Page 32 of the TNA shows last year’s TDA budget adopted for FY 2003/04, the proposed disbursements off the top, and the remainder of the individual claimant apportionments available to the local jurisdictions based on population.

TDA Funding Priorities

The first priority for claiming funds from a claimant’s apportionment is for public transit under Article 4. The amount that is available for each claimant is limited to the amount representing that claimant's population-based apportionment. (See PUC '99230-99231.2; Title 21 California Code of Regulations Sections 6649 and 6655.) In Shasta County, an 80% service hours/20% population-based cost sharing formula was agreed to and adopted as the most equitable assessment for transit costs among claimants.

After the allocations for Article 4 (Transit) are made, disbursements may be made under Article 8, which can be used for miscellaneous claims such as pedestrian or bicycle facilities, or for streets and roads claims of the cities and county. Attachment A, page 31 is a summary of LTF allocations, purposes and priorities from the Caltrans TDA Manual.

To approve a claim for streets, roads or other purposes under Article 8, the RTPA must make a finding for each claimant jurisdiction that 1) there are no unmet transit needs, or 2) there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet. The Cities and the County have full discretion over how Article 8 funds are used and may choose to fund additional transit services that do not meet the RTPA standards as discussed below.

Definition of "Unmet Transit Needs" and "Reasonable to Meet"

The definitions of "unmet transit needs" and "reasonable to meet" (Transit Needs Assessment, page 3) are established by RTPA Resolution 00-21.

Accordingly, a jurisdiction's "unmet need" must be for both of the following: 1) for a defined population group; and 2) necessary for maintenance of life, health, or physical and mental well-being, which excludes primary and secondary school transportation needs.

In order for a transit need to be found "reasonable to meet," it must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Agency that: 1) the service subsidy required to meet the need will not exceed 80% of operating cost in the claiming jurisdictions urban area and 90% in its non-urban area (the subsidy maximums may be determined on an individual route or service area basis); 2) the service proposed to be funded will not be in direct competition with existing private service; and 3) where transit service is to be jointly funded by two or more of the local claimants, that the resulting inter-agency cost sharing is equitable. Also, proposed expenditures must be in conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan.

Public Hearing

This public hearing was advertised beginning January 2, 2004 and the written comment period will extend to March 1, 2004. Comments received to date are summarized in Attachment B.

Recommendation

In proceeding, the Board should conduct a public hearing to take testimony from the public and interested agencies. Staff would then prepare responses to all comments. At the April 27, 2004 meeting, the RTPA will review responses to comments and determine for each claimant jurisdiction what unmet needs are reasonable to meet and adopt formal findings as the basis for the 2004/05 claims.

OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

The 2004/05 Transit Needs Assessment has been reviewed by the Redding Area Bus Authority (RABA), CTSA, Caltrans, Shasta County, the Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee (SSTAC), and the Cities of Anderson, Shasta Lake and Redding.

FINANCING

The Agency review and final approval of findings in April will provide the basis for Agency evaluation of the annual claims of the various jurisdictions for TDA funding.

________________________________________

Daniel J. Kovacich, Executive Officer

SLC/jac