TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee
Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. 401 B Street, San Diego 7th Floor Conference Room
Agenda Highlights
• FY 2018 TransNet Fiscal and Compliance Audits: Initial Findings and Recommendations
• TransNet Program Update
• Implementation of FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations
Please silence all electronic devices during the meeting
Mission Statement The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. SANDAG builds consensus; makes strategic plans; obtains and allocates resources; plans, engineers, and builds public transit; and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.
San Diego Association of Governments ⋅ 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101-4231 (619) 699-1900 ⋅ Fax (619) 699-1905 ⋅ sandag.org
Welcome to SANDAG. Members of the public may speak to the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) on any item at the time the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Request to Comment form located at the Clerk desk. Members of the public may address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. The Committee may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.
Both agenda and non-agenda comments should be sent to the Clerk of the Committee via [email protected]. Please include the meeting date, agenda item, your name, and your organization. Any comments, handouts, presentations, or other materials from the public intended for distribution at the meeting should be received by the Clerk no later than 5 p.m. two working days prior to the meeting. All public comments and materials received by the deadline become part of the official public record and will be provided to the members for their review at the meeting.
In order to keep the public informed in an efficient manner and facilitate public participation, SANDAG also provides access to all agenda and meeting materials online at sandag.org/meetings. Additionally, interested persons can sign up for email notifications at sandag.org/subscribe.
SANDAG operates its programs without regard to race, color, and national origin in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. SANDAG has developed procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints, and the procedures for filing a complaint are available to the public upon request. Questions concerning SANDAG nondiscrimination obligations or complaint procedures should be directed to the SANDAG General Counsel, John Kirk, at (619) 699-1997 or [email protected]. Any person who believes himself or herself or any specific class of persons to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI also may file a written complaint with the Federal Transit Administration.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900 or (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.
SANDAG agenda materials can be made available in alternative languages. To make a request, call (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Los materiales de la agenda de SANDAG están disponibles en otros idiomas. Para hacer una solicitud, llame al (619) 699-1900 al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión.
如有需要, 我们可以把SANDAG议程材料翻译成其他語言.
请在会议前至少 72 小时打电话 (619) 699-1900 提出请求. SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or visit 511sd.com for route information. Bicycle parking is available in the parking garage of the SANDAG offices.
2 120718 TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Item No. Action +1. Approval of Meeting Minutes Approve The TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) is asked to review and Estimated Start Time: approve the minutes from its February 13, 2019, meeting. 9:30 a.m.
2. Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address ITOC on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a Request to Comment form and giving it to the Clerk prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the Clerk if they have a handout for distribution to ITOC members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. ITOC members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.
Consent
+3. TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Land Management Grant Information Program Quarterly Update (Sarah Pierce) This report provides an overview of progress made by TransNet Environmental Estimated Start Time: Mitigation Program Land Management Grant recipients. 9:35 a.m.
Chair’s Reports
4. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan Information An update on development of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan will be provided. Estimated Start Time: 9:40 a.m.
5. Update on Airport Connectivity Subcommittee Information An update on the Airport Connectivity Subcommittee will be provided. Estimated Start Time: 9:45 a.m.
Reports
6. Actions by the Transportation Committee and Board of Directors on Information TransNet-Related Agenda Items (Ariana zur Nieden) Staff will present an update on actions taken by the Transportation Committee and Estimated Start Time: Board of Directors on agenda items that the ITOC has reviewed. 9:50 a.m.
+7A. FY 2018 TransNet Fiscal and Compliance Audits: Initial Findings and Accept Recommendations (Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin) The ITOC is asked to accept the draft independent auditor’s report on results of the Estimated Start Time: agreed upon procedures, including initial findings and recommendations, for 9:55 a.m. presentation to the Transportation Committee on March 15, 2019.
3 +7B. FY 2018 TransNet Extension Ordinance Funding Eligibility Requests Discussion/ (Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin) Possible Action The ITOC is asked to: Estimated Start Time: 1. consider the TransNet funding eligibility requests of the Metropolitan Transit 10:10 a.m. System, North County Transit District, and the cities of Del Mar and San Marcos; and 2. make a recommendation to the Board of Directors, acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, regarding these requests.
+8. FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit: Transit Operator Funding Discussion Eligibility (Brian Lane, Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin) The ITOC is asked to provide feedback on the proposed options for recommended Estimated Start Time: revisions to Section 4(C)5 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance related to transit 10:20 a.m. operator eligibility.
9. 2019 ITOC Annual Report (Ariana zur Nieden) Discussion Staff will present a progress update, including input provided by the 2019 ITOC Annual Estimated Start Time: Report Subcommittee, The ITOC is asked to provide feedback on the content and 10:35 a.m. format proposed for its annual report.
+10. TransNet Program Update (José Nuncio, Jim Linthicum, and Ray Major) Information Staff will present an update on the financial capacity of the TransNet Major Corridors Estimated Start Time: Program. 10:40 a.m.
+11. Draft FY 2020 TransNet Major Corridors and Regional Bikeway Programs Discussion Budget Update (Susan Huntington) The SANDAG FY 2020 Draft Program Budget will be presented to the Board of Estimated Start Time: Directors in March 2019. The ITOC is asked to discuss the Draft FY 2020 TransNet 11:05 a.m. Budgets.
+12. Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan (Brian Lane) Discussion The ITOC is asked to provide feedback on the Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan. Estimated Start Time: 11:15 a.m.
+13. Specialized Transportation Grant Program Cycle 10 Call for Projects: Senior Discussion Mini-Grant Funding Recommendations (Audrey Porcella) The ITOC is asked to review and discuss the proposed Senior Mini-Grant projects Estimated Start Time: recommended for funding for consistency with the eligibility requirements of the 11:30 a.m. TransNet Extension Ordinance.
+14A. TransNet Ten-Year Review: Implementation Update (Ariana zur Nieden) Information Staff will present an update on implementation of the first TransNet Ten-Year Review. Estimated Start Time: 11:45 a.m.
+14B. Implementation of FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit Information Recommendations (Ariana zur Nieden) Staff will present an update on implementation of the FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Estimated Start Time: Performance Audit recommendations. 11:55 a.m.
4 +15. TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Member Solicitation Information (Ariana zur Nieden) The ITOC is seeking qualified members of the public to fill a vacancy on its seven- Estimated Start Time: member committee for the position of a licensed architect, civil engineer, or traffic 12:05 p.m. engineer with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in the field of transportation and/or urban design in government or the private sector. Staff will provide an update on the solicitation process.
16. Upcoming Meetings Information The next ITOC meeting is scheduled for Friday, Wednesday, April 10, 2019, at Estimated Start Time: 9:30 a.m. 12:10 p.m.
17. Adjournment
+ next to an item indicates an attachment
5
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 1 March 13, 2019
February 13, 2019, TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes Action Requested: Approve Chair Dustin Fuller (Biology/Environmental) called the meeting of the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight The TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) to order at 9:31 a.m. Committee is asked to review and approve the minutes from its February 13, 2019, meeting. 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes (Approve) Action: Upon a motion by Mr. Jonathan Tibbitts (Licensed Civil/Traffic Engineer) and a second by Mr. Stewart Halpern (Finance/Budgeting), the ITOC approved the minutes from its January 9, 2019, meeting. Yes: Chair Fuller, Mr. Brad Barnum (Contractor/Construction), Mr. Halpern, Mr. Kai Ramer (Licensed Engineer), Mr. Gregg Sadowsky (Right of Way Acquisition), and Mr. Tibbitts. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Private Sector.
2. Public Comments/Communications/Member Comments Hassan Ikhrata, SANDAG Executive Director, provided an update to the ITOC on potential upcoming action to delay the adoption of San Diego Forward: The 2019-2050 Regional Plan. Consent
3. TransNet Smart Growth Incentive Program and Active Transportation (Recommend) Action: Upon a motion by Mr. Barnum and a second by Mr. Halpern, the ITOC recommended that the Regional Planning Committee approve two proposed Smart Growth Incentive Program schedule extensions. The ITOC also recommended that the Transportation Committee approve three proposed Active Transportation Grant Program schedule extensions. Yes: Chair Fuller, Mr. Barnum, Mr. Halpern, Mr. Ramer, Mr. Sadowsky, and Mr. Tibbitts. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Public Sector.
4. TransNet Major Corridor and Regional Bikeway Program Projects: Quarterly Status Report (FY 2019, 2nd Quarter) (Information) This report provided an update on TransNet Major Corridor and Regional Bikeway Program projects. Action: This item was presented for information.
5. TransNet Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program Proposed Fee Adjustment (Information) This report provided an update on the annual Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program fee adjustment required under the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Action: This item was presented for information. 6. Quarterly TransNet Financial Reports for the Period Ending December 31, 2018, and Other Financial Data (Information) This report provided the most recent quarterly financial information related to TransNet revenues and certain TransNet programs. Action: This item was presented for information.
7. Quarterly Finance Report and Update on Financial Markets – Through December 2018 (Information) This report provided an update on the latest developments in the financial markets, economy, sales tax revenues, and strategies being explored and implemented to minimize possible impacts to the TransNet Program. Action: This item was presented for information. Reports
8. Actions by the Transportation Committee and Board of Directors on TransNet-Related Agenda Items (Information) Ariana zur Nieden, Senior TransNet Program Manager, presented an update on actions taken by the Transportation Committee and Board of Directors on agenda items that the ITOC has reviewed. This monthly briefing was intended to keep the ITOC informed about relevant SANDAG actions taken on TransNet-related projects and programs: 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 1; Performance Management Rule 1 Safety Target Setting; Regional Monitoring Report; Amendment to Board Policy No. 031: TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Rules; Airport Connectivity Subcommittee; San Diego Forward: The 2019-2050 Regional Plan; Amendments to the Regional Transit Comprehensive Fare Ordinance and TransNet Extension Ordinance; and SANDAG Independent Performance Auditor. Action: This item was presented for information.
9. City of San Diego TransNet Program and Transportation Capital Improvement Program Update (Information) Gene Matter, Assistant Director, Transportation and Storm Water Department; and Ben Battaglia, Administrative Services and Fiscal Manager, Transportation and Storm Water Department, presented an update to the ITOC summarizing the City of San Diego’s TransNet Local Street and Road Program and capital improvement project expenditure efforts. ITOC members requested that the City of San Diego continue providing annual updates. Action: This item was presented for information.
10A. TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program: Annual Status Report and Implementation Actions (Information) Kim Smith, Senior Environmental Planner, and Keith Greer, Principal Regional Planner, presented an annual update on key achievements of the TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program, with a focus on work completed in FY 2018. Action: This item was presented for information.
10B. TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program: New Memorandum of Agreement (Recommend) Ms. Smith and Mr. Greer presented this item. Action: Upon a motion by Mr. Tibbitts and a second by Mr. Halpern, the ITOC recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Memorandum of Agreement 2 (MOA) and authorize the Executive Director to sign the MOA on behalf of the agency. Yes: Chair Fuller, Mr. Barnum, Mr. Halpern, Mr. Ramer, Mr. Sadowsky, and Mr. Tibbitts. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Private Sector.
11. 2019 ITOC Annual Report: Appointment of Subcommittee (Appoint) Ms. zur Nieden presented the item. Action: Upon a motion by Chair Fuller and a second by Mr. Tibbitts, the ITOC appointed Chair Fuller and Mr. Sadowsky, in addition to Mr. Barnum, to serve as project manager on its 2019 ITOC Annual Report Subcommittee. Yes: Chair Fuller, Mr. Barnum, Mr. Halpern, Mr. Ramer, Mr. Sadowsky, and Mr. Tibbitts. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Private Sector.
12. Proposed FY 2020 ITOC Annual Operating Budget (Recommend) Ms. zur Nieden presented the item. Action: Upon a motion by Chair Fuller and a second by Mr. Barnum, the ITOC recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed ITOC Operating Budget as part of the FY 2020 SANDAG Program Budget. Yes: Chair Fuller, Mr. Barnum, Mr. Halpern, Mr. Ramer, Mr. Sadowsky, and Mr. Tibbitts. No: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Private Sector.
13. FY 2020 to FY 2024 TransNet Program Revenue Estimates (Information) Dawn Vettese, Financial Programming Manager, presented an overview of FY 2020 to FY 2024 TransNet Program revenue estimates. Jim Miller, Senior Economist, was available for questions. Action: This item was presented for information.
14. Upcoming Meetings The next ITOC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 13, 2019, at 9:30 a.m.
15. Adjournment Chair Fuller adjourned the meeting at 11:03 a.m.
3 Meeting Start Time: 9:31 a.m. Meeting Adjourned Time: 11:03 a.m.
Confirmed Attendance at SANDAG TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Meeting
February 13, 2019
Jurisdiction Name Attended
Finance/Budgeting Stewart Halpern Yes
Biology/Environmental Dustin Fuller Yes
Contractor/Construction Brad Barnum Yes
Right of Way Acquisition Gregg Sadowsky Yes
Licensed Engineer Kai Ramer Yes
Licensed Civil/Traffic Engineer Jonathan Tibbitts Yes
Private Sector Dick Vortmann No
Advisory Members
San Diego County Auditor’s Office Tracy Drager (Alternate) Yes
SANDAG Staff Members and Titles
Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director
Kim Kawada, Chief Deputy Executive Director
José Nuncio, TransNet Department Director
Ariana zur Nieden, Senior TransNet Program Manager
4
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 3 March 13, 2019 TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program Land Management Grant Program Quarterly Update
Overview Action Requested: Information This report provides the status of projects funded This report provides an overview of progress through the TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program made by TransNet Environmental Mitigation (EMP) Land Management Grant Program. Program Land Management Grant recipients.
Key Considerations Fiscal Impact: During the reporting period (October 1, 2018, through There is one completed project for the current December 31, 2018), one project was completed: reporting period, which was awarded $66,840 in grant funds and leveraged $6,413 in • County of San Diego’s Otay River Valley Cactus matching funds. Wren Project Schedule/Scope Impact: In addition, a six-month, time-only, no cost extension All projects are on schedule and no projects was issued for the following project: are on the Watch List. In addition, as of • US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Mother Miguel December 31, 2018, 88 Land Management Mountain Project Grant projects have been completed and closed-out. Attachment 1 provides the status of projects that are currently active. All projects are on schedule and no projects are on the Watch List. Projects are placed on the Watch List if a grantee is not making timely progress toward their milestones (defined in SANDAG Board Policy No. 035) and has not yet sought corrective action.
Next Steps TransNet grantees will continue to work on grant implementation. SANDAG will execute contracts for the four remaining projects awarded funding by the Board of Directors in July 2018 as part of the 9th cycle of grants. The next quarterly status report (covering January 1 to March 31, 2019), is expected to be presented in June 2019.
Charles “Muggs” Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contact: Sarah Pierce, (619) 699-7312, [email protected] Attachment: 1. Status of Active TransNet EMP Land Management Grant Program Projects: Reporting period October 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018 Status of Active TransNet EMP Land Management Grant Program Projects: Reporting period Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 2018 Attachment 1
Contract Contract Grant Watch Contract # Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Execution Expiration Status/ Amendment History Amount List* Date Date
7th Cycle
Protect sensitive species, including Mexican flannelbush Project IS making timely progress toward United States Fish and Mother Miguel and critical habitat on the southwestern slope of 1 5004736 $21,454 12/01/15 6/1/19 No their milestones. Wildlife Service Mountain Mother Miguel Mountain, while managing public One Amendment- Six Month Extension access and awareness.
8th Cycle
Enhance and improve Quino butterfly habitat conditions and connectivity by closing roads to vehicle Project IS making timely progress toward Quino Habitat 2 5004942 County of San Diego activity, preventing off-road vehicle use, installing $44,000 1/27/17 1/27/19 No their milestones. Restoration fencing and signage to limit access, and controlling and One Amendment- Six Month Extension. removing non-native grasses.
Treatment of invasive purple veldtgrass throughout the Project IS making timely progress toward Chaparral Lands 3 5004947 Crest Canyon Veldt Grass Crest Canyon Preserve, achieving greater than 90% $49,991 4/5/17 4/5/19 No their milestones. Conservancy reduction. One Amendment- Six Month Extension.
Begin phase 1 of eradication of perennial veldtgrass Project IS making timely progress toward San Elijo Lagoon 4 5004949 Veldt Grass Removal from SELER, reducing cover to less than 10% (100% $49,003 2/13/17 2/13/19 No their milestones. Conservancy reduction in coastal dunes). One Amendment- Six Month Extension.
Invasive plant control in priority habitat areas within Project IS making timely progress toward San Diego Audubon Silverwood Wildlife the reserve, reducing invasive cover by 90%. Approx. 65 5 5004951 $36,301 2/15/17 2/15/19 No their milestones. Society Sanctuary acres of invasive species hotspots are to be treated with One Amendment- Six Month Extension. herbicide and 5 acres via hand management.
Seed collection, processing, and maintenance for 8 plant species within for seed banking purposes in Project IS making timely progress toward 6 5004953 San Diego Zoo Global Native Seed Bank addition to bulking and propagation efforts required $492,396 3/13/17 3/13/20 No their milestones. to provide seed for regional restoration projects; 3 of No Amendments. which are part of FY17 LMG cycle.
Seed collection and bulking for two rare species and Project IS making timely progress toward Chaparral Lands 7 5004954 Otay Mesa Rare Plants the establishment of new occurrences for five MSP $141,319 4/5/17 4/5/22 No their milestones. Conservancy species through seeding, planting, and maintenance. No Amendments.
Restoration of 19 acres of vernal pool and coastal sage scrub habitat in Proctor Valley specific to the needs of Project IS making timely progress toward Chaparral Lands Proctor Valley Vernal 8 5004955 MSP species and the establishment of two high-priority $393,864 4/5/17 4/5/22 No their milestones. Conservancy Pools and Uplands MSP plant species through collection, bulking, seeding, No Amendments. and maintenance efforts.
2 Status of Active TransNet EMP Land Management Grant Program Projects: Reporting period Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 2018
Contract Contract Grant Watch Contract # Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Execution Expiration Status/ Amendment History Amount List* Date Date
Phase 2 of North County Dunes Restoration Project focusing on the implementation and completion of site Project IS making timely progress toward San Elijo Lagoon specific plan for Cardiff State Beach and invasive 9 5004956 North County Dunes 2 $197,799 2/13/17 5/13/20 No their milestones. Conservancy management and support for existing coastal dune and No Amendments. bluff species at South Carlsbad State Beach Campground.
Improve and expand areas occupied by San Diego Project IS making timely progress toward Mission Trails Regional San Diego Thornmint 10 5004957 thornmint in MTRP by restoring and enhancing $72,265 3/21/17 3/21/20 No their milestones. Park Foundation Restoration degraded habitat. No Amendments.
9th Cycle
Create, enhance, and expand existing Coastal Cactus Wren (CACW) habitat and reduce the threat of wildfire Project IS making timely progress toward 11 5005501 City of San Diego Navajo Canyon and invasive plant conversion by replacing areas of $80,000 11/8/18 5/8/20 No their milestones. invasive flashy fuels with native cactus in City of SD No Amendments. Chollas Radio Canyon and Navajo Canyon Open Spaces.
Preserve native species, control invasive species, re- establish native vegetation and habitat, control Project IS making timely progress toward 12 5005502 City of San Diego Florida Canyon erosion, establish a designated trail system, fence $43,957 11/8/18 5/8/20 No their milestones. sensitive areas, and install signage in three sites within No Amendments. Florida Canyon.
Eradicate exotic plants that directly threaten the eastern Encinitas baccharis occurrences and eliminate Project IS making timely progress toward The Escondido Creek 13 5005503 Elfin Forest exotic forbs from the rest of the Los Cielos Preserve $79,853 11/14/18 5/14/20 No their milestones. Conservancy Complex in order to protect occurrences of Orcutt’s No Amendments. brodiaea and Encinitas baccharis.
Create, enhance, and expand existing Coastal Sage scrub (CSS) habitat surrounding the vernal pools Project IS making timely progress toward 14 5005504 City of San Diego Otay Mesa Open Space complex and western burrowing owl dens to act as a $80,000 11/8/18 5/8/20 No their milestones. buffer from invasive plant species and to reduce No Amendments. sediment erosion into the vernal pools.
Assist in management and recovery of two federal and state-listed species, the California least tern and western snowy plover, which occur at the D Street Fill Project IS making timely progress toward 15 5005505 Port of San Diego D Street during the avian breeding season. The Port's goal is to $75,400 11/29/18 5/29/20 No their milestones. "prepare" the site for the 2019 and 2020 nesting No Amendments. seasons by performing management required to maintain it as suitable breeding habitat.
3 Status of Active TransNet EMP Land Management Grant Program Projects: Reporting period Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 2018
Contract Contract Grant Watch Contract # Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Execution Expiration Status/ Amendment History Amount List* Date Date
Remove invasive plants, restore social trails with Project IS making timely progress toward complimentary native plants, and reduce off-trail use 16 5005506 National Parks Service Cabrillo $25,000 11/8/18 5/8/20 No their milestones. with signage, fencing, and education via social media No Amendments. platforms.
Enhance the existing arroyo toad population and Project IS making timely progress toward 17 5005507 County of San Diego Ramona Grasslands increase the potential for a southwestern pond turtle $80,000 12/4/18 6/4/20 No their milestones. population within the Preserve. No Amendments.
Reduce threats to Otay tarplant, San Diego thornmint, and Orcutt’s bird beak within Rice Canyon by Project IS making timely progress toward Rice Canyon Invasive ‐ 18 5005508 City of Chula Vista maintaining and installing new fencing (wire and $36,500 11/8/18 5/8/20 No their milestones. Removal t post) and signage to direct trail users on authorized No Amendments. trails only.
Development and implementation of a Recreation Management Plan (Plan) for the Wright’s Field MSCP Project IS making timely progress toward Back Country Land Preserve in Alpine. The implementation of this Plan will 19 5005509 Wright's Field $61,000 11/8/18 5/8/20 No their milestones. Trust include trail decommissioning and rerouting, No Amendments. interpretive signage, and a 58 acre fire-fuel reduction / weed control program.
Increase the suitability of roosting habitat for Project IS making timely progress toward San Diego River Park Townsend's big-eared bat by installing a gate at the 20 5005510 Boulder Creek $47,326 11/15/18 5/18/19 No their milestones. Foundation entrance of a mine and controlling the existing erosion No Amendments. threat.
Survey the Silverwood Reserve property lines currently Project IS making timely progress toward San Diego Audubon affected and install approximately 1,100 feet of non- 21 5005512 Silverwood-Anstine $34,311 10/30/18 4/30/20 No their milestones. Society barbed wire fencing. In addition 255 feet of lodge pole No Amendments. wood fencing will be installed at the Anstine Preserve.
Begin Phase 1 eradication perennial veldt grass Project IS making timely progress toward San Elijo Lagoon 22 5005513 Veldt Grass 2 (Ehrharta calycina) in the newly acquired Lake Property, $76,655 12/6/18 6/6/20 No their milestones. Conservancy adjacent to San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve. No Amendments.
Support the establishment of a new breeding node at Project IS making timely progress toward Rancho Jamul Ecological Reserve with supplemental 23 5005517 San Diego Zoo Global Burrrowing Owl $50,000 12/6/18 12/6/20 No their milestones. releases of burrowing owl from an existing No Amendments. conservation breeding program.
4 Status of Active TransNet EMP Land Management Grant Program Projects: Reporting period Oct. 1 - Dec. 31, 2018
Contract Contract Grant Watch Contract # Grantee Project Description of Project Activities Execution Expiration Status/ Amendment History Amount List* Date Date
Create resilient, self sustaining California Least tern and Project IS making timely progress toward San Diego Audubon Nutall's acmispon populations in Mission Bay through 24 5005518 Mission Bay Park $195,333 11/7/18 11/7/21 No their milestones. Society ecosystem based management and predator control No Amendments. community science.
Manage an entrenched Oncosiphon piluliferum (stinknet) infestation at the Safari Park Biodiversity Project IS making timely progress toward 25 5005519 San Diego Zoo Global Stinknet Removal Reserve for the benefit of the large extant nesting $132,025 11/29/18 12/29/22 No their milestones. population of coastal cactus wrens and other sensitive No Amendments. species on the property.
Recently Closed-Out Projects
Restore and enhance areas of degraded habitat along Otay River Valley Cactus Otay River Valley to increase the amount of suitable 5004730 County of San Diego $ 66,840 10/20/15 10/20/18 No No Amendments. Wren habitat and improve connectivity for the coastal cactus wren.
*Watch List Projects are those grantees not making timely progress toward their milestones (which are defined in Board Policy No. 035) and not yet sought corrective action. Delays in tasks leading up to either the award of a contract or project completion may place grantees on the watch list.
5
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 7A March 13, 2019 FY 2018 TransNet Fiscal and Compliance Audits: Initial Findings and Recommendations
Overview Action: Accept In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, The ITOC is asked to accept the draft the ITOC has the responsibility to conduct the annual independent auditor’s report on results of the fiscal and compliance audits of agencies that receive agreed upon procedures, including initial TransNet funds. The TransNet Extension Ordinance findings and recommendations, for requires the ITOC to share the initial audit findings and presentation to the Transportation Committee its recommendations with the Transportation Committee on March 15, 2019. 60 days prior to its release to resolve any inconsistencies and technical issues. Fiscal Impact: Key Considerations The annual TransNet fiscal and compliance audits are conducted by the ITOC and its Davis Farr, LLP, performed the audit of the FY 2018 independent fiscal auditor and funded through TransNet sales tax revenue recipient agencies using the Overall Work Program Element No. 1500200 agreed-upon procedures (AUP) approved by the ITOC at in the FY 2019 Program Budget. its July 11, 2018, meeting. These AUP include Schedule/Scope Impact: requirements specific to the TransNet Extension The FY 2018 TransNet Fiscal and Compliance Ordinance and Board Policy No. 031. Attachment 1 Audit is an annual review of all agencies that includes both the independent auditor’s summary of receive TransNet funding. results of the draft AUP and recipient agency FY 2018 TransNet draft AUP reports.
Next Steps In accordance with the fiscal and compliance audit procedures outlined in Board Policy No. 031, proposed dates for upcoming audit activities are discussed below:
• March/April 2019: Auditors issue a report of compliance audit results and present to the ITOC at its meeting on March 13, 2019. The ITOC presents initial results and finding(s) of the audit and its recommendations to the Transportation Committee at its meeting on March 15, 2019.
• May 14, 2019: Earliest date the ITOC could accept and issue the final compliance audit results (60 days following the report of the initial draft audit findings to the Transportation Committee on March 15).
• June 2019: Acceptance of the final summary of results of the AUP for issuance is scheduled for ITOC consideration, and the ITOC Annual Report, which includes results of the annual compliance audit, is presented to the ITOC and Board of Directors.
André Douzdjian, Director of Finance Key Staff Contact: Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin, (619) 699-1942, [email protected] Attachment: 1. Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities, Year Ended June 30, 2018
Attachment 1
INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Year Ended June 30, 2018
2 INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Year Ended June 30, 2018
Tab Independent Accountant’s Summary of Results 1 Caltrans 2 City of Carlsbad 3 City of Chula Vista 4 City of Coronado 5 City of Del Mar 6 City of El Cajon 7 City of Encinitas 8 City of Escondido 9 City of Imperial Beach 10 City of La Mesa 11 City of Lemon Grove 12 City of National City 13 City of Oceanside 14 City of Poway 15 City of San Diego 16 City of San Marcos 17 City of Santee 18 City of Solana Beach 19 City of Vista 20 County of San Diego 21 Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee 22 Metropolitan Transit System 23 North County Transit District 24 SANDAG 25
3
INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Summary of Results
Year Ended June 30, 2018
4
INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Summary of Results
Year Ended June 30, 2018
Table of Contents
Page Background 1
Scope of Engagement 1
Results of Procedures: TransNet and TransNet Extension Expenditures 2
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) 3
SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule #17, Section IV, Local Agency Balance Limitations (30% Rule) 3
Local Street Improvements – Congestion Relief vs. Maintenance 4
Local Street Improvements – Maintenance Monitoring 5
Indirect Cost Allocated to Projects in RTIP 5
Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) 5
Transit Operator Eligibility for Receipt of Funds 6
Summary of Findings by Recipient Agency 7
Attachment A: Compliance with Maintenance of Effort Requirement 8
Attachment B: Maintenance of Effort Re-indexing 9
Attachment C: Compliance with 30% Fund Balance Limitation 10
Attachment D: Compliance with Allocation of Local Street Improvements Revenues 11
Attachment E: Local Street Improvements: Maintenance Monitoring 12
Attachment F: Indirect Costs Charged to TransNet 13
5
INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Summary of Results
Year Ended June 30, 2018
Background
TransNet is the half-cent sales tax for local transportation projects that was first approved by voters in 1988. In 2004, the San Diego voters renewed their commitment to the region's transportation improvement program by approving Proposition A, implemented through the Extension Ordinance, and continuing an existing half-cent transportation sales tax for an additional 40 years. Administered by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the program has been instrumental in expanding the region's transportation system, reducing traffic congestion, and bringing critical transportation programs to life.
Scope of the Engagement
This engagement was to apply agreed-upon procedures in order to assist the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) and SANDAG in determining whether the recipients of TransNet funds were in compliance with the TransNet Ordinance and the TransNet Extension Ordinance for the year ended June 30, 2018. We performed the procedures in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
In accordance with SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule #17, Section I, fiscal and compliance audit procedures are to be completed in a timely manner. The Policy recommends that the auditors issue a report of compliance audit results and present them to the ITOC.
The following are the major compliance components included in the scope of the procedures:
TransNet and TransNet Extension Expenditures;
Maintenance of Effort (MOE);
SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 17, Section IV, Local Agency Balance Limitations (30% Rule);
Local Street improvements – Congestion Relief vs. Maintenance;
Local Street Improvements – Maintenance Monitoring;
Indirect Costs Allocated to Projects in the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP);
Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP); and
Transit Operator Eligibility for Receipt of Funds.
- 1 - 6
INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Summary of Results
Year Ended June 30, 2018
The procedures performed were approved by the ITOC prior to commencing fieldwork. The sufficiency of those procedures is solely the responsibility of the ITOC. The specific procedures performed and the results of those procedures are included in each of the draft reports for the recipient agencies. Following approval of the procedures, we scheduled and performed our fieldwork during the months of September 2018 through December 2018.
Results of Procedures
TransNet and TransNet Extension Expenditures
As required by SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, each recipient agency is required to account for TransNet activities in a separate fund, or if an alternative approach is used, it must be approved by SANDAG. All recipient agencies complied with this requirement.
During our fieldwork, we obtained the following items:
Trial balance including balance sheet and income statement;
Detailed general ledger including revenue and expenditure details;
Schedule A – Schedule of Status of Funds by Project; and
Schedule B – Cumulative Schedule of Status of Funds by Project.
The objectives of the procedures were to ensure the following:
Expenditures were allowable in accordance with the TransNet Ordinance and TransNet Extension Ordinance;
Revenues were recorded and agreed to SANDAG's payment records;
Interest income allocation methodology was reasonable;
Explanations were obtained and disclosed for projects that had a negative balance; and
Proper approvals were obtained for most inter-project transfers. Those that have not obtained approval are scheduled either for jurisdiction approval or RTIP approval prior to issuance of the final report.
Based upon the results of the procedures performed, all recipient agencies were in compliance with the revenue and expenditure requirements. In addition, the Cities of Lemon Grove and Oceanside are in the
- 2 - 7
INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Summary of Results
Year Ended June 30, 2018
process of obtaining proper approvals for inter-project transfers during the draft report period. The Cities anticipate obtaining all approvals and be in compliance prior to issuing the final reports.
Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
In accordance with Section 8 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, each recipient agency receiving revenues pursuant to Section 4(D) shall annually maintain, at a minimum, the same level of local discretionary funds expended for street and road purposes on average over the last three fiscal years (FY) completed prior to the operative date of the TransNet Extension Ordinance (FY 2001 through FY 2003), as was reported in the State Controller’s Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Street and Roads, and as re-indexed in FY 2015.
During our fieldwork, we obtained the following items:
From SANDAG, the current MOE requirements for each recipient agency subject to this requirement; and
From the recipient agencies, Schedule 3 of the Annual Report of Financial Transactions for Streets and Roads.
Based upon the results of the procedures performed, all recipient agencies were in compliance with the MOE requirements for the year ended June 30, 2018, with the exception of the City of San Marcos and the City of Del Mar. See Attachment A for a summary of compliance with the MOE requirements.
In addition, we performed the following procedures to re-index the MOE bases year as of June 30, 2018 to use for fiscal year 2021, 2022 and 2023 audits.
Calculated the growth rate in the construction price index from June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2018.
Calculated the growth rate in the general fund revenues from June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2018.
Selected the lowest growth rate and applied to the previously calculated MOE base year amount.
Also, see Attachment B for re-indexing of the MOE base year as of June 30, 2018.
SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule #17, Section IV, Local Agency Balance Limitations (30% Rule)
In accordance with the 30% Rule, a recipient agency that maintains a balance of more than 30 percent of its annual apportionment (after debt service payments) must use the remaining balance to fund projects. SANDAG will defer payment until the recipient agency’s Director of Finance, or equivalent, submits a certification that the unused balance has fallen below the 30 percent threshold, and will remain below the threshold until such time that a new threshold is determined.
- 3 - 8
INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Summary of Results
Year Ended June 30, 2018
The objectives of the procedures were to ensure that the recipient agency’s TransNet balance for those programs that receive funding from the annual apportionment (Local Streets and Roads, Local Street Improvements, and Transit Services) is not more than 30% of the recipient agency’s current year annual apportionment (net of debt service payments).
In order to ensure compliance with the 30% Rule, we performed the following:
Obtained the schedule of annual apportionments from SANDAG;
Obtained and reviewed the balance of the programs that received annual allocations; and
Compared the balance of the programs noted above to the apportionment schedule to ensure the excess fund balance did not exceed the 30% threshold.
Based upon the results of the procedures performed, all recipient agencies, with the exception of the City of Coronado, were in compliance with the 30% Rule. This instance of non-compliance was reported for informational purposes only and not as a finding. However, SANDAG will defer payments to this agency until they are in compliance with the 30% Rule. See Attachment C for a summary of compliance with the 30% Rule.
Local Street Improvements – Congestion Relief vs. Maintenance
As specified in Section 2(C)(1) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, at least 70% of the revenues provided for local street and road purposes should be used for congestion relief, and no more than 30% for maintenance. In order to ensure SANDAG is in compliance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, we performed the following:
Inquired and obtained source data used to calculate the Local Street Improvements Allocation Schedule in SANDAG’s TTrak program (SANDAG’s TransNet tracking program) and recalculated the total fund distribution per jurisdiction; and
Reviewed the FY 2017 TransNet Streets and Road Fund Allocation Schedule and determined that at least 70% of the revenues provided for local street and road purposes were used for congestion relief purposes and that no more than 30% were used for maintenance purposes.
Based upon the results of the procedures performed, SANDAG was in compliance with the Local Street Improvement requirements. See Attachment D for the Local Street Improvement allocation between congestion relief and maintenance, by recipient agency.
- 4 - 9
INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Summary of Results
Year Ended June 30, 2018
Local Street Improvements: Maintenance Monitoring
At the request of ITOC, we documented the percentage of local street and road revenue cumulatively expended for maintenance. In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the local jurisdictions receiving local street improvement funds may not spend more than 30% of cumulative funds for Maintenance purposes. All recipient agencies were in compliance with this requirement. Three agencies, the Cities of Lemon Grove, Poway and San Diego each have incurred more than 28.00% of cumulative revenue for maintenance. Results of this procedure are located in Attachment E.
Indirect Costs Allocated to Projects in RTIP
We inquired of management whether indirect costs are allocated to the projects included in the RTIP. If so, we documented the indirect cost rate allocated and the basis of allocation. We documented whether the recipient agency’s indirect cost plan had been reviewed by a federal or state agency, or audited by a certified public accounting firm. If not, then we documented the year the indirect cost plan was last updated, the year the methodology was last reviewed, and whether the methodology was reasonable. See Attachment F for the indirect costs allocated to the RTIP.
Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP)
In accordance with Section 9(A) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, each local agency in the San Diego region shall contribute a minimum of $2,000, subject to an annual adjustment based upon an index, in exactions from the private sector, for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction to the RTCIP. However, each jurisdiction may use their own fee schedule, as long as the fees are at a minimum the adjusted amount as approved by the SANDAG Board of Directors annually. The RTCIP revenue is to be used to construct improvements to the Regional Arterial System.
The objectives of the procedures were to ensure the following:
Each recipient agency collected at least the minimum exaction fee of $2,404 from each newly constructed residential housing unit;
Documentation was submitted to the ITOC on a timely basis and proper approval was obtained for the exaction fee; and
Expenditures were allowable in accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan.
- 5 - 10
INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Summary of Results
Year Ended June 30, 2018
In order to ensure compliance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, we performed the following:
Obtained a detailed general ledger from the recipient agencies;
Obtained the RTCIP approved schedule for collecting and/or contributing private sector exactions;
Obtained the RTCIP schedule (Schedule C of the associated reports) including beginning balance, exactions collected, interest earned, expenditures, and ending balance;
Verified that the exaction fee being collected was approved by the City Council or Board of Supervisors and is in compliance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 031; and
Verified that expenditures, if any, complied with the TransNet Extension Ordinance and SANDAG Board Policy No. 031.
Based upon the results of the procedures performed, all recipient agencies, with the exception of the Cities of Imperial Beach and National City were in compliance with the RTCIP requirements. See the Summary of Findings by Recipient Agency for further information.
Transit Operator Eligibility for Receipt of Funds
In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, in order for transit operators to maintain eligibility for receipt of funds, the operator must limit the increase in its total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for bus or revenue vehicle mile for rail services from one fiscal year to the next, to no more than the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for San Diego County over the same period.
In order to ensure compliance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, we performed the following:
Calculated the increase in operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for bus services and revenue vehicle mile for rail services between June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2018;
Calculated the increase in the CPI for San Diego County between June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2018; and
Compared the increase in total operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for bus services, and revenue vehicle mile for rail services, to the increase in the CPI.
The North County Transit District and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) were not in compliance with the rail operator portion of the eligibility requirements. See the Summary of Findings by Recipient Agency section of this report (below).
- 6 - 11
INDEPENDENT TAXPAYER OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TransNet and TransNet Extension Activities
Summary of Results
Year Ended June 30, 2018
Summary of Findings by Recipient Agency
The following findings were identified during performance of the agreed-upon procedures.
Recipient Agency Finding Management Response City of Imperial Beach Need to use approved exaction fee In process of collecting City of Imperial Beach Need to only include eligible costs Moved ineligible costs City of National City Need to use approved exaction fee In process of collecting City of San Marcos Need to meet MOE requirement Requesting 3-year extension City of Del Mar Need to meet MOE requirement Requesting 3-year extension North County Transit Increase in revenue vehicle miles Requesting use of the 3-year District (rail) exceeded increase in CPI average San Diego Metropolitan Increase in revenue vehicle miles Requesting exclusion of costs Transit system (rail) exceeded increase in CPI and use of the 3-year average
Complete responses from the recipient agencies to the findings identified are included in the individual recipient agency reports.
- 7 - 12 Attachment A Compliance With Maintenance of Effort Requirement
Fiscal Year 2018 Deficit Recipient Agency In Compliance Streets and Roads Specialized Transportation Services Transit Bus Subsidies Amount Carlsbad Yes $6,023,551 _ _ _ Chula Vista Yes 3,509,614 _ _ _ Coronado Yes 863,498 _ _ _ Del Mar No 453,089 20,877 _ 932 El Cajon Yes 1,712,753 _ _ _ Encinitas Yes 1,932,140 53 _ _ Escondido Yes 2,889,819 _ _ _ Imperial Beach Yes 220,018 _ _ _ La Mesa Yes 1,774,888 _ _ _ Lemon Grove Yes 181,274 _ _ _ National City Yes 1,970,841 _ _ _ Oceanside Yes 2,786,239 _ _ _ Poway Yes 1,088,158 _ _ _ San Diego Yes 22,679,581 167,817 903,424 _ San Marcos No 4,489,387 _ _ 292,229 Santee Yes 567,501 _ _ _ Solana Beach Yes 457,765 _ _ _ Vista Yes 2,413,718 _ _ _ County of San Diego (1) _ _ _ _ _
Yes = In Compliance No = Not in compliance _ = Not applicable
Note 1 - The County does not have discretionary expenditures or projects that can be reported under the MOE.
13 - 8 Attachment B Maintenance of Effort Re-Indexing
Previous approved MOE Base Growth Rate Adjusted MOE as of June 30, 2018
Specialized Caltrans Specialized Streets and Transit Bus Jurisdiction Streets and Transit Bus Transportation Cost Index Transportation Roads Subsidies Growth Rate Roads Subsidies Services Growth rate Services
Carlsbad $6,023,551 0 0 1.12 1.33 $6,746,377 0 0 Chula Vista 3,509,614 0 0 1.25 1.33 4,387,018 0 0 Coronado 863,498 0 0 1.14 1.33 984,388 0 0 Del Mar 453,089 20,877 0 X 1.33 X X 0 El Cajon 1,712,753 0 0 1.08 1.33 1,849,773 0 0 Encinitas 1,932,140 53 0 1.18 1.33 2,279,925 63 0 Escondido 2,889,819 0 0 1.16 1.33 3,352,190 0 0 Imperial Beach 220,018 0 0 X 1.33 X 0 0 La Mesa 1,774,888 0 0 1.14 1.33 2,023,372 0 0 Lemon Grove 181,274 0 0 1.12 1.33 203,027 0 0 National City 1,970,841 0 0 1.03 1.33 2,029,966 0 0 Oceanside 2,786,239 0 0 1.12 1.33 3,120,588 0 0 Poway 1,088,158 0 0 1.22 1.33 1,327,553 0 0 San Diego, City 22,679,581 167,817 903,424 1.14 1.33 25,854,722 191,311 1,029,903 San Marcos 4,489,387 0 0 1.09 1.33 4,893,432 0 0 Santee 567,501 0 0 1.16 1.33 658,301 0 0 Solana Beach 457,765 0 0 1.17 1.33 535,585 0 0 Vista 2,413,718 0 0 1.12 1.33 2,703,364 0 0 San Diego, County(1) 0 0 0 n/a n/a 0 0 0
X – City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) has not been issued at draft and therefore the procedure is not yet complete. Upon issuance of the CAFR, drafts and Attachment B will be updated and presented to the ITOC in June. Note 1 - The County does not have discretionary expenditures or projects that can be reported under the MOE.
14 - 9 Attachment C Compliance With 30 Percent Fund Balance Limitation FY 2016 – FY 2018
Fiscal Year 2018 Fiscal Year 2017 Fiscal Year 2016 In Excess In 30% Excess In 30% Excess Recipient Agency 30% Limitation S&R Balance S&R Balance Compliance Amount Compliance Limitation Amount Compliance Limitation Amount Streets and Roads Carlsbad Yes $937,479 ($283,939) _ Yes $841,909 $57,274 _ Yes $829,883 _ Chula Vista Yes 1,812,757 436,127 _ Yes 1,744,293 190,764 _ Yes 1,715,670 _ Coronado No 184,344 269,540 85,196 Yes 174,048 74,558 _ Yes 172,696 _ Del Mar Yes 592 (1,460) _ Yes 1,254 (6,483) _ Yes (1,178) _ El Cajon Yes 721,877 (188,290) _ Yes 710,013 39,434 _ Yes 706,011 _ Encinitas Yes 512,643 (174,123) _ Yes 484,624 (41,809) _ Yes 479,269 _ Escondido Yes 1,072,133 (380,740) _ Yes 1,044,054 901,815 _ No 1,038,115 1,299,758 Imperial Beach Yes 217,951 185,017 _ Yes 204,777 108,448 _ Yes 203,594 _ La Mesa Yes 470,691 (816,963) _ Yes 341,921 (119,472) _ No 301,707 18,119 Lemon Grove Yes 214,923 (1,225,003) _ Yes 210,877 (1,260,206) _ Yes 207,659 _ National City Yes 307,387 8,410 _ Yes 298,272 (128,527) _ Yes 292,442 _ Oceanside Yes 1,368,183 (6,757,986) _ Yes 1,348,902 (4,188,831) _ Yes 1,336,339 _ Poway Yes 451,912 181,648 _ Yes 442,600 331,386 _ No 439,174 22,560 San Diego, City Yes 9,742,010 145,045 _ Yes 9,523,915 (166,070) _ Yes 9,327,243 _ San Marcos Yes 474,536 (131,995) _ Yes 458,310 (927,079) _ No 593,220 277,963 Santee Yes 437,051 (86,005) _ Yes 141,034 98,297 _ Yes 144,187 _ Solana Beach Yes 66,717 (102,076) _ Yes 63,316 (9,728) _ Yes 62,267 _ Vista Yes 688,109 438,372 _ Yes 668,767 (49,020) _ Yes 664,018 _ County of San Diego Yes 4,186,676 3,879,380 _ Yes 4,008,581 994,842 _ Yes 3,950,425 _ Transit Metropolitan Transit _ _ _ _ _ Yes 9,387,901 Yes 9,345,784 Yes 9,183,692 System (MTS) North County Transit _ _ _ _ _ Yes 3,769,526 Yes 3,750,308 Yes 3,697,342 District (NCTD) Yes = In Compliance No = Not in compliance and not receiving TransNet payment. 15 - 10 Attachment D Compliance with Allocation of Local Street Improvements Revenues
Fiscal Year 2018 Allocation of Sales Tax Recipient Agency 70% Congestion Relief Allocated 30% Maintenance Allocated Revenues Received Carlsbad $3,124,931 $2,187,452 $937,479 Chula Vista 6,042,524 4,229,767 1,812,757 Coronado 614,480 430,136 184,344 Del Mar 198,619 139,033 59,586 El Cajon 2,406,258 1,684,381 721,877
Encinitas 1,708,811 1,196,168 512,643
Escondido 3,573,775 2,501,643 1,072,133 Imperial Beach 726,502 508,551 217,951 La Mesa 1,568,970 1,098,279 470,691 Lemon Grove 716,409 501,486 214,923 National City 1,403,783 982,648 421,135 Oceanside 4,611,369 3,262,958 1,398,411 Poway 1,506,372 1,054,460 451,912 San Diego, City 32,473,365 22,731,355 9,972,009 San Marcos 2,229,867 1,560,907 668,960 Santee 1,456,836 1,019,785 437,051 Solana Beach 439,657 307,760 131,897 Vista 2,293,697 1,605,588 688,109 County of San Diego 15,249,117 10,674,382 4,574,735
Result: SANDAG appropriately allocated TransNet revenues for the Local Street Improvements program in accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance.
16 - 11 Attachment E Local Street Improvements: Maintenance Monitoring
30% of Cumulative Available Cumulative % Cumulative In Recipient Agency Cumulative Maintenance Maintenance Expended for Revenue Compliance Revenue Expenditures Funds Maintenance Carlsbad $35,103,998 $10,531,199 $ (416,699) $10,114,500 1.19% Yes Chula Vista 57,435,097 17,230,529 (12,793,661) 4,366,868 22.27% Yes Coronado 6,123,781 1,837,135 (283,272) 1,553,863 4.63% Yes Del Mar 6,260,188 1,878,056 (394,270) 1,483,786 6.30% Yes El Cajon 23,477,461 7,043,238 (4,259,751) 2,783,487 18.14% Yes Encinitas 18,540,853 5,562,256 (1,564,310) 3,997,946 8.44% Yes Escondido 39,287,047 11,786,114 (9,744,725) 2,041,389 24.80% Yes Imperial Beach 7,428,906 2,228,672 (2,009,527) 219,145 27.05% Yes La Mesa 19,713,492 5,914,048 (3,662,849) 2,251,199 18.58% Yes Lemon Grove 6,913,629 2,074,089 (1,982,727) 91,362 28.68% Yes National City 17,045,159 5,113,548 (0) 5,113,548 0.00% Yes Oceanside 52,028,969 15,608,691 (13,807,121) 1,801,570 26.54% Yes Poway 14,552,143 4,365,643 (4,325,344) 40,299 29.72% Yes San Diego, City 308,127,482 92,438,245 (89,793,067) 2,645,178 29.14% Yes San Marcos 35,934,025 10,780,208 (3,723,704) 7,056,504 10.36% Yes Santee 27,938,953 8,381,686 (3,123,320) 5,258,366 11.18% Yes Solana Beach 9,990,571 2,997,171 (239,587) 2,757,584 2.40% Yes Vista 24,181,465 7,254,440 (4,695,855) 2,558,858 19.42% Yes San Diego, County 156,699,318 47,009,795 (9,921,391) 37,088,404 6.33% Yes
17 - 12 Attachment F Indirect Costs Allocated to RTIP
Indirect Costs Indirect Costs as a % Total TransNet Last Allocation Recipient Agency Charged to of Total TransNet Expenditures Plan Approval TransNet Expenditures Carlsbad $3,519,794 $131,368 3.73% 2017 Chula Vista 7,431,821 792,315 10.66% 2010 Coronado 519,457 95,144 18.32% n/a Del Mar 203,284 0 0.00% n/a El Cajon 2,222,821 31,519 1.42% 2016
Encinitas 2,275,474 0 0.00% n/a
Escondido 7,045,454 210,960 2.99% 2017 Imperial Beach 558,772 0 0.00% n/a La Mesa 1,743,661 0 0.00% n/a Lemon Grove 1,458,821 90,562 6.42% n/a National City 3,548,490 0 0.00% n/a Oceanside 12,963,931 1,487,008 11.47% n/a Poway 1,671,739 0 0.00% n/a San Diego, City 33,890,261 3,071,575 9.06% 2017 San Marcos 1,314,335 0 0.00% n/a Santee 2,220,822 14,697 0.66% n/a Solana Beach 652,501 0 0.00% n/a Vista 2,454,592 0 0.00% n/a Caltrans 50,875,425 5,382,673 10.58% 2017 San Diego, County 8,367,349 862,348 10.64% n/a SANDAG 492,424,694 2,822,885 0.57% 2017 n/a – not applicable
18 - 13
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 7B March 13, 2019 FY 2018 TransNet Extension Ordinance Funding Eligibility Requests
Overview Action: Discussion/Possible Action The TransNet Extension Ordinance (Ordinance) includes The ITOC is asked to: annual eligibility requirements for the transit operators 1. consider the TransNet funding eligibility and local jurisdictions to continue receiving their requests of the Metropolitan Transit annually apportioned TransNet revenues. If a System, North County Transit District, and requirement is not met, the Ordinance provides the cities of Del Mar and San Marcos; and guidance on additional steps. 2. make a recommendation to the Board of For FY 2018, the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System Directors, acting as the San Diego County (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), and the Regional Transportation Commission, cities of Del Mar and San Marcos each had one regarding these requests. requirement that was not met and are requesting to cure the eligibility requirement. Fiscal Impact: Key Considerations Approval of the requests will allow the requesting agencies to receive their full Responsibility for making the final decision on these FY 2019 TransNet revenue apportionment. eligibility requests rests with the Board of Directors: Schedule/Scope Impact: • Approval of the requests enables compliance and Upon approval of the requests by the Board of the requesting agencies would be eligible to receive Directors, the findings will be removed from all apportioned FY 2019 TransNet revenues. the FY 2018 TransNet fiscal and compliance • Without Board of Directors approval, the requesting audits for final adoption by the ITOC at its agency(s) would remain non-compliant with June 12, 2019, meeting. provisions of the Ordinance and would be eligible to receive a reduced FY 2019 apportioned amount, as shown in Attachment 1.
Next Steps The eligibility requests are scheduled for consideration at the March 15, 2019, Transportation Committee meeting, with action on the requests scheduled for consideration at the March 22, 2019, Board of Directors meeting. Any comments received from the ITOC will be conveyed to the Transportation Committee and Board of Directors.
André Douzdjian, Director of Finance Key Staff Contact: Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin, (619) 699-1942, [email protected] Attachments: 1. Discussion Memo 2. Letter of Request from MTS 3. Letter of Request from NCTD 4. Letter of Request from City of Del Mar 5. Letter of Request from City of San Marcos Attachment 1 Discussion Memo
TransNet Extension Ordinance Eligibility Requirements The TransNet Extension Ordinance (Ordinance) includes certain annual requirements for the transit operators and local jurisdictions to continue receiving annual allocations. These requirements are reviewed by an independent auditor during the annual TransNet fiscal and compliance audit process. Depending upon the requirement, an outcome of noncompliance may include additional steps to gain compliance. The draft FY 2018 TransNet fiscal and compliance audit reports include this type of noncompliance outcome for the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), and the cities of Del Mar and San Marcos. The related Ordinance sections are described below: Section 4(C)5 of the Ordinance states that to maintain fund eligibility, total operating costs per revenue vehicle mile for rail services (from one fiscal year to the next) may not exceed the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase for San Diego County over the same period. Section 4(C)5 of the Ordinance also includes the following language: If there were unusual circumstances in a given fiscal year, the operator may request the approval of the Commission to calculate the requirement as an average over the previous three fiscal years. The operator may also request the approval of the Commission to exclude from the calculation certain cost increases that were due to external events entirely beyond the operator’s control, including, but not limited to, increases in the costs for fuel, insurance premiums, or new state or federal mandates.
Section 8 states that to maintain fund eligibility, each local agency receiving revenues pursuant to Section 4(D) shall annually maintain as a minimum the same level of local discretionary funds expended for street and road purposes on average over the last three fiscal years completed prior to the operative date of this Ordinance, with the level adjusted every three years. This is referred to as the Maintenance of Effort (MOE).
Section 8 of the Ordinance also includes the following language: In the event that special circumstances prevent a local agency from meeting its maintenance of effort requirement, the local agency may request up to three additional fiscal years to fulfill its requirement.
MTS Request The draft FY 2018 TransNet fiscal and compliance audit report for MTS includes the following finding: San Diego Metropolitan Transit System’s (MTS) increase in its operating cost per revenue vehicle hour from June 30, 2017 to June 30, 2018 for rail services exceeded the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for San Diego County. The CPI increased by 5.95%, while the operating cost per revenue vehicle mile for rail services increased by 7.61%.
Per Section 4(C)5 of the Ordinance, MTS is requesting the exclusion of certain costs related to state of good repair, legislative, and energy costs and to recalculate its FY 2018 operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for rail services using a three-year average, as described in detail in the attached letter from MTS (Attachment 2).
Next Steps Approval of this request by the Board of Directors would enable compliance with Section 4(C)5 of the Ordinance, and MTS would be eligible to receive all apportioned FY 2019 TransNet revenues.
Should the Board of Directors choose to not approve the request, then MTS would remain in noncompliance for FY 2018 and would be eligible to receive FY 2019 TransNet revenues equal only to those received in FY 2018, adjusted for any increase in the transportation-specific CPI for San Diego County over the same period. 2 Since the CPI for FY 2018 ($34,310,723) is greater than the projection of TransNet revenues for FY 2019 ($33,086,982), MTS would be eligible to receive its full FY 2019 projected allocation ($33,086,982), plus up to $1,223,741 over the projected amounts (if the actual FY 2019 TransNet receipts exceed the projections).
See Table 1 below for details:
Table 1 Final and Projected TransNet Revenues and CPI Calculations for MTS
A B C =B - C 5.95% CPI for FY 2019 FY 2018 Final FY 2018 Projection Difference MTS Transit Operations $ 31,547,089 $ 33,424,141 $ 32,232,021 $ 1,192,120 MTS Specialized Services 836,793 886,582 854,961 31,621 MTS Totals $ 32,383,882 $ 34,310,723 $ 33,086,982 $ 1,223,741
NCTD Request The draft FY 2018 TransNet fiscal and compliance audit report for NCTD includes the following finding: North County Transit District’s (NCTD’s) increase in its operating cost per revenue vehicle mile from June 30, 2017 to June 30, 2018 for rail services exceeded the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for San Diego County. The CPI increased by 5.95%, while the operating cost per revenue vehicle mile for rail services increased by 8.45%.
Per Section 4(C)5 of the Ordinance, NCTD is requesting to recalculate its FY 2018 operating cost per revenue vehicle hour for rail services using a three-year average, as described in detail in the attached letter from NCTD (Attachment 3).
Next Steps Approval of this request by the Board of Directors would enable compliance with Section 4(C)5 of the Ordinance, and NCTD would be eligible to receive all apportioned FY 2019 TransNet revenues.
Should the Board of Directors choose to not approve the request, then NCTD would remain in noncompliance for FY 2018 and would be eligible to receive FY 2019 TransNet revenues equal only to those received in FY 2018, adjusted for any increase in the transportation-specific CPI for San Diego County over the same period.
Since the CPI for FY 2018 ($13,938,907) is greater than the projection of TransNet revenues for FY 2019 ($13,442,671), NCTD would be eligible to receive its full FY 2019 projected allocation ($13,938,907), plus up to $496,236 over the projected amounts (if the actual FY 2019 TransNet receipts exceed the projections).
See Table 2 below for details:
Table 2 Final and Projected TransNet Revenues and CPI Calculations for NCTD
A B C =B - C 5.95% CPI for FY 2019 FY 2018 Final FY 2018 Projection Difference NCTD Transit Operations $ 12,816,167 $ 13,578,729 $ 13,095,315 $ 483,414 NCTD Specialized Services 339,951 360,178 347,356 12,822 NCTD Totals $ 13,156,118 $ 13,938,907 $ 13,442,671 $ 496,236
City of Del Mar
3 The draft FY 2018 TransNet fiscal and compliance audit report for the City of Del Mar includes the following finding:
The City did not meet its MOE requirement for Streets and Roads as follows:
MOE requirement $ (20,877) Streets and Roads discretionary expenditures 19,945
Shortfall of MOE expenditures $ (932)
City of San Marcos The draft FY 2018 TransNet fiscal and compliance audit report for the City of San Marcos includes the following finding:
The City did not meet its MOE requirement for Streets and Roads as follows:
MOE requirement $ (4,489,387) Streets and Roads discretionary expenditures 4,197,158
Shortfall of MOE expenditures $ (292,229)
City Requests
Section 8 of the Ordinance states, in part:
“Each local agency receiving revenues pursuant to Section 4(D) shall annually maintain as a minimum the same level of local discretionary funds expended for street and road purposes on average over the last three fiscal years completed prior to the operative date of this Ordinance…”
In accordance with Section 8 of the Ordinance, the City of Del Mar (Attachment 4) and City of San Marcos (Attachment 5) are requesting until June 30, 2021, to make up the deficits due to special circumstances.
Next Steps Approval of this request by the Board of Directors would enable compliance with Section 8 of the Ordinance, and the cities of Del Mar and San Marcos would be eligible to receive all apportioned FY 2019 TransNet revenues.
Should the Board of Directors choose to not approve the request, then the cities would remain in noncompliance for FY 2018 and would be eligible to receive FY 2019 TransNet revenues less the shortfall of $932 for the City of Del Mar and $292,229 for the City of San Marcos.
4 Attachment 2
5 6 Attachment 3
7 8 Attachment 4
9 Attachment 5
MARCO Finance D1scovER Lin's Poss1B1L1T!tS
January 16, 2019
Jose Nuncio Trans Net Program Director San Diego Assocition of Governemnts 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Mr. Nuncio,
The TransNet Audit Report (agreed- upon procedures) for fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 indicates that the City did not meet the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirement by $292,229, as required by Section 8 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance.
The deficit occurred due to due to unexpected delays to the project start date. The City budgeted sufficient discretionary funds to meet its MOE requirements for FY2017-18, but a large sum of discretionary funds were not disbursed before the end of the fiscal year as a result of this delay. The project is now anticipated to be completed within the next six months. Additionally, the City is committed to completing this project and other street maintenance related projects within the required timeframe to meet the MOE requirement moving forward.
In accordance with Section 8 of the TransNet extension Ordinance, the City of San Marcos requests that the commission review and approve our request to allow the City an additional three years, until June 30, 2021, to expend aforementioned amount over and above our regular MOE threshold to make up the shortfall, due to special circumstances. The additional time requested to fulfill the FY2017-18 MOE shortfall provides the City with the opportunity to use its finite amount discretionary funds to meet the requirements of the Trans Net extension ordinance. The City's estimated spending plan for the requested extension period is provided below:
Additional Streets & FY18 Street Fiscal Year Streets & Total Streets Road MOE &Road Ending Road MOE & Road MOE Requirement Deficit
$ 292,229 6/30/2019 $ 4,489,387 $ 140,000 $ 4,629,387 $ 152,229 6/30/2020 $ 4,489,387 $ 100,000 $ 4,589,387 $ 52,229 6/30/2021 $ 4,893,432 $ 52,229 $ 4,945,661 $
www.san-marcos.net
1 Civic Center Drive I San Marcos, CA 92069 I {760) 744-1050 10 If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to call me directly at (760) 744-1050 .
Sincerely,
Lisa Fowler Finan ce Director
CC: Matt Little, Deputy City Manager/Public Works Director Michelle Bender, Deputy City Manager/HR Risk Director
City of San Marcos I 1 Civic Center Drive I San Marcos, CA 92069 I (760) 744-1050 ! www.san-marcos.net 11
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 8 March 13, 2019 FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit: Transit Operator Funding Eligibility
Overview Action: Discussion The ITOC is asked to provide feedback on the To maintain eligibility for TransNet funding, transit proposed options for recommended revisions operators must limit the increase in their total bus and to Section 4(C)5 of the TransNet Extension rail operating costs. Per TransNet Extension Ordinance Ordinance related to transit operator eligibility. provisions, (Section 4(C)(5), pages 9-10), this increase can be no more than the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from one fiscal year to the next. Fiscal Impact: The Metropolitan Transit System received While the TransNet Extension Ordinance also allows $32.4 million in FY 2018 TransNet transit transit operators to request exceptions to this services funding and is expected to receive requirement under unusual circumstances, over the last $33.1 million in FY 2019. few years changes in CPI have been historically low and there have been increased regulations and legislative The North County Transit District received requirements placed on transit operators, such as wage $13.2 million in FY 2018 TransNet transit increases, driving costs upward. This makes it services funding and is expected to receive challenging for transit operators to ensure changes in $13.4 million in FY 2019. operating costs remain in alignment with TransNet Schedule/Scope Impact: Extension Ordinance requirements (see item no. 7B on The proposed options to amend Section same agenda). Attachment 1 shows the yearly changes 4(C)(5) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance for CPI and transit operating costs, including an would provide increased flexibility for the explanation of any exceptions requested. transit operators to maintain funding eligibility Recommendation No. 16 of the FY 2018 TransNet while preserving the intent of TransNet to Triennial Performance Audit (Chapter 5: Transit Services, align with economic and legislative trends. pages 91 – 92) suggests SANDAG work with the transit operators to provide flexibility in justifying increased expenses while ensuring cost increases are reasonable.
Key Considerations Staff from the Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), North County Transit District (NCTD), and SANDAG met to discuss the audit recommendations and developed the following potential options. By implementing the changes recommended by the audit, the frequency of exception requests would be minimized going forward; however, there likely would still be future exception requests, as allowed by the TransNet Extension Ordinance, because costs, CPI, and regulations change frequently. The ITOC is asked to provide feedback on whether all or some of these should be incorporated into the TransNet Extension Ordinance: • Set a minimum threshold allowance for the percent change in cost increases or CPI, whichever is greater. • Consider each agency’s services as a whole rather than splitting by mode such that bus and rail costs are analyzed together as one calculation. • Exclude items requiring an actuarial analysis and items that result in volatile fluctuation of costs such as those related to pension, worker’s compensation, other post-employment benefits, general liability, etc.
• Remove energy costs and use the core CPI that has energy costs removed from its calculation. • Exclude any federal or state mandates that the transit agencies have no control over (minimum wage, zero-emission bus mandates, etc.).
• Exclude non-cash inventory write-offs of unusable inventory. New mandates and costs not previously contemplated would still follow the exception request requirements provided for in the TransNet Extension Ordinance and would continue to be presented for consideration by the ITOC, Transportation Committee, and Board of Directors based on current practice. Staff from the current ITOC fiscal auditing firm, Davis Farr, LLP, have reviewed the options being presented and will be in attendance to answer questions the ITOC may have about best practices from an independent fiscal auditor’s perspective. Staff from MTS and NCTD also will be present to answer questions.
Next Steps Pending ITOC input, staff from the MTS, NCTD, and SANDAG will prepare proposed amendment language for Section 4(C)(5) of the TransNet Extension Ordinance for consideration in spring 2019. Pending final consideration by the Board of Directors, the amendments will be formalized in summer 2019 for incorporation into the upcoming fiscal and compliance audit scheduled to begin July 2019.
Charles “Muggs” Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contacts: Brian Lane, (619) 699-7331, [email protected] Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin, (619) 699-1942, [email protected] Attachment: 1. Changes in CPI and Transit Operating Costs (FY 2009 – FY 2017)
2 Changes in CPI and Transit Operating Costs (FY 2009 – FY 2017) Attachment 1 TransNet Transit Eligibility Requirements FY 2009 - FY2017 Ordinance Option MTS NCTD MTS NCTD Reason(s)
FY17 CPI: 4.06% Bus 0.52% -0.58% N/A N/A Rail 9.68% -0.42% Cost Exclusion N/A State of Good Repair, Legislative, & one-time labor costs
FY16 CPI: -8.17% Bus -3.47% -1.12% N/A N/A Rail 2.47% -1.91% Cost Exclusion N/A MTS - GASB 68 (non-cash) pension reporting transactions.
FY15 CPI: -6.43% Bus -0.03% -6.0% N/A N/A Rail 1.07% 4.25% Cost Exclusion Cost Exclusion MTS - increase in electricity costs; NCTD - Contracted services
FY14 CPI: .54% Bus -4.96% 3.80% N/A 3-year average NCTD - mid-season transition of operations & maintenance contracts for LIFT services Rail -1.71% 0% N/A N/A
FY13 CPI: -1.2% Bus 3.0% -10.62% 3-year average N/A MTS - Electric PUC fees; negotiated contracts; increase health care premiums Rail 1.0% 21.42% 3-year average 3-yr aver + exclusions NCTD - unexpected SPRINTER shutdown; negotiated contracts FY12 CPI: 3.1% Bus 7.9% 1.0% 3-year average N/A NCTD -dispatch svcs change; fuel increases Rail 4.6% 4.6% 3-year average 3-year average MTS - one-time exp adjust; security services; change in amortization FY11 CPI: 12.3% Bus 1.5% n/a N/A N/A Rail 3.9% -0.3% N/A N/A FY10 CPI: 12.1% Bus -14.8% n/a Cost Exclusion N/A MTS - Contracted Services (negotiated in FY06 & FY07) - 2.2% to 3% annual increases pre-negotiated Rail 5.0% -10.7% N/A N/A FY09 CPI: 7% Bus 5.0% 0.970% OLD CPI Rail 6.0% 0.9% OLD CPI
3 \\vmoss2010\DavWWWRoot\Agenda\Shared Documents\ITOC\03.13.19\Agenda\Item 07 - Brian - FY18 TN Performance Audit\Item 07 - FY18 TN Performance Audit_Att 1 \ Transit
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 10 March 13, 2019 TransNet Program Update
Overview Action: Information SANDAG regularly reviews the capacity of the TransNet Staff will provide an update on the financial Major Corridors Program by updating its Plan of Finance capacity of the TransNet Major Corridors to determine the financial feasibility of completing all Program. remaining TransNet Major Corridors projects by 2048. Fiscal Impact: This program update was presented to the Board of Directors on February 22, 2019. Approximately $21.4 billion is reasonably expected to be available to finish TransNet Key Considerations Major Corridors projects through 2048. As of January 2019, 35% of TransNet Major Corridors Schedule/Scope Impact: projects have been completed, 28% of the projects are As of January 2019, 35% of the TransNet in progress, and 37% have not yet been started. Major Corridors projects have been completed, 28% of the projects are in progress, and 37% The first TransNet Extension Ordinance Ten-Year Review, of the projects have not yet been started. completed in December 2017, recommended that SANDAG “continually reevaluate the portfolio of projects remaining to be completed to ensure the TransNet Extension Ordinance listing of major highway and transit projects is the best mix compared to TransNet goals and whether additions, deletions, or other changes need to be made.” Analysis completed as part of the Regional Plan development shows that it is possible to meet the mobility needs of the region without certain Major Corridor capital improvements. In addition, the introduction of new and emerging technologies as well as potential operational alternatives provide the opportunity for new mobility solutions that originally were not envisioned in the TransNet Extension Ordinance. This is particularly relevant as current analysis indicates that approximately $21.4 billion is reasonably expected to be available for the TransNet Major Corridors Program through 2048—which is not enough to complete all TransNet projects by the 2048 horizon year. Cost estimates for all remaining Major Corridors projects were updated in 2018 as part of the development of the Regional Plan. These updated estimates show that the cost to complete all remaining projects is about $26.7 billion, which is an increase of about 16% from the October 2017 Plan of Finance. As a result, SANDAG estimates that approximately $9.8 billion from new or expanded sources would be needed to complete all remaining TransNet Major Corridors projects by 2048. This means that for every TransNet dollar, SANDAG would need to bring in about $4.20 billion in match funding. As a point of reference, the average leveraging ratio for the first 30 years of TransNet was 1:3; the leveraging ratio estimated in October 2017 was 1:3.4. Applying those ratios today would mean that about $4.8 billion to $7.2 billion would be needed in matching funds to complete all of the TransNet Major Corridors projects by 2048.
Next Steps As part of the Regional Plan development process, the Board of Directors will have the opportunity to consider which TransNet projects will be included for delivery before 2048. Based on this determination, analysis will be completed to provide updated information on the capacity available to complete the remainder of the TransNet Program. Jose Nuncio, TransNet Department Director Key Staff Contact: José A. Nuncio, (619) 699-1908, [email protected] Jim Linthicum, (619) 699-1970, [email protected] Ray Major, (619) 595-5668, [email protected] Attachments: 1. Discussion Memo 2. Project Cost Estimate Details 3. Revenue Assumptions
2 Attachment 1
Discussion Memo
Background As of January 2019, 35% of TransNet Major Corridors projects have been completed, 28% of projects are in progress, and 37% have not yet been started. The analysis outlined below reflects the estimated cost of the remaining (under construction and not yet started) Major Corridors projects in the TransNet Program.
As part of the Regional Plan development process, the Board of Directors may determine that certain TransNet projects are no longer needed or can be modified by incorporating newer technology and innovative solutions not previously envisioned. Based on this determination, a new Plan of Finance will be completed to provide updated information on the capacity available to complete the remainder of the TransNet Program.
Costs and Revenues Cost estimates updated in 2018 as part of the Regional Plan development process show that the cost to complete all remaining projects is about $26.7 billion. This is an increase of about 16% from the October 2017 Plan of Finance, which had a project cost estimate of $23.1 billion. Although the Plan of Finance anticipates long-term average inflation over time, this increase also is caused by a continued strong economy and competition from other areas due to expanded construction programs. As a result, there is a widening gap between the growth rates in project costs and revenue streams. Costs are growing faster than anticipated, while revenues are tracking more or less with previous estimates. This is similar to what was experienced during the 2005-2007 time period, when costs were growing at double-digit, year-over-year inflation rates just before the Great Recession caused a reset to both costs and revenues. Based on historic matching levels, it was reasonable to anticipate the previous 1:3.4 leveraging ratio (identified in the October 2017 Plan of Finance) to complete all remaining TransNet Major Corridors projects. Faced with these latest cost increases, it now is more likely that existing fund sources, including TransNet, state and federal formula funds, and other competitive or discretionary funds, will not be enough to finish all TransNet Major Corridors projects by 2048. Analysis
2017-2018 POF 2018-2019 POF Description (2018-2048) (2019-2048) (YOE $B) (YOE $B) COSTS Capital Costs Remaining* $23.1 $26.7 Anticipated Debt Service $4.8 $4.5 TOTAL COSTS $27.9 $31.2
REVENUES 1. TransNet funds for Major Corridors through 2048 $6.2 $6.0 2. Programmed grants, state, federal, and bond proceeds in $3.6 $3.1 the Regional Transportation Improvement Program
3 2017-2018 POF 2018-2019 POF Description (2018-2048) (2019-2048) (YOE $B) (YOE $B) 3. Additional Funds from existing formula programs, including the Regional Surface Transportation Program, Congestion $4.7 $6.3 Mitigation and Air Quality Program, State Transportation Improvement Program, and Local Partnership Program LPP 4. Additional potential funds from existing sources, including $5.4 $6.0 SB1, INFRA, and others 5. Additional future revenues needed to pay for all costs $8.0 $9.8 TOTAL REVENUES** $27.9 $31.2
TransNet vs. Other Funds Ratio 1:3.4 1:4.2
* Cost estimates were updated in 2018 and include one less project than the 2017-2018 Plan of Finance. ** Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding. Note: TransNet is lower due to one fewer year remaining since the 2017-2018 Plan of Finance More certain Less certain
The short-term outlook of likely gridlock at the federal level, fatigue at the state level following the Senate Bill 1 (Beall, 2018) gas tax increase, lack of new local sources, and the continued threat to existing revenue-raising mechanisms through fuel taxes from electric and hybrid vehicles results in likely lower revenues for the foreseeable future. In the longer term, these adverse trends may be mitigated by the possibility of new local revenue sources, revenues raised through vehicle-miles-travelled mechanisms, fees on transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft and parking, and additional tolling and pricing. Although it is reasonable to assume these revenue streams will materialize, their level of certainty is lower and thus not currently used as a factor in determining future match funding availability.
4 Attachment 2
Project Cost Estimate Details
As part of the Regional Plan development process, the cost of the TransNet Major Corridors Program has been updated to 2018 cost estimates. The following summary discusses the reasons behind the cost increases.
Managed Lanes and Highways Current market volatility has led to substantial upward pressure on construction prices and has created substantial cost increases affecting the overall capital project development program. As a result, the cost of Express Lanes and Highway projects has increased between 20% and 30% based on preliminary estimates. Figure 1 provides context on the volatility of construction costs and shows the annual changes in the Caltrans Construction Cost Index for highways over the past several years. This index tracks costs across the State of California for projects very similar to those in the TransNet Major Corridors Program and is consistent with other cost indices that are showing upward trends.
Figure 1: Construction Cost Index
Generally speaking, Express Lanes and highway projects fall in various phases of planning and development based on their projected timeframe for completion. Projects in outer phase years (e.g., 2050) will have less information and less time invested to develop their estimates compared to projects in earlier phases (e.g., 2025). Both the project year and the information available help decide what cost estimate methodology is used. Since those projects in the later years of the program typically have very little project-specific information available, these projects are estimated using a dollar-per-mile approach. Projects in earlier years and further along in their development will have a more detailed approach. The state highway project estimates were updated to a January 2018 baseline. As shown in Figure 1, using the Caltrans Construction Index as an indicator, costs of key elements such as structural concrete, excavation, reinforcing steel, and asphalt have increased more than 40% in the last four years, which has affected the highway project estimates. Some of the factors driving this escalation include external market forces such as a rebounding
5 market from the Great Recession, increasing commodity prices, and limited construction resources combined with increasing public works funding.
Transit To guide the cost estimate update process for transit, staff utilized actual project bids and project costs for several major SANDAG capital projects to update the unit costs previously developed in 2010. Known planning/engineering, labor rates, construction, and materials costs from both light rail and Rapid transit projects were used as a basis to update the transit project costs. Using the federal project cost template for major capital projects under the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts and Small Starts programs, staff updated the “Standard Cost Categories” templates to provide updated localized context to the project estimation process for the San Diego region. An additional 25% to 35% was added to all transit projects to reflect standard practices for cost estimation from the Federal Transit Administration.
6 Attachment 3
Revenue Assumptions
The assumptions for the Plan of Finance (POF) include federal funding consistent with the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. For the TransNet Program, two forecasts (short-term and long-term) are incorporated into the POF. The short-term, five-year forecast is based on the latest estimate for the next five years approved by the Board of Directors on February 22, 2019. This five-year forecast typically is provided for the use of transit operators’ budgets, but also serves as the basis for the short-term estimate. The long-term forecast is for the period after the end of the five-year forecast through the end of TransNet in 2048.
It should be noted that all revenues presented in this report are in year of expenditure dollars. What this means is that they are shown without the adjustment for inflation that would occur if revenues were shown in constant year dollars.
Below is a side-by-side comparison of the assumptions discussed in October 2017 and updated assumptions for the FY 2018-FY 2019 POF. Given the inherent uncertainty associated with forecasting long-term financial revenue and cost assumptions, a range is provided where appropriate.
Sales Tax Revenue Forecast – Short Term
October 2017 TransNet Major Corridors POF Item TransNet Major Corridors POF FY 2019 – FY 2023 FY 2018 – FY 2022 Amount $551 million - $609 million $561 million – $620 million Revenue Growth Rates 3.33% – 4.19% 2.40% – 3.68%1 (annual rates of change)
As mentioned above, short-term revenues are based on the latest short-term revenue forecast approved by the Board of Directors. At its February 22, 2019, meeting, the Board of Directors approved high and low ranges of plus and minus 5% for the short-term forecast. The mid-point of the range is used for financial capacity analysis. Short-term growth rates are applied to the last actual year of sales tax collection (for example, the proposed POF applies the growth rate for FY 2019 to the actual sales tax collection amount in FY 2018). This approach ensures that the revenue estimates are grounded on actual receipts.
Sales Tax Revenue Forecast – Long Term
October 2017 Proposed TransNet TransNet Major Corridors POF Item Major Corridors POF FY 2024 – FY 2048 FY 2023 – FY 2048 Amount $5.4 billion – $5.9 billion $5.1 billion – $5.6 billion Revenue Growth Rates 3.73% – 4.07% 3.56% – 4.32% (annual rates of change)
The methodology for estimating long-term sales tax revenue continues to be based on three variables: (1) the population forecast from the California Department of Finance; (2) a consensus (simple average) of three independent national forecasts of real rates of growth in per-capita retail sales (nationally recognized forecasts by IHS Global Insight, Moody’s, and Woods & Poole); and (3) the average projected inflation rates from the same independent sources. This forms the basis for the long-term revenue estimate for the POF
1 FY 2018 actual revenues were higher than estimated, and the five-year period has moved out by one year, resulting in a higher base upon which the growth is calculated.
7
update. As with the 2017-2018 POF, the 2018-2019 POF update also would apply the long-term growth rates from the forecast to the last year of the short-term forecast to ensure a continued grounding of the forecast on actual receipts.
The overall amount assumed for TransNet revenues, including the short- and long-term estimates for the proposed POF, is approximately between $5.6 billion and $6.2 billion in year of expenditure dollars.
State and Federal Matching Revenues – Programmed and Reasonably Committed
October 2017 TransNet Major TransNet Major Corridors POF Item Corridors POF FY 2019 – FY 2048 FY 2018 – FY 2048 Amount $1.66 billion $1.80 billion
State and federal matching funds include Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), (including SB1 funds), Cap-and-Trade, and Federal Discretionary (such as Mid-Coast Full Funding Grant Agreement [FFGA] funds), among others. The POF includes funding programmed in the 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), which covers FY 2018 to FY 2023, as well as funds that are reasonably assumed to be available beyond the 2018 RTIP, including Mid-Coast FFGA funds.
The POF reflects estimates made available by the FAST Act, including anticipated apportionments provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans for RTIP programming purposes, as well as revenues received through state competitive processes, such as cap-and-trade funds for the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor.
Programmed and reasonably committed funds have a high degree of certainty to be available for projects. However, changes in legislative or administrative policies or actions may still affect the timing and amount of these funds. Changes to anticipated programming amounts are reported to the Board of Directors through RTIP amendments, and their impact on project delivery is assessed through updates to the POF.
State and Federal Matching Formula Revenues – Anticipated
October 2017 TransNet Major TransNet Major Corridors POF Item Corridors POF FY 2019 – FY 2048 FY 2019 – FY 2048 Amount $4.2 billion – $5.2 billion2 $5.7 billion – $6.9 billion Percent Share Dedicated to 90% 90% TransNet Major Corridors
State and Federal Matching Formula Revenues anticipated to occur beyond those that already have been programmed include STIP, RSTP, and CMAQ funds. Long-term growth rates were reviewed for reasonableness by the FHWA and Federal Transit Administration as part of their review of assumptions in the Regional Transportation Plan.
The assumptions rely on historical growth to estimate future revenues, as well as changes in law. In the October 2017 POF, estimates were more conservative. Given the long-term time horizon, assumptions for
8
these revenue sources will continue to be reviewed and refined as part of updates to future POFs and the Regional Plan.
The most recent 2017-2018 POF included a Board-approved assumption that 90% of the anticipated formula funds listed above would be designated to match TransNet funds for Major Corridors projects. The remaining 10% would be used for region-wide programs such as the vanpool and 511 Program, which help the region implement its Sustainable Communities Strategy. The 90% set-aside has been reviewed by the Board of Directors annually and held fairly constant for several years, though the Board of Directors has previously approved levels ranging from 86% to 94% since the beginning of the implementation of the TransNet Extension. The 2018-2019 POF assumes the same 90% set-aside. A high and low range of 10% plus and minus is considered in the POF, with the estimate mid-point amount used for financial capacity purposes. The higher 10% plus or minus range reflects a higher degree of uncertainty regarding the long-term reliability of the estimate, particularly regarding adequate long-term funding of the Highway Trust Fund, which Congress has not yet addressed.
Anticipated Competitive Funds
October 2017 TransNet Major TransNet Major Corridors POF Item Corridors POF FY 2019 – FY 2048 FY 2018 – FY 2048 Amount $4.3 billion – $6.5 billion $5.4 billion – $6.5 billion
The 2016-2017 POF included an assumption for infrastructure-focused initiatives historically approved by voters and legislative bodies. The amount assumed previously corresponded to a measure equivalent to Proposition 1B occurring approximately once every ten years, with increases to account for inflation. The passage of Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) (Beall, 2018) created an opportunity to update assumptions related to this revenue source. SB 1 funds have been available since 2017. Many of the new SB 1 programs are competitive rather than formula. In the previous POF, revenues were based on previous Proposition 1B shares received in programs similar to the SB 1 programs and based on limited cap-and-trade funds experience. These assumptions have been updated to reflect awards received during the first round of SB 1.
The range reflects a plus or minus 10% range from the mid-point estimate.
Bonds, Bond Anticipation Notes, Grant Anticipation Notes, and Commercial Paper
October 2017 TransNet Major TransNet Major Corridors POF Item Corridors POF FY 2019 – FY 2021 FY 2018 – FY 2021 Amount $923 million – $1.02 billion $324.57 million – $358.74 billion
Previous POFs assumed structured debt that includes existing sales tax bonds, grant anticipation notes (GANs), and bond anticipation notes (BANs). Existing sales bonds are the bonds issued by SANDAG in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 backed by sales tax collections that have served to advance completion of TransNet projects, such as Interstate 15 Express Lanes, State Route 52 Extension, and Blue and Orange Line Modernization. BANs are lower-interest, short-term notes issued in 2018 for near-term expenses associated with the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project to be paid back with the proceeds of the longer-term, higher- interest Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan. GANs are bonds that are anticipated to be issued in summer 2019 to pay for expenses associated with the Mid-Coast Project, that would be paid over time with future appropriations of the Mid-Coast $1.043 billion FFGA. As a reminder, the
9
Mid-Coast FFGA, though approved, will be allocated to SANDAG in annual amounts of approximately $100 million, through about 2026. This means that some construction expenses for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will need to be covered between now and 2021 when the project opens to users with funds other than FFGA revenues. GANs will provide this source of funds and be paid back with FFGA revenues as they are appropriated after 2021.
A higher degree of pay-go construction payments on the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project is assumed, leading the proposed POF to have lower anticipated borrowing needs in the next few years. A high and low range of plus and minus 5% is included in the projection, reflecting a higher degree of certainty.
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Loan
October 2017 TransNet Major TransNet Major Corridors POF Item Corridors POF FY 2021 FY 2021 Amount $538 million $538 million
Both the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 POFs include a TIFIA loan assumption for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project. The secured TIFIA loan allows SANDAG to finance the project at the lowest possible cost with flexible terms and conditions, which is essential to delivering other projects identified within the TransNet Program on time and within budget. Perhaps more importantly, the TIFIA loan provides additional financial flexibility that would support additional near-term TransNet project completions, including those along the LOSSAN Rail Corridor and I-5 North Coast Corridor. The proposed 2018-2019 POF also includes an assumption of TIFIA financing, though updated to reflect the maximum amount available based on the project cost and funding plan as approved in the FFGA for the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project executed in September 2016 and the TIFIA loan executed on June 27, 2017. The TIFIA loan closed at an interest rate of 2.72%.
Other Revenues
October 2017 TransNet Major TransNet Major Corridors POF Item Corridors POF FY 2019 – FY 2048 FY 2018 – FY 2048 $440.87 million – $487.28 Amount $315 million – $355 million million
The TransNet Ordinance includes funding for the Environmental Mitigation Program (EMP). In order to accelerate the economic and environmental benefits associated with the EMP and facilitate the environmental clearance of Major Corridor Program projects, the Board of Directors approved a loan from the Major Corridor Program to the EMP. Both the 2016-2017 POF and proposed 2018-2019 POF include an assumption for other revenues, including loan repayment from the EMP, as well as various interest earnings.
10
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 11 March 13, 2019 Draft FY 2020 TransNet Major Corridors and Regional Bikeway Programs Budget Update
Overview Action: Discussion The SANDAG FY 2020 Draft Program Budget The annual budget update for the TransNet Major will be presented to the Board of Directors in Corridor and Regional Bikeway Program is underway. March 2019. The ITOC is asked to discuss the The draft FY 2020 budgets include the expenditure and Draft FY 2020 TransNet Budgets. funding plans for the development and delivery of TransNet projects. This report focuses on the changes made to the TransNet Major Corridor and Regional Fiscal Impact: Bikeway Program budgets from the currently approved The Draft FY 2020 TransNet Program of budgets. Projects Budget has a proposed increase of $92.72 million, which consists of an increase Key Considerations of TransNet ($64.44 million), state Attachment 1 shows the proposed changes to the Draft ($25.22 million), and local ($3.06 million) FY 2020 Program Budget related to the TransNet funds. Program of Projects. The Capital Improvement Program Schedule/Scope Impact: budget control number and project name are shown for The Draft FY 2020 TransNet Program of each project. Increases and decreases account for new Projects Budget proposes to accomplish phases of work being added, refinements in the 33 milestones, including seven projects engineer’s estimate as projects progress, construction scheduled to begin construction and six bids coming in above or below the engineer’s estimate, projects scheduled to be opened to traffic by and savings being captured as projects close out. the end of FY 2020. Attachment 1 also includes the currently funded phase for each project, which includes preliminary engineering, environmental clearance, ready-to-advertise, and construction. The proposed budget adjustments would increase the overall TransNet budget from $8.27 billion to $8.36 billion, for a total increase of $92.72 million, as shown in Attachment 1. A portion of the remaining balance from the closed projects will go back into the program to the Mira Mesa Boulevard Priority Treatments Project ($235,000), while $17.9 million of state Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (Cap- and-Trade) funds will be transferred to the North County Transit District as part of the Signal Respacing and Optimization Project. The increase of $92.72 million is composed primarily of, but not limited to: (1) $33.44 million to extend the Memorandum of Agreement with Caltrans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the implementation of the TransNet Environmental Mitigation Program; (2) $24.92 million of State Highway Operations and Protection Program funding for the construction of the Sweetwater River Bridge Improvements at Interstate 805; and (3) $29.34 million for new phases of work for Regional Bikeway Program projects already approved by the Board of Directors. No new projects are proposed at this time. Attachment 2 shows the proposed Draft FY 2020 milestones scheduled to be accomplished in FY 2020. These milestones include the completion of the environmental phase, advertise, begin construction, open to public, and completion of construction. There are currently 33 milestones scheduled to be accomplished in FY 2020 for the Major Corridor, Trade Corridor Improvement Fund/Goods Movement, and Bikeway programs. Next Steps
The Draft FY 2020 Program Budget is scheduled to be presented for consideration by the Board of Directors on March 22, 2019. The Final FY 2020 Program Budget is scheduled for Board approval at the May 25, 2019, meeting.
José Nuncio, Director, TransNet Department Key Staff Contact: Susan Huntington, (619) 595-5389, [email protected] Attachments: 1. Draft FY 2020 TransNet Program of Projects Budget Changes 2. Draft FY 2020 Planned Milestones
2 Draft FY 2020 TransNet Program of Projects Attachment 1 Budget Changes ($000)
b c c-b FY19 Amended Proposed FY20 Budget Funded CIP Project Title Change Reason Budget1 Budget (Draft) Change Through
Environmental Mitigation Program
1200200 Project Biological Mitigation Fund $458,000 $458,000 $0 N/A Increase to align with Board action in February 2019 to extend 1200300 Regional Habitat Conservation Fund $44,519 $77,960 $33,441 N/A Memorandum of Agreement another 10 years to 2029 Total EMP $502,519 $535,960 $33,441
1257001 Mid-Coast Light Rail Transit (LRT) $2,171,201 $2,171,201 $0 CON
Total Mid-Coast $2,171,201 $2,171,201 $0
I-5 South Corridor
1041502 SuperLoop $36,071 $36,071 $0 CON Increase costs due to additional utility relocation and final traffic 1200506 I-5/Genesee Interchange and Widening $117,435 $119,154 $1,719 operations changes. Funding is coming from a transfer of TransNet CON (1200507 and 1280505) and additional state funds 1200507 I-5/Voigt Drive Improvements $29,380 $29,380 $0 CON
1200508 I-5/Gilman Drive Bridge $24,607 $24,607 $0 CON State Highway Operations Protection Program (SHOPP) funds for 1200512 I-5/Genesee Auxiliary Lane $7,049 $7,249 $200 CON additional construction management services Total I-5 South $214,542 $216,461 $1,919
I-5 North Corridor
1200501 I-5 North Coast: 4 Express Lanes $74,786 $74,786 $0 FED
1200503 I-5/SR 56 Interchange $17,957 $17,957 $0 DES
1200504 I-5 HOV: Manchester Avenue to Palomar Airport Road $405,363 $405,363 $0 CON
1200509 I-5 HOV: San Elijo Bridge Replacement $338,162 $338,162 $0 CON
1200510 I-5 HOV: Carlsbad $120,897 $120,897 $0 CON
Total I-5 North $957,165 $957,165 $0
I-15 Corridor
1201501 I-15 Express Lanes South Segment $331,022 $331,022 $0 CON
1201504 I-15 FasTrak® $26,992 $26,992 $0 CON
1201507 SR 15 BRT: Mid-City Centerline Stations $64,844 $64,844 $0 CON
1201509 Downtown BRT Stations $20,844 $20,844 $0 CON Increase for additional Park and Ride signage. Funding is coming 1201511 Mira Mesa Blvd BRT Priority Treatments $3,737 $3,972 $235 CON from TransNet savings within the corridor (1201518) 1201513 South Bay BRT Maintenance Facility $60,029 $60,029 $0 CON
1201514 Downtown Multiuse and Bus Stopover Facility $45,975 $45,975 $0 DES
1201515 Clairemont Mesa Blvd BRT Stations $1,774 $1,774 $0 DES
Total I-15 $555,217 $555,452 $235
SR 76 Corridor
1207602 SR 76 Middle $166,321 $166,321 $0 CON
1207606 SR 76 East $202,499 $202,499 $0 CON
Total SR 76 $368,820 $368,820 $0
Other
1207802 I-15/SR 78 HOV Connectors $7,937 $7,937 $0 FED
1210030 Blue Line Station Rehab $132,985 $132,985 $0 CON
1210040 Orange and Blue Line Traction Power Substations $30,175 $30,175 $0 CON
1240001 Mid-City Rapid Bus $44,526 $44,526 $0 CON
1212501 SR 94/SR 125 South to East Connector $16,240 $16,240 $0 DES
Total Other $231,863 $231,863 $0
3 Draft FY 2020 TransNet Program of Projects Budget Changes ($000)
b c c-b FY19 Amended Proposed FY20 Budget Funded CIP Project Title Change Reason Budget1 Budget (Draft) Change Through
Coastal Corridor
1239801 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 1 $45,411 $45,411 $0 CON
1239803 Oceanside Station Pass-Through Track $28,328 $28,328 $0 CON
1239805 Poinsettia Station Improvements $33,748 $33,748 $0 CON
1239806 San Elijo Lagoon Double Track $79,049 $79,049 $0 CON
1239807 Sorrento Valley Double Track $32,989 $32,989 $0 CON
1239809 Eastbrook to Shell Double Track $10,920 $10,920 $0 DES
1239810 Carlsbad Village Double Track $3,580 $3,580 $0 FED
1239811 Elvira to Morena Double Track $189,125 $189,125 $0 CON
1239812 Sorrento to Miramar Phase 2 $29,440 $29,440 $0 ROW
1239813 San Dieguito Lagoon Double Track and Platform $16,445 $16,445 $0 DES
1239814 COASTER Preliminary Engineering $1,222 $1,222 $0 PE
1239815 San Diego River Bridge $93,866 $93,866 $0 CON
1239816 Batiquitos Lagoon Double Track $14,853 $14,853 $0 DES
1239817 Chesterfield Drive Crossing Improvements $6,809 $6,809 $0 CON
1239819 Carlsbad Village Double Track Trench $369 $369 $0 PE
Total Coastal Corridor $586,154 $586,154 $0
I-805 Corridor
1280504 South Bay BRT $121,772 $121,772 $0 CON
1280505 I-805 HOV/Carroll Canyon DAR $95,730 $95,443 ($287) Budget savings transferred to 1200506 CON
1280508 SR 94 Express Lanes: I-805 to Downtown $22,600 $22,600 $0 PE
1280510 I-805 South: 2HOV and Direct Access Ramp $181,961 $182,043 $82 State SHOPP funds added for additional Right-of-Way capital CON
1280511 I-805 North: 2 HOV Lanes $114,965 $114,965 $0 CON
1280513 I-805/SR-94 Bus on Shoulder Demonstration Project $30,900 $30,900 $0 CON State SHOPP funds added to construct Sweetwater River Bridge 1280515 I-805 South Soundwalls $38,901 $63,828 $24,927 CON Improvements 1280516 I-805 North Auxiliary Lanes $4,242 $4,242 $0 DES
Total I-805 $611,071 $635,793 $24,722
Goods Movement Savings from construction contingency on 1300602 are transferring 1201101 SR 11 and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry $173,436 $173,936 $500 within the corridor to reduce the funding gap for the SR 11 and Otay RTA Mesa East Port of Entry project 1201102 SR 11 and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry: Segment 1 Const $66,330 $66,330 $0 CON
1201103 SR 11 and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry: Segment 2A Con $121,900 $121,900 $0 CON
1300601 San Ysidro Intermodal Freight Facility $41,360 $41,360 $0 CON Savings from construction contingency on 1300602 are transferring 1300602 South Line Rail Freight Capacity $47,993 $47,493 ($500) within the corridor to reduce the funding gap for the SR 11 and Otay CON Mesa East Port of Entry project 1390506 SR 125/905 Southbound to Westbound Connector $36,257 $36,257 $0 CON
Total Good Movement $487,276 $487,276 $0
4 Draft FY 2020 TransNet Program of Projects Budget Changes ($000)
b c c-b FY19 Amended Proposed FY20 Budget Funded CIP Project Title Change Reason Budget1 Budget (Draft) Change Through Regional Bikeway
1129900 Bayshore Bikeway: 8B Main Street to Palomar $1,893 $4,098 $2,205 Increase due to updated engineer's estimate for construction CON
1223014 SR 15 Commuter Bike Facility $15,615 $15,615 $0 CON
1223016 Coastal Rail Trail San Diego: Rose Creek $23,792 $25,103 $1,311 Increase due to updated engineer's estimate for construction CON
1223017 Coastal Rail Trail Encinitas: E Street to Chesterfield Drive $10,108 $10,108 $0 CON
1223020 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Robinson Bikeway $5,946 $5,946 $0 CON
1223022 Uptown Bikeways: Fourth and Fifth Avenue Bikeways $21,559 $23,725 $2,166 Increase due to updated engineer's estimate for construction CON
1223023 Inland Rail Trail $45,545 $45,545 $0 CON
1223052 San Diego River Trail: Stadium Segment $3,026 $3,026 $0 CON
1223053 San Diego River Trail: Carlton Oaks Segment $1,582 $1,582 $0 DES
1223054 Central Avenue Bikeway $1,000 $3,174 $2,174 Increase to add final Right-of-Way and construction phases CON Increase due to updated engineer's estimate for hazardous materials 1223055 Bayshore Bikeway: Barrio Logan $17,964 $24,675 $6,711 CON removal, Right-of-Way acquisitions, and utilities 1223056 Border to Bayshore Bikeway $12,216 $12,216 $0 CON
1223057 Pershing Drive Bikeway $12,314 $18,982 $6,668 Increase to add construction phase CON
1223058 Downtown to Imperial Avenue Bikeway $13,488 $13,488 $0 CON
1223078 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Landis Bikeway $7,250 $1,414 ($5,836) Construction phase moved to 1223082 (Georgia-Meade) DES
1223079 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Howard Bikeway $1,301 $1,301 $0 DES
1223080 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Monroe Bikeway $526 $526 $0 DES
1223081 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: University Bikeway $8,708 $8,708 $0 CON $12.747M due to the increase in the Construction phase which will 1223082 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Georgia-Meade Bikeway $11,282 $24,029 $12,747 CON now include the scope from Landis Bikeway (1223078) 1223083 Uptown Bikeways: Eastern Hillcrest Bikeways $4,844 $4,844 $0 CON Uptown Bikeways: Washington Street and Mission Valley Increase due to additional design efforts required to complete city 1223084 $1,864 $2,058 $194 DES Bikeways review 1223085 Uptown Bikeways: Mission Hills and Old Town Bikeways $358 $358 $0 DES
1223086 Uptown Bikeways: Park Boulevard Bikeway $688 $688 $0 DES
1223087 North Park/Mid-City Bikeways: Orange Bikeway $435 $1,435 $1,000 Increase to add final design phase DES
Total Regional Bikeway $223,304 $252,644 $29,340
Pending Closeout in FY20
1143700 Bayshore Bikeway: Segments 4 & 5 $6,679 $6,482 ($197) Project savings transferred to the Bike Program CON
1200502 I-5 HOV Extension & Lomas Santa Fe Interchange $67,720 $67,720 $0 CON
1200505 I-5/I-8 West to North Connector Improvements $17,300 $17,300 $0 CON
1201502 I-15 Express Lanes Middle Segment $466,769 $466,769 $0 CON
1201503 I-15 Express Lanes North Segment $185,479 $185,479 $0 CON
1201506 I-15 Mira Mesa Direct Access Ramp - Bus Rapid Transit Sta $55,589 $55,589 $0 CON
1201510 SR 78 Nordahl Road Interchange $24,220 $24,220 $0 CON
1205203 SR 52 Extension $460,509 $460,509 $0 CON
1390501 SR 905: I-805 to Britannia Boulevard $82,513 $85,774 $3,261 Increase of City of San Diego funds for additional utilities CON
Total Pending Closeout $1,366,778 $1,369,842 $3,064
Total Active and Pending Closeout $8,275,910 $8,368,631 $92,721
Closed Projects in FY19
1201518 I-15 Mira Mesa Transit Station Parking Structure 9,742 9,507 ($235) Savings transferred to 1201511 CON
1239818 Signal Respacing and Optimization 17,900 0 ($17,900) Project and funding transferred to North County Transit District N/A
1390504 State Route 905/125/11 Northbound Connectors 18,757 18,757 $0 CON
1390505 SR 905/125/11 Southbound Connectors 7,500 7,500 $0 DES
Total Closed Projects $53,899 $35,764 ($18,135)
Total Active, Pending Closeout and Closed $8,275,910 $8,368,631 $74,586
1 FY 19 Amended budget includes pending FY19 mid-year CRS Preliminary Engineering (PE), Draft Environmental Document (DED), Final Environmental Document (FED), Design (DES), Right-of-Way (ROW), Ready to Advertise (RTA), Construction (CON)
5 FY‐20 Draft Milestones Attachment 2 (Major Corridors, TCIF/Goods Movement, Bikeway) Baseline No. CIP Project Name Milestone FY‐20 Finish
1 1223053 San Diego River Trail: Carlton Oaks FED Jul‐19 2 1223087 North Park/Mid‐City Bikeways: Orange Bikeway FED Jul‐19 Border Access: SR 125/905 Southbound to Westbound 3 1390506 Connector Advertise Nov‐19 4 1223057 Pershing Drive Bikeway Advertise Dec‐19 5 1129900 Bayshore Bikeway: 8B Main Street to Palomar Advertise Jan‐20 6 1223055 Bayshore Bikeway: Barrio Logan Advertise Feb‐20 7 1223054 Central Avenue Bikeway Advertise Mar‐20 8 1200510 I‐5 HOV: Carlsbad Advertise Apr‐20 9 1223020 North Park/Mid‐City Bikeways: Robinson Bikeway Advertise Apr‐20 10 1223058 Imperial Avenue Bikeway Advertise Apr‐20 11 1200507 I‐5 South: I‐5/Voigt Drive Improvements Begin Construction Jul‐19 12 1200512 I‐5/Genesee Auxiliary Lane Begin Construction Jul‐19 13 1223022 Uptown Bikeways: 4th and 5th Avenue Bikeways Begin Construction Jul‐19 North Park/Mid‐City Bikeways: Georgia‐Meade 14 1223082 Bikeway Begin Construction Jul‐19 15 1280513 I‐805/SR 94 Bus on Shoulder Demonstration Begin Construction Sep‐19 16 1223057 Pershing Drive Bikeway Begin Construction Apr‐20 Border Access: SR 125/905 Southbound to Westbound 17 1390506 Connector Begin Construction Apr‐20 18 1239815 COASTER: San Diego River Bridge Open to Public Sep‐19 19 1239806 COASTER: San Elijo Lagoon Double Track Open to Public Oct‐19 20 1239817 COASTER: Chesterfield Drive Crossing Improvements Open to Public Oct‐19 21 1239805 COASTER: Poinsettia Station Improvements Open to Public Dec‐19
22 1280513 I‐805/SR 94 Bus on Shoulder Demonstration Project Open to Public Jan‐20 23 1223016 Coastal Rail Trail San Diego: Rose Creek Open to Public Apr‐20 24 1041502 I‐5 South: SuperLoop Construction Complete Jul‐19 Border Access: SR 11 and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry: 25 1201102 Segment 1 Construction Construction Complete Jul‐19 26 1239807 COASTER: Sorrento Valley Double Track Construction Complete Jul‐19 27 1300602 Border Access: South Line Rail Freight Capacity Construction Complete Jul‐19 28 1207602 SR 76 Middle Construction Complete Aug‐19
6 FY‐20 Draft Milestones (Major Corridors, TCIF/Goods Movement, Bikeway) Baseline No. CIP Project Name Milestone FY‐20 Finish
29 1239803 COASTER: Oceanside Station Pass‐Through Track Construction Complete Dec‐19 30 1280505 I‐805 HOV/Carroll Canyon DAR Construction Complete Dec‐19 31 1201507 SR 15 BRT: Mid‐City Centerline Stations Construction Complete Jan‐20 32 1300601 Border Access: San Ysidro Intermodal Freight Facility Construction Complete Jan‐20 33 1201504 I‐15 FasTrak Construction Complete Feb‐20
Milestone Baseline Milestones (Per FY‐20 Draft Budget) DED 0 FED 2 ADVERTISE 8 BEGIN CON 7 OPEN TO PUBLIC 6 CON COMPLETE 10 TOTAL 33
Schedule Milestones: DED represents the release of the Draft Environmental Document to the public for comment, or when the document is sent to the lead federal agency for review. FED represents the signing of the Final Environmental Document by approving agency. ADVERTISE represents the completion of the project design and advertisement of the construction contract. Before advertisement, all environmental permits have been acquired, right of way has been certified, and the plans, specifications, and engineer¶s estimate has been completed. BEGIN CON represents the beginning of construction initiated by the Notice to Proceed. OPEN TO PUBLIC represents the opening of the constructed facility for its intended use. CON COMPLETE represents the completion of all construction and most of project closeout items for the project. This includes, but is not limited to: construction contract acceptance, complete plant establishment/landscaping, final inspection, closure of task orders, and all claims settled.
7 FY‐20 Draft Milestones (Major Corridors, TCIF/Goods Movement) Baseline No. CIP Project Name Milestone FY‐20 Finish Border Access: SR 125/905 Southbound to Westbound 1 1390506 Connector Advertise Nov‐19 2 1200510 I‐5 HOV: Carlsbad Advertise Apr‐20 3 1200507 I‐5 South: I‐5/Voigt Drive Improvements Begin Construction Jul‐19 4 1200512 I‐5/Genesee Auxiliary Lane Begin Construction Jul‐19 5 1280513 I‐805/SR 94 Bus on Shoulder Demonstration Begin Construction Sep‐19 Border Access: SR 125/905 Southbound to Westbound 6 1390506 Connector Begin Construction Apr‐20 7 1239815 COASTER: San Diego River Bridge Open to Public Sep‐19 8 1239806 COASTER: San Elijo Lagoon Double Track Open to Public Oct‐19 9 1239817 COASTER: Chesterfield Drive Crossing Improvements Open to Public Oct‐19 10 1239805 COASTER: Poinsettia Station Improvements Open to Public Dec‐19 11 1280513 I‐805/SR 94 Bus on Shoulder Demonstration Open to Public Jan‐20 12 1041502 I‐5 South: SuperLoop Construction Complete Jul‐19 Border Access: SR 11 and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry: 13 1201102 Segment 1 Construction Construction Complete Jul‐19 14 1239807 COASTER: Sorrento Valley Double Track Construction Complete Jul‐19 15 1300602 Border Access: South Line Rail Freight Capacity Construction Complete Jul‐19 16 1207602 SR 76 Middle Construction Complete Aug‐19 17 1239803 COASTER: Oceanside Station Pass‐Through Track Construction Complete Dec‐19 18 1280505 I‐805 HOV/Carroll Canyon DAR Construction Complete Dec‐19 19 1201507 SR 15 BRT: Mid‐City Centerline Stations Construction Complete Jan‐20 20 1300601 Border Access: San Ysidro Intermodal Freight Facility Construction Complete Jan‐20 21 1201504 I‐15 FasTrak Construction Complete Feb‐20 Milestone Baseline Milestones (Per FY‐20 Draft Budget) DED 0 FED 0 ADVERTISE 2 BEGIN CON 4 OPEN TO PUBLIC 5 CON COMPLETE 10 TOTAL 21
8 FY‐20 Draft Milestones (Bikeway) Baseline No. CIP Project Name Milestone FY‐20 Finish
1 1223053 San Diego River Trail: Carlton Oaks FED Jul‐19 2 1223087 North Park/Mid‐City Bikeways: Orange Bikeway FED Jul‐19 3 1223057 Pershing Drive Bikeway Advertise Dec‐19 4 1129900 Bayshore Bikeway: 8B Main Street to Palomar Advertise Jan‐20 5 1223055 Bayshore Bikeway: Barrio Logan Advertise Feb‐20 6 1223054 Central Avenue Bikeway Advertise Mar‐20 7 1223020 North Park/Mid‐City Bikeways: Robinson Bikeway Advertise Apr‐20 8 1223058 Imperial Avenue Bikeway Advertise Apr‐20 9 1223022 Uptown Bikeways: 4th and 5th Avenue Bikeways Begin Construction Jul‐19 North Park/Mid‐City Bikeways: Georgia‐Meade 10 1223082 Bikeway Begin Construction Jul‐19 11 1223057 Pershing Drive Bikeway Begin Construction Apr‐20 12 1223016 Coastal Rail Trail San Diego: Rose Creek Open to Public Apr‐20
Milestone Baseline Milestones (Per FY‐20 Draft Budget) DED 0 FED 2 ADVERTISE 6 BEGIN CON 3 OPEN TO PUBLIC 1 CON COMPLETE 0 TOTAL 12
9
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 12 March 13, 2019 Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan
Overview Action Requested: Discussion In order to assess the transportation needs of the The ITOC is asked to provide feedback on the growing senior and disabled populations in the region Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan. and make recommendations for improvements in service, SANDAG is developing a Specialized Fiscal Impact: Transportation Strategic Plan that will be incorporated Approximately $190,000 was budgeted for a into San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan consultant to develop the Specialized (Regional Plan). Transportation Strategic Plan, which will inform the network costs for specialized Key Considerations transportation in San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. The Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan will identify Schedule/Scope Impact: transportation needs and current gaps in service; survey best practices for specialized transportation from Input from today’s discussion will be used to agencies nationwide; develop near- and long-term finalize the Specialized Transportation strategies for improving specialized transportation; and Strategic Plan for presentation to the incorporate study recommendations into the update of Transportation Committee in spring 2019 the Regional Plan. and for inclusion in the update of San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. The work to date includes: • A working paper providing the results of identification of gaps, a specialized transportation inventory, and a needs assessment (Attachment 1). • A working paper providing the results of industry best practices and a peer review (Attachment 2). • A peer review workshop with representatives from nine peer agencies. The working papers and peer review workshop helped to develop draft strategies that will be considered as part of the Regional Plan development. Some of these strategies include technology solutions to improve the customer experience, new business models such as public-private partnerships, and accessible autonomous vehicles.
Next Steps Based on feedback from the ITOC, SANDAG will refine the draft strategies and then conduct outreach to stakeholders. A final Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan will be produced and presented to the Transportation Committee this spring to accept for inclusion in the Regional Plan development.
Charles “Muggs” Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contact: Brian Lane, (619) 699-7331, [email protected] Attachments: 1. Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan – Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps Final Working Paper, December 2018 2. Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan – Peer Review/Industry Best Practices Working Paper, August 2018
Attachment 1
SANDAG
SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION INVENTORY, NEEDS ASSESSMENT, AND IDENTIFICATION OF GAPS
Final Working Paper
DECEMBER 2018
2
TABLE OF 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 CONTENTS 1.1 Report Structure ...... 1 1.2 Contextual Overview ...... 1 1.3 How this Report Contributes to the Study ...... 2
2 EXISTING SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS ...... 3 2.1 Transit Agencies ...... 3 2.1.1 San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Access ...... 3 2.1.2 North County Transit District...... 5 2.2 Other Key Programs ...... 7
3 IDENTIFIED NEEDS ...... 11
4 IDENTIFIED GAPS ...... 14
5 CONCLUSIONS ...... 20
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page i
3
TABLES TABLE 2-1. OVERVIEW OF MTS ACCESS CHARACTERISTICS ...... 5 TABLE 2-2. OVERVIEW OF NCTD LIFT CHARACTERISTICS ...... 7 TABLE 2-3. SUMMARY SURVEY RESPONSES FOR OTHER KEY PROVIDERS ...... 10
FIGURES FIGURE 2-1. MTS ACCESS SERVICE AREA ...... 4 FIGURE 2-2. NCTD LIFT SERVICE AREA ...... 6 FIGURE 3-1. KEY ATTRACTORS AND GENERATORS WITHIN SAN DIEGO COUNTY ...... 13 FIGURE 4-1. POPULATIONS OF PERSONS, AGES 65-PLUS BEYOND ½-MILE TRANSIT SERVICE AREA ...... 15 FIGURE 4-2. POPULATIONS OF PERSONS, AGES 85-PLUS WITHIN AND BEYOND ½-MILE TRANSIT SERVICE AREA...... 16 FIGURE 4-3. POPULATIONS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES WITHIN AND BEYOND ½-MILE TRANSIT SERVICE AREA ...... 17
APPENDICES A STAKEHOLDER INPUT A-1 Key providers Survey Results A-2 Summary of Stakeholder Workshops
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page ii SANDAG
4
1 INTRODUCTION
Specialized transportation serves the needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities who either are not able to access or have needs that cannot be met by fixed-route transit. The Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan identifies existing and anticipated needs of individuals and also the needs of specialized transportation providers, gaps in service, and solutions to fulfill identified gaps- both today and in the future.
1.1 REPORT STRUCTURE
This report is organized into the following sections: Section 2 - Existing Specialized Transportation Programs: Provides an inventory of existing agencies and other programs that provide specialized transportation. Section 3 – Identified Needs: Includes information gathered from key service providers and the public Section 4 – Identified Gaps: Summarizes opportunities to improve existing specialized transportation services Section 5 - Conclusions: Summarizes how this report will be used in the development of short-, mid-, and long- term strategies
1.2 CONTEXTUAL OVERVIEW
Every four years, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) updates its long range regional transportation plan called San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan). The Regional Plan guides long-range regional transportation investments out to the year 2050. The most recently-adopted Regional Plan set forth several near-term actions, actions to be taken prior to the next Regional Plan update. One of the near-term actions is development of a long-term specialized transportation strategy through 2050 to address the increasing specialized service needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. This specialized transportation strategy will be incorporated into the Regional Plan update in 2019. Every two years, SANDAG updates the Regional Short-Range Transit Plan and Coordinated Public Transit- Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan). The SANDAG Coordinated Plan provides a five-year blueprint for the implementation of public transit and social service transportation concepts described in the Regional Plan. That blueprint includes a regional strategy to provide transportation to recognized transportation- disadvantaged groups such as seniors, individuals with disabilities, and persons of limited means. SANDAG works closely with the region’s transit operators, the designated Consolidated Transportation Services Agency for San Diego County - Facilitating Access to Coordinated Transportation (FACT), and specialized transportation providers to research and gather input on transportation needs, manage local, state, and federal grant funding programs, and identify opportunities for coordination of specialized services. The Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan will assist these efforts by laying out a road map of short-, mid-, and long-term strategies that can be undertaken to improve the cost-effectiveness of specialized services for these agencies as well as improving the quality of service for users.
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page 1
5
1.3 HOW THIS REPORT CONTRIBUTES TO THE STUDY
This report identifies and establishes baseline conditions related to specialized transportation throughout San Diego County. It provides an inventory of existing specialized transportation services within San Diego County, including those provided by public transportation agencies as well as services coordinated through FACT and other social service agencies. In preparing the inventory, this report reflects a profile of existing services in terms of their operations and financial performance. Additionally, by comparing existing services and anticipated needs, this report identifies existing and future specialized transportation needs and gaps. The findings and conclusions of this report will help guide the development of short-, mid-, and long-term specialized transportation strategies that will be included in the Regional Plan, which will in turn guide future updates to the Coordinated Plan.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page 2 SANDAG
6
2 EXISTING SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
Numerous specialized transportation services are offered within San Diego County through both publicly- and privately-operated programs. To better understand both the characteristics and needs of existing service providers, a survey was developed and distributed to local transit agencies and other key providers in January 2018. The survey was designed to understand overall program characteristics and unmet needs, program operations, and technologies used in the provision of services. A summary of survey findings is presented in Appendix A.
2.1 TRANSIT AGENCIES
There are two public transit operators within San Diego County: The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and the North County Transit District (NCTD). Each agency offers a variety of fixed-route bus and rail transit services that they directly operate or contract with other companies to provide. Both MTS and NCTD receive state and federal funding as public transit operators, and are therefore subject to state and federal regulations. These regulations include the requirement to provide complimentary paratransit services in conformance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). ADA paratransit service is an origin-to-destination, shared ride, advanced reservation public transit service available to pre-qualified persons who are unable to use regular fixed-route transit services. ADA paratransit provides service to and from destinations within ¾-mile of regular fixed-route bus service. ADA paratransit hours of operation typically mirror those of regular fixed-route bus service and riders typically pay one-way fares. Fares are unique to the agency that is providing the service, but conform to federal regulations. The characteristics of each agency are described in more detail below in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.
2.1.1 SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (MTS) ACCESS MTS is the provider of transit services in the urbanized southern part of San Diego County. MTS’ complimentary ADA is provided through its MTS Access program. MTS Access provides ADA paratransit service throughout the MTS service area, which includes parts of North and Central San Diego, South Bay, and East County areas. The MTS Access service area is divided into four zones and are roughly defined based on the location of existing fixed-route services and municipal boundaries. Passengers may be required to transfer to another MTS Access vehicle if traveling between zones, similar to a passenger transferring between two fixed-route bus services. The one-way fare is $4.50 for travel within all MTS Access zones. Transfers between MTS Access zones do not require additional payment; however, transfers to NCTD LIFT service requires a fare payment to NCTD. A map showing the MTS Access service area is included below in Figure 2-1. An overview of MTS Access service and financial characteristics is provided in Table 2-1.
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page 3
7
Figure 2-1. MTS Access Service Area
Source: MTS (2018)
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page 4 SANDAG
8
Table 2-1. Overview of MTS Access Characteristics
CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTION
Number of Clients 9,854
Annual Trips Provided 529,090
Average Weekday Ridership1 1,690
Percentage of Registrants Who Use a Mobility 20% (approx.) Device (e.g. wheelchair, walker, etc.)
Client Population Served Persons with physical and cognitive disabilities, sensory impairments
Total Operating Costs $19,764,550
Fare Revenue Earned $2,773,603
Net Operating Costs (Total Operating Costs – $16,990,948 Fare Revenue)
Total Operating Cost per Trip $37.36
Note: information obtained from MTS for FY2017 unless otherwise noted. Some numbers may not total due to rounding. 1 Average weekday ridership calculated by dividing the total annual trips by an annualization factor of 313. This factor was obtained from SANDAG and is based on historic ridership data for MTS and NCTD transit services.
2.1.2 NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT NCTD is the primary transit operator for the North County area within San Diego County. NCTD provides transportation service primarily by contracting with other entities. NCTD’s transportation program also includes the use of taxis. NCTD offers ADA and paratransit services throughout its service area through its’ NCTD LIFT program. The NCTD LIFT service area includes areas within a ¾-mile buffer of fixed-route bus service, as well as within one mile of FLEX routes 392 and 395, which provide service within Camp Pendleton. FLEX routes are fixed bus routes that allow for passengers to request drivers deviate from the route by up to ¾-mile to perform pick-ups and drop-offs. A map showing the NCTD LIFT service area is included below in Figure 2-2. An overview of NCTD LIFT service and financial characteristics is included in Table 2-2.
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page 5
9
Figure 2-2. NCTD LIFT Service Area
Source: NCTD (2018)
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page 6 SANDAG
10
Table 2-2. Overview of NCTD LIFT Characteristics
CHARACTERISTIC DESCRIPTION
Number of Clients 9,348
Annual Trips Provided 202,173
Average Daily Ridership1 646
Percentage of Registrants Who Use a Mobility 8% Device (e.g. wheelchair, walker, etc.)
Client Population Served Persons with physical and cognitive disabilities, sensory impairments
Total Operating Costs $9,544,922
Fare Revenue Earned $788,103
Net Operating Costs (Total Operating Costs – $8,756,820 Fare Revenue)
Net Operating Cost per Trip $47.21
Note: information obtained from NCTD for FY2017 unless otherwise noted. Some numbers may not total due to rounding. 1 Average weekday ridership calculated by dividing the total annual trips by an annualization factor of 313. This factor was obtained from SANDAG and is based on historic ridership data for MTS and NCTD transit services.
2.2 OTHER KEY PROGRAMS
Several other key programs offer specialized transportation services within San Diego County. The sections below provide an overview of a select number of these other transportation and mobility programs. Many are provided by the social or human service agencies and often provide client-specific transportation. Others are provided by local jurisdictions, typically for residents. The transportation landscape includes volunteer driver programs, shuttle services, taxi voucher programs, and non-emergency medical transportation services. Table 2-3 provides a summary of the operating and financial performance for several programs that provide transportation service under each respective program. FACILITATING ACCESS TO COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION Facilitating Access to Coordinated Transportation (FACT) is a nonprofit agency formed in 2005, and in 2006 designated by SANDAG as the region’s Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA). As the region’s CTSA, FACT is responsible for the coordination of public, nonprofit, private, and other transportation services in San Diego County. FACT seeks to improve access to transportation for seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and the income disadvantaged and fill gaps in existing services.
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page 7
11
FACT operates a mobility management center that provides transportation referrals. Individuals looking for transportation are referred to the most appropriate service based on their needs. Transportation referrals are provided via telephone and through the web-based trip planner, Find-A-Ride. If passengers are not able to access MTS Access, NCTD LIFT or other social service agency transportation programs, FACT uses a transportation brokerage model – comprised of a network of transportation agencies and called RideFACT – to provide transportation through a contracted brokerage provider. RideFACT services all 18 cities within San Diego County as well as the communities of Ramona and Spring Valley. These providers respond to individual trip requests with their availability and estimated trip cost. FACT then procures trips based on transportation provider availability, trip cost, and the individual passenger’s needs. Using this model, FACT can offer trips at competitive rates, which promotes cost-effective transportation services. FACT is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of elected officials, transportation professionals, and stakeholders, including one member of SANDAG’s Transportation Committee. LOCAL JURISDICTION AND SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS There are a number of local jurisdictions and social service agencies in San Diego County that provide specialized transportation services (see Table 2-3). Many of them apply for capital and operating funding through SANDAG’s Specialized Transportation Grant Program, which distributes local and federal grant funds to support transportation for seniors and individuals with disabilities. SANDAG encourages all social service agencies to participate in FACT’s coordination efforts to help coordinate social service agency transportation, share resources, and improve the efficiency of the services provided. Some of the types of programs provided are highlighted below: VOLUNTEER DRIVER PROGRAMS Several transportation programs in the region use volunteers to provide transportation to seniors and individuals with disabilities. These programs tend to be more cost-effective than traditional paratransit due to the use of volunteers. An added benefit of using volunteers is that they can provide personalized care and form unique bonds with the passengers they transport. Key volunteer driver programs within San Diego County include Jewish Family Services (JFS), the City of Coronado’s Coronado Seniors Out and About, and the San Diego County Volunteer Driver Coalition. SHUTTLE PROGRAMS Shuttle programs within San Diego County provide group transportation to frequently-visited destinations, including trips for shopping, attending social and civic events, or medical appointments. Most shuttle programs use wheelchair accessible buses and are offered on a more limited, but regular basis than other modes of specialized transportation. Shuttle programs provide an added benefit of giving seniors and individuals with disabilities the opportunity to socialize with other passengers. Several providers offer shuttle programs within San Diego County, including JFS, the Peninsula Shepherd Center (PSC), and the City of Vista. TAXI VOUCHER PROGRAMS Taxi voucher programs subsidize taxi trips for seniors and individuals with disabilities. The agency responsible for managing the social service program purchases vouchers and provides them at a discounted rate or at no cost to their clients. Vouchers have a certain value that can be applied to the cost of a taxi trip. While taxi voucher programs tend to have lower overhead costs, individual trips may be more expensive than those made through other modes due to higher costs of taxi trips themselves. Due to potentially higher costs, agencies may use taxi voucher programs as a back-up to other programs. Taxi voucher programs within the San Diego region include the Senior Service Council in Escondido, among others.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page 8 SANDAG
12
NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION A large percentage of specialized transportation consists of trips to non-emergency medical appointments. These trips can be made via volunteer driver programs, paid drivers, or via taxi voucher programs. Because these trips tend to be unique to an individuals’ personal need, trips cannot be grouped and require more resources, such as drivers, vehicles, and time to complete. Because of this, these trips are therefore more expensive than trips provided through shuttle programs or traditional transit. Non-emergency medical transportation is provided through several programs, including the City of La Mesa’s Rides4Neighbors, programs at Sharp hospitals, and the Foundation for Senior Care’s Care Vans program. Several other providers exist in San Diego County aside from those noted above. To better understand the characteristics of key providers within the region, the project team conducted a survey that gathered information including: the types of services provided, average daily ridership, and annual budget and revenue, among other items. An overview of the survey response is included in Table 2-3 below.
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page 9
13
Table 2-3. Summary Survey Responses for Other Key Providers
PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE # OF PERCENTAGE OF REGISTRANTS ONE-WAY AVERAGE AVERAGE REGISTRANTS WHO WHO USE A PASSENGER DAILY NUMBER OF DAILY REQUIRE MOBILITY TRIPS PER GROSS ANNUAL ANNUAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES PROVIDER SERVICES PROVIDED CLIENTS RIDERSHIP TRANSPORTATION1 DEVICE MONTH BUDGET REVENUE DRIVERS USED FUNDING SOURCE
TRAVELERS AID Volunteer Driver Program, Taxi 1,633 20 100% 90% 7,135 Response not Response not 73 45 General Funds, TransNet Senior SOCIETY OF SAN Voucher Program, Arrange for Provided Provided Mini-Grant DIEGO Transportation Services
ST. MADELEINE Response not Provided 415 373 95% 9% Response not Response not Response not Response not Response not Response not Provided SOPHIE'S CENTER Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided
CITY OF VISTA Shuttle Program 350 80 Response not Provided Response not 800 $161,057 $21,607 18 4 General Funds Provided
OPERATION No transportation contracted, operated, 16,000 300 2% 1% Response not Response not Response not Response not Response not Response not Provided SAMAHAN, INC. or arranged Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided
DEL MAR COMMUNITY Volunteer Driver Program, Shuttle Response not Response not Response not Provided Response not 105 $39,737 Response not 33 5 General Funds, City of Del Mar CONNECTIONS Program, Taxi Voucher Program, Non- Provided Provided Provided Provided Emergency Medical Transportation, Arrange for Transportation Services
FACT Consolidated Transportation Services 3,000 150 100% 20% 2,600 $1,599,280 $837,280 100 75 TransNet Senior Mini-Grant, Agency Caltrans, Contracted Services, FTA Section 5310
JEWISH FAMILY Volunteer Driver Program, Shuttle 3,500 356 63% 14% 3,805 $1,930,427 $260,090 186 44 TransNet Senior Mini-Grant, SERVICES SAN DIEGO Program Neighborhood Reinvestment, CPPS, County Nutrition Contract, Department of Human/Social services, FTA 5310
SENIOR SERVICE Taxi Voucher Program 80 15 100% 19% 50 Response not Response not Response not Response not Senior Service Council, Escondido COUNCIL, ESCONDIDO Provided Provided Provided Provided funds taxi voucher program from donations
CITY OF LA MESA- Non-Emergency Medical Transportation 600 Response not 25% 3% 750 $175,000 $56,000 30 7 General Funds, TransNet Senior RIDES4NEIGHBORS Provided Mini-Grant, FTA Section 5310
FOUNDATION FOR Non-Emergency Medical Transportation 2,500 75 20% 4% Response not $123,000 $33,000 13 4 Private grants (non-governmental) SENIOR CARE Provided
PENINSULA Shuttle Program 322 10 30% 13% 1,305 $70,000 $4,000 40 3 TransNet Senior Mini-Grant, Grants SHEPHERD CENTER and donors
TRI-CITY MEDICAL Shuttle Program, Arrange for Response not 200+ Response not Provided 35% Response not Response not Response not Response not 5-10 Drive to Wellness Grant CENTER Transportation Services Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided
CITY OF CORONADO Response not Provided 140 8 100% 32% Response not Response not Response not Response not Response not Response not Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided
Information obtained by the project team through both the survey and a series of public workshops was examined and used to determine key findings including existing and anticipated needs, gaps in service, and potential solutions to address such gaps. An overview of these key findings is included below in Section 3 (Identified Needs).
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page 10 SANDAG
14
3 IDENTIFIED NEEDS
While MTS and NCTD fixed-route and ADA paratransit services provide specialized transportation, they are not always the best fit for everyone. Many individuals have transportation needs that extend beyond the services typically provided. For example, passengers may require door-through-door assistance or flexibility in reservation making. Additionally, different transportation patterns and travel needs exist for different populations. Specialized transportation programs provided by social service agencies help bridge gaps in service or meet specific transportation needs that public transit providers are unable to fulfill. Existing and anticipated needs were identified using a variety of sources, including through the administration of surveys to key providers and transit agencies, the SANDAG 2016-2020 Coordinated Plan, the SANDAG 2018 Coordinated Plan, and key stakeholder workshops. Key stakeholder workshops include the Specialized Transportation Facilitated Discussion Workshop #2 (Summer 2017) and two public workshops that were held as part of this Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan (Spring 2018). A summary of survey findings and notes from each of the workshops are included in Appendix A. Needs of individuals using specialized transportation include: — Access to Destinations: passengers need to access amenities at various locations throughout the region, which often requires traveling across or outside of service area boundaries. Passengers may also need to be transported directly to a destination; not to a nearby location such as a bus stop. — Reliable Service: passengers often depend on transportation service operating on schedule, such as when traveling to work or to medical appointments. — Flexible Service: some trips need to be made spontaneously and outside of typical operating hours. Trips often need to be completed in a short amount of time. — Efficient Connections between Transportation Services: passengers need to be able to access specialized transportation services efficiently and safely when transferring from other modes (e.g. bus or trolley). This requires the presence of sufficient wayfinding at stations and accessible paths of pedestrian travel between services. — Affordable Transportation: passengers need to travel at a cost that is affordable to them. — Effective Communication: passengers need to be made aware of changes in pick-up and/or drop-off times when planning a trip, and in real-time when necessary. Passengers may also need to communicate in a language other than English. — Knowledge of Transportation Services: Inexperienced passengers need to know how to use public transportation, which can include: purchasing a ticket, boarding and de-boarding, and transferring between two or more services. — Efficient Passenger Certification: individuals may suddenly become dependent on specialized transportation services and need to become eligible to use the service quickly. Needs of agencies operating specialized transportation include: — Effective Personnel: people who work for specialized transportation agencies need adequate resources, including training, to perform their duties effectively. — Coordination within Agencies: administrators, maintenance staff, and drivers need to operate in a coordinated manner to provide service efficiently. — Funding: agencies need stable and ongoing funding to provide effective service Transportation needs for passengers vary depending on different population groups. For example, the needs of senior citizens between the ages of 65 and 84 are different than those for people ages 85 and older. Individuals with disabilities also have needs that are different than those of seniors. Existing and anticipated needs for each of these population groups are summarized below.
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page 11 15
Though transportation needs can vary between population groups, access to key destinations is one of the primary needs regardless of the population itself. Many people who need specialized transportation need access to many of the same destinations that other members of the population need, including: — Access to Jobs: includes seeking employment, training, and retaining employment — Medical Facilities: includes hospitals and healthcare clinics, and pharmacies — Education: includes community colleges, four-year universities, private education institutions, and job training centers — Adult Day Care Facilities: includes specialized service centers such as the Braille Institute and physical rehabilitation centers — Cool Zones: locations where people can seek refuge during extreme heat events. Cool zones are generally located at locations which happen to be key destinations in themselves, including libraries and schools — Other Destinations: typically for discretionary travel to major attractors including grocery stores, senior centers, volunteer opportunities, religious services, hotels, key tourist destinations, recreation centers, and libraries. Many of these destinations are located near existing transit services; however, several are outside of the areas currently served by transit. A map showing key destinations within San Diego County is included in Figure 3-1 below. SENIORS AGE 65 TO 84 Many seniors in this age group have the need to maintain an active lifestyle, including a strong social network. As many of these people are recent retirees with a desire to assume roles within the community, trips for volunteering or civic engagement are common. A portion of this population can experience a decline in physical and cognitive health that can have a direct impact on their mobility. Declines in health often result in a diminishing ability to operate a motor vehicle, which leaves many people suddenly dependent on transit or other community-based transportation alternatives. Additionally, older adults are likely to have fewer opportunities to earn income as many seniors are retired and/or living on a fixed income. Many seniors in this age group may be able to use fixed-route transit to complete daily trips. However, many seniors may not live within easy walking distance of transit and are not eligible for ADA paratransit services, be unfamiliar or uncomfortable using transit, or have disabilities, all of which can inhibit use of transit services. For seniors who are eligible for ADA services, some trips can involve long distance travel that are expensive for transit operators to provide and often require several days advanced reservations. The cost incurred by passengers can accumulate quickly and place a financial burden on seniors. Specialized services provided by social service agencies can often be provided with less advanced notice and at less cost both for the provider and the user. As the population continues to age and life expectancy continues to increase, the number of people in this age group is projected to increase considerably, making the need for efficient, cost-effective transportation options even more important. SENIORS AGE 85 AND UP Seniors aged 85 and older typically experience an increase in severity of physical and cognitive issues. As such, they are more likely to require additional caretaking and aid from other individuals, including family, friends, and professional caretakers. Accompaniment is often a supplemental transportation need. Individuals in this age group typically become even less able to complete daily tasks without some level of assistance. This population is less likely to drive, which means public transit and specialized transportation become even more critical to fulfilling their mobility needs. Similar to those ages 65 to 84, the number of people aged 85 is expected to increase in the coming decades, making the need for reliable transportation services imperative. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES Individuals with disabilities are identified as any persons with physical, developmental, behavioral, mental, visual, and/or hearing impairments. Transportation needs of disabled individuals vary based on each individual’s impairment. In all cases, however, access to transportation is a necessity for disabled individuals to fulfill basic daily needs - access healthcare, education, and work - and maintain their mental and physical well-being.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page 12 SANDAG 16
Figure 3-1. Key Attractors and Generators within San Diego County
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page 13
17
4 IDENTIFIED GAPS
This section presents a summary of gaps between current transportation services and passenger needs, and sets the stage for the development of potential solutions. Gaps in transportation services were identified from a variety of sources, including through the administration of surveys to key providers and transit agencies, the SANDAG 2016-2020 Coordinated Plan, and the key stakeholder workshops mentioned above in Section 3. Gaps in service have been grouped into the categories that are described in more detail below. UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS Transit coverage is available to seniors (age 65 and older) throughout most of the urbanized areas of San Diego County. NCTD provides fixed-route BREEZE bus service, COASTER commuter rail service, and SPRINTER light rail service near all the major freeways and corridors where seniors are concentrated. MTS provides fixed- route bus and light-rail trolley service near many populations of seniors within its’ service area. While each transit agency provides transit coverage for the majority of seniors in its’ respective service area, there are some identified gaps. As shown in Figure 4-1 below, areas with high senior populations not within ½ mile access to MTS fixed-route services include areas within: Poway, Carmel Mountain, Rancho Bernardo, South El Cajon, Bonita, La Jolla, Lakeside, Tierrasanta, San Carlos, and University City. Areas with high senior populations not serviced within the NCTD service area include: Oceanside, Tri-City, Carlsbad, Encinitas, and Del Mar. Most communities with high populations of seniors 85 and older are served by public transit. However, it is challenging for many of these individuals to walk a half-mile to a transit station. Increasing rates of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments may impede their ability to use fixed-route services all together. As shown in Figure 4-2 below, there are still areas with high populations of seniors age 85 and older that are not within a half- mile of a transit station. Within the MTS service area, those areas include: Poway, Sabre Springs, Scripps Ranch, La Mesa, and El Cajon. Within the NCTD service area, those areas include: parts of Oceanside, Tri-City, and Carlsbad. The majority of individuals with disabilities live within ½-mile of existing transit services. However, several populations of individuals with disabilities are located outside of existing transit service areas as shown in Figure 4-3 below. Within the MTS service area, those areas include: Poway, Sabre Springs, Carmel Mountain, El Cajon, Spring Valley, Santee, and Lakeside. Within the NCTD service area, those areas include Oceanside, Tri City, and Vista. Paratransit expands service to ¾-mile from transit stops, but not all individuals with disabilities qualify for ADA paratransit services. LACK OF COORDINATION A lack of coordination of specialized transportation services, both between transit operators (MTS and NCTD) and other social service providers, as well as among social service providers, was identified by several key stakeholders as being a missed opportunity. A lack of coordination in the provision of service, vehicle maintenance, driver and passenger training, administrative tasks, and other items can cause inefficiencies that can create a less-effective specialized transportation network. SUBOPTIMAL SERVICE RELIABILITY Service reliability issues primarily include issues with schedule adherence and on-time performance. Delays in pick-up and/or drop-off times and transfers between two or more modes of transportation, impact passengers’ ability to arrive to medical and other appointments on-time. When customers miss their bus ride to medical appointments, it can contribute to additional costs for the transportation service provider, medical provider, and others.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page 14 SANDAG
18
Figure 4-1. Populations of Persons, Ages 65-Plus Beyond ½-Mile Transit Service Area
Source: SANDAG 2016-2020 Coordinated Plan (2016)
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page 15
19
Figure 4-2. Populations of Persons, Ages 85-Plus Within and Beyond ½-Mile Transit Service Area
Source: SANDAG 2016-2020 Coordinated Plan (2016)
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page 16 SANDAG
20
Figure 4-3. Populations of Persons with Disabilities Within and Beyond ½-Mile Transit Service Area
Source: SANDAG 2016-2020 Coordinated Plan (2016)
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page 17
21
GAPS IN SERVICE Several gaps or deficiencies are present within the existing specialized transportation service that make using transit more challenging for passengers. These include: — Lack of Spontaneous Travel Choices: need for more spontaneous choices for urgent medical appointments — Insufficient Service Levels: providing specialized services outside current service area boundaries as well as later at night and on weekends/holidays. Some service care providers have also noted that both their personnel and vehicle fleets are limited, which prevents them from meeting service demands. — Inefficient Transfers: transfers between MTS Access and NCTD LIFT services are often time-consuming and can substantially increase overall travel times. — Poor First- and Last-Mile Connections: improving service to areas that currently require long walk distances to access transit, or along routes that lack sidewalks, or are otherwise not pedestrian-friendly (steep slopes, narrow sidewalks, etc.). — Safety Enhancements: improving the perception of safety at both transit stops as well as the walking environment to and from transit stops, particularly at night. There is an interest in improving accessibility through Complete Streets – streets that enable safe access for all users including transit riders, pedestrians, motorists, and cyclists – and the use of audible streetscapes. — A Need for door-through-door Service: need for door-through-door assistance for some passengers, specifically getting to and from service vehicles. This service may require transportation personnel to enter homes and/or obtain additional insurance or other certifications to transport clients. — Insufficient Access to Amenities: need for connections to destinations, including senior centers, grocery stores, medical facilities, and entertainment destinations, that are located outside of current service areas. — Limited Transportation Options: providing a variety of services would allow for greater flexibility in scheduling and reduce trip times — Improved Service Announcements: improving communication while onboard transit, such as next stop announcements. — Transportation Network Company Accessibility: ensuring TNC vehicles have wheelchair accessible vehicles and allow service animals, as well as options for those without a smart phone — Inefficient Resources for Passengers: 2-1-1 San Diego’s phone system guides users through an automated menu, which can be time-consuming and doesn’t always provide necessary information. Additionally, passengers are not currently able to purchase and load paratransit fares onto their Compass Card, which can cause inefficiencies in purchasing fares. Also, not all paratransit service offers features such as auto-calls to alert passengers of pick up times and other necessary messages. — Insufficient Wayfinding at Stations: an absence of signage/wayfinding at transit stops can complicate transfers between services. LACK OF FUNDING AND AFFORDABILITY In general, available funding for specialized transportation services is scarce. A lack of funding inhibits service providers from expanding or otherwise enhancing existing services. Additionally, stakeholders noted there is a lack of resources to facilitate coordination of services from other transportation providers, which, if utilized, could make it easier to effectively use the limited funding that does exist. Additionally, the high cost of providing paratransit services means fares are more expensive than those for fixed- route services, especially if the trip requires traversing different fare zones or across service area boundaries.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page 18 SANDAG
22
PERSONNEL NEEDS Opportunities to improve personnel performance were identified through the stakeholder outreach process. Two specific issues that were identified include personnel limitations and a lack of accountability. Certain providers don’t have the resources to meet current demand and many providers lack the resources to properly train personnel. Additionally, passengers feel the need for an easier way to report driver behavior that they feel is inappropriate. LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF TRANSIT Many people are not aware of all transit services that are available. Additionally, seniors who have not previously used transit and then become transit-dependent have a difficult time learning how to use existing services. Declining mental and/or cognitive abilities can also make this transition more challenging for some passengers. OTHER BARRIERS Additional barriers to providing specialized transportation include: — Language Barrier: many non-English speakers require additional resources to successfully use transportation services — Technology Barrier: Many passengers either do not have access to or possess the ability to use technology, such as smart phones or the internet, to effectively use transit. Additionally, many passengers are unable to use online resources due to visual impairments.
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper December 2018 SANDAG Page 19
23
5 CONCLUSIONS
While San Diego County is served by a number of transportation providers, many gaps in specialized transportation exist. By identifying existing and anticipated needs and gaps, this working paper will serve as one of several resources that will form the foundation for the development of strategies that will address unmet needs, both now and in future years. Strategies for addressing these service gaps is the focus of the Chapter 4 of the Specialized Transportaton Strategic Plan report.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan December 2018 Specialized Transportation Inventory, Needs Assessment, and Identification of Gaps – Final Working Paper Page 20 SANDAG
24 Attachment 2
SANDAG
SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN
PEER REVIEW / INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
Working Paper
AUGUST 2018
25
TABLE OF 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 CONTENTS How this Working Paper Contributes to the Study ...... 1 Report Structure ...... 1
2 PEER REVIEW ...... 3 2.1 Introduction ...... 3 2.2 Summary Of Peer Review ...... 3
3 INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES ...... 5 Introduction ...... 5 Mobility Landscape in North America ...... 5 Factors Driving Change ...... 6 Mobility Solutions and Suppliers ...... 8 Emerging Role of Transit Agencies ...... 9 Business Models ...... 10 Mobility on Demand ...... 10 Family of Transportation Services ...... 10 Public Private Partnerships...... 11 Mobility as a Service ...... 11 Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) ...... 12 State of the Industry ...... 14 Case Studies ...... 15 Challenges and Opportunities ...... 19 Equity/Title VI ...... 20 Driver Training/Screening/Hours of Service ...... 21 Vehicle Standards ...... 22 Prevailing & Minimum Wage ...... 23 Private Sector Competition/Charter Regulations ...... 23 Private Partner Durability ...... 23 Political Considerations ...... 24 Specialized Transit Operations – Common Industry Practices ...... 24
Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan WSP
SANDAG Page i
26
Operations ...... 24 Supplemental Service delivery ...... 29 Emerging Mobility Technologies ...... 34 Mainstream Deployment ...... 35 Limited Commercial Deployment ...... 35 Pilot Deployments ...... 38 Enhanced Safety Solutions ...... 39 Advanced Research but No Deployments ...... 41
4 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ...... 43 APPENDIX - Literature Search Findings ...... 45
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page ii SANDAG
27
1 INTRODUCTION
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is currently updating the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan), which outlines the overall vision for the future of the San Diego region. An important component of the Regional Plan is the Coordinated Plan, a guide for the implementation of public transit and social service transportation. The specialized transportation element focuses on the mobility needs of seniors and persons with disabilities who cannot use regular transit services. In order to assess the transportation needs of our growing senior and disabled populations and make recommendations for improvements in service, SANDAG is developing a Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan. The Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan will: • Identify transportation needs and current gaps in service; • Survey best practices for specialized transportation from other agencies nationwide; • Develop near- and long-term strategies for improving specialized transportation; and • Incorporate study recommendations into the update of the San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.
HOW THIS WORKING PAPER CONTRIBUTES TO THE STUDY
In order to provide the foundation for the development of near- and long-term strategies for improving mobility options for older adults and persons with disabilities, it is important to best understand the evolving mobility landscape in the nation. This working paper presents mobility best practices including those specific to the governance, operation, and service delivery of specialized transportation or paratransit. Also included are governance, operational, and financial characteristics of a select number of peer specialized transit agencies. The review of peer agencies includes a commentary of how the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System’s (MTS) Access and North County Transit District’s (NCTD) LIFT paratransit services perform relative to peer agencies.
REPORT STRUCTURE
This Working Paper is presented in two sections: Section 2.0: Peer Review The peer review focuses on the operational and financial performance of peer agencies and includes a commentary on how MTS Access and NCTD’s LIFT paratransit services perform relative to the peer agencies. The peer agencies that were analyzed are noted below: • Los Angeles County (CA) Access • Orange County (CA) Access
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 1 SANDAG
28
• Sacramento (CA) Paratransit Inc • Portland (OR) Tri-Met LIFT • Boston (MA) The RIDE • Broward County (FLA) TOPS • Denver (CO) Access-a-Ride • Seattle (WA) Metro Access
Section 3.0: Best Practices Section 3 presents a discussion of specialized transportation industry best practices, capturing the essence of operating characteristics of peer agencies as well as a broader range of national experiences and opportunities for enhanced mobility including greater integration between specialized and conventional transit services. • Section 3.2: Mobility Landscape in North America: Includes a description of the impacts of transportation on people and cities, overview of current challenges, factors driving change, new mobility solutions and suppliers, and where the industry is headed. • Section 3.3: Emerging Role of Transit Agencies: Includes a description of the transit agency as mobility manager, new business models, and challenges and opportunities for transit agencies. • Section 3.4 Business Models: Includes a description of Mobility on Demand, Family of Transportation Services, Public Private Partnerships, and Mobility as a Service concepts. Also included is discussion of California’s Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies (CTSAs). • Section 3.5: State of Industry Overview: Includes a description of the general state of mobility in the United States, including services, contexts, partners, and initiatives; and case studies. • Section 3.6 Challenges and Opportunities: Includes a description of some of the challenges and consideration as they apply to deploying new service models, engaging private sector, and using other strategies for specialized transportation • Section 3.7: Literature Search Findings: Includes a synopsis of pertinent reports and articles. • Section 3.8: Specialized Transit Operations – Common Industry Practices: Presents a discussion of key functional/operational elements in the delivery of specialized transit ranging from eligibility and certification processes, to trip management and reporting. Contained within is a discussion of supplemental service delivery elements including the use of transportation network companies (TNCs) and accessible taxis. • Section 3.9: Emerging Mobility Technologies: Includes a discussion of: mainstream, limited commercial, and pilot deployments as well as mobility technologies for which there is advanced research, but no deployments.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 2 SANDAG
29
2 PEER REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In partnership with SANDAG officials, eight specialized transit agencies were identified for peer review. Two of the specialized transit agencies in California are also the designated Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies (CTSAs) for their corresponding region. The peer review focuses on the operational and financial performance of peer agencies and includes a commentary on how MTS Access and NCTD LIFT services perform relative to the peer agencies.
2.2 SUMMARY OF PEER REVIEW
Table 2.1 presents key operational and financial characteristics of MTS Access, NCTD LIFT, and the paratransit services provided by peer agencies. Notable observations from the summary data include: • NCTD LIFT and MTS Access provide a comparable number of trips per capita (0.25 and 0.26, respectively), which is 43% less than the peer agency average of 0.44. • Similarly, NCTD’s and MTS’s paratransit investment per capita (which measures the amount of investment in specialized transit relative to the population of the service area) of $9.41 and $6.72, respectively, is considerably less than the peer average of $17.18. • Paratransit in San Diego performs as well as or better than peer averages in terms of vehicle productivity (as measured by trip per hour) and cost per trip. • While several of the peer agencies use supplemental contracted services such as taxis to supplement traditional demand response, the financial performance of these supplemental contracted services ranges broadly from a low in the $12 range (Seattle and Orange County) to a high of $40+ in Sacramento. This cost variance is influenced by how contracts are structured and, more importantly, how supplemental services are deployed. Several cost-effective deployments of taxi/TNC services are discussed further in case studies presented in Section 3.5. It is important to recognize that the review of peer agency operating and financial performance may provide order of magnitude comparisons. However, several other factors specific to the respective local operating environments (including labor relations, operating policies, advancements in ancillary mobility management strategies, contract structure documents, etc.) that may influence performance outcomes need to also be considered.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 3 SANDAG
30
Table 2.1: Key Operating and Financial Performance – Peer Review Net Annual % Investment Vehicle Service Area Trips per Cost per # of Peak Trips per Name City/Region State # of Annual Trips Operating Farebox per Capita Revenue Population Capita Trip ($) Vehicles Hour Expenses ($) Recovery ($) Hours
North San Diego NCTD Lift CA 849,420 213,603 0.25 $7,990,600 9.2% $37.00 $9.41 61 122,706 1.7 County
urbanized south San MTS Access CA 2,462,700 632,000 0.26 $16,550,200 13.1% $26.00 $6.72 166 259,643 2.4 Diego County
Total/Combined - San Diego County CA 3,312,120 845,603 0.25 $24,540,800 11.9% $29.02 $7.41 227 382,349 2.2
Demand 2,769,800 $85,279,000 $30.79 786 1,698,300 1.6 Response
Access Services * Los Angeles County CA 11,936,100 0.36 $11.75 Taxi 1,523,570 $54,964,600 $36.08 1,170 585,800 2.6
Total 4,293,370 $140,243,600 6.9% $32.66 1,956 2,284,100 1.9
Demand 1,677,500 $76,868,900 $45.82 491 738,580 2.3 Response
OCTA Access * Orange County CA 3,077,900 0.58 $25.41 Taxi 107,800 $1,338,800 $12.42 86 16,660 6.5
Total 1,785,300 $78,207,700 8.5% $43.81 577 755,240 2.4
Demand 365,350 $17,717,300 $48.49 112 219,570 1.7 Response
Paratransit, Inc * Sacramento CA 1,035,280 0.42 $20.19 Taxi 72,660 $3,192,360 $43.93 22 23,900 3
Total 438,010 $20,909,660 8.3% $47.73 134 243,470 1.8
Demand 925,820 $33,364,430 $36.04 226 487,860 1.9 Response
Tri-Met LIFT Portland OR 1,560,800 0.68 $24.54 Taxi 138,740 $4,938,100 $35.59 70 50,660 2.7
Total 1,064,560 $38,302,530 21.9% $35.98 296 538,520 2
The RIDE Boston MA 3,109,300 2,187,790 0.7 $102,005,000 5.9% $46.62 $32.80 612 1,273,980 1.7
TOPS Broward County FL 1,869,425 715,930 0.38 $22,006,670 5.1% $30.74 $11.77 191 435,280 1.6
Access-a-Ride Denver CO 2,920,000 1,185,960 0.41 $45,378,700 10.9% $38.26 $15.54 404 694,840 1.7
Demand 870,780 $58,765,600 $67.49 174 685,960 1.3 Response
Metro Access Seattle WA 2,117,125 0.46 $28.39 Taxi 110,660 $1,344,100 $12.15 46 43,545 2.5
Total 981,440 $60,109,700 2.3% $61.25 220 729,505 1.3
Peer Average 0.44 $36.49 $17.18 1.8 * Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA)
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry31 Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 4 SANDAG
3 INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES
INTRODUCTION
As the mobility landscape continues to evolve, connected travelers, continued advancements in transportation technologies, and private sector involvement present unprecedented opportunities for public transportation improvements in general and the delivery of specialized transit, specifically. In recent years, concepts such as microtransit and mobility-on-demand have helped agencies provide a range of mobility options for the senior and disabled communities by developing and integrating unconventional modes into their services, engaging the private sector in the form of transportation network companies (TNCs), taxis, and other modes as complementary alternatives to traditional specialized transit delivery schemes. However, while transit agencies continue to experiment with new business models, suppliers, and technologies to extend service (and mobility options), challenges related to providing cost-effective, efficient, and equitable service to all people remain. Given such opportunities in innovative service delivery, SANDAG is examining immediate as well as longer term actionable strategies to best meet the mobility needs of seniors and individuals with disabilities. Strategies include those sought for travelers who could potentially take accessible fixed- route transit (bus and/or rail), but whose origin or destination cannot be conveniently accessed from the nearest available transit service options. In support of this initiative, this section presents examples of transit agency initiatives related to innovative service delivery models.
MOBILITY LANDSCAPE IN NORTH AMERICA
Mobility refers to the movement of people from one place to another. Efficient, cost-effective access to health, education, employment, and entertainment directly impacts people’s lives. Choices in travel also have large-scale societal impacts related to human rights, the economy, the environment, and the development of cities. In advancing the Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan, it is important to embrace the concept of mobility and view senior and disabled communities through a lens of a fully integrated (and inclusive) transit or mobility market. That is, looking beyond just enhancements to mandated ADA paratransit/specialized services and imagine possibilities for next generation mobility for the entire community, including seniors and individuals with disabilities. Over the past 60 years, mobility in the United States has been dominated by the private vehicle. Over this period, challenges have arisen related to people and cities that include: • Large scale society-shaping trends including: — Congestion and accidents; — Personal health impacts and associated rising health costs;
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 5 SANDAG
32
— Reduced accessibility to important services and opportunities; and — Greenhouse gas emissions. • Urban environment outcomes such as: — Sprawl; and — Reduced neighborhood character. • Impacts to individuals such as: — Reduced accessibility (e.g., the high costs to own and operate a private vehicle, physical distance from transit and alternative modes of transportation, physical and perceptual barriers); and — Fewer social interactions. At the same time, more people are shifting their dependency toward public transportation. With increased congestion on roadways and concern over greenhouse gas emissions, SANDAG and other agencies see a need for an increased role in public transportation to address regional mobility needs. As such, transit agencies are under increasing pressure to provide equitable, cost-effective service for all residents, including those of all income levels, needs, preferences, and regions within the service area.
FACTORS DRIVING CHANGE The landscape of mobility is changing, driven by new alternative mode choices, advancing technologies, and emerging trends in the transportation field. • New mobility solutions and suppliers have entered the market, beginning with Zipcar as a car- sharing service in 2000, followed by Car2Go in 2008, and bike-sharing in 2011. In 2009, ridehailing company Uber was founded, followed by Lyft in 2012, with both companies emerging with a ride- splitting option in 2014 and 2017 respectively. In 2014, private microtransit providers Bridj and Chariot were founded, resulting in additional choices for people although not all residents can afford to use the services. • The sharing economy has transformed how we travel. Is a car public or private, is it delivering goods or services? Sharing economy is a hybrid market model which refers to the sharing of access to goods and services (coordinated through community-based online services). This has given rise to next-generation mobility solutions including transportation network companies and microtransit services. • Smartphone penetration is increasing, with more than 75% of Americans owning a smartphone. An even larger percentage owns some type of cellphone. This enables people to be connected at all times and use their phones to receive information in real-time. • Advancing technology has improved access to real-time travel information, allowed for inter-modal payment, and enabled real-time routing and dispatching. Of special importance are the following: — Connected and automated vehicles (CAV): CAVs have the potential to improve traffic safety, transportation efficiency, land-use efficiency, infrastructure, and transit spending if used in the correct context. Major car companies are moving towards CAVs. There is also movement towards using the vehicles in a shared-use, on-demand context.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 6 SANDAG
33
— Beacon technologies and Crowdsourcing Travel Patterns: Small Bluetooth radio transmitters, known as beacons and embedded in infrastructure, can assist riders with wayfinding. At the same time, transit agencies can receive data on travel habits from riders who are willing to share data. Data can be obtained on which bus stops riders gets on, where they disembark, and can track if they get on another bus anywhere within the system. Other opportunities may exist to partner with local businesses to send riders exclusive deals based on their geo-location and nearby retail locations. — Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning: Ridehailing is now very common and also popular with travelers. However, as Ridehailing service providers start to offer shared ride services (Lyft Line, Uber POOL/Express POOL), it is important for them to improve their ride-matching and routing algorithms. Use of data from multiple sources on traffic patterns and variability, and crowdsourced data from riders, can enable self-learning algorithms that can help with delivery of efficient and cost-effective transportation services. Most shared ride services offered by agencies through conventional demand response software today lack such level of sophistication in their algorithms, particularly when delivering same-day trips that require continuous optimization. • A changing mobility ecosystem: — Urbanization and the movement of people back into the city has created the need to ensure that people can move around the city at any income, age, and ability and has highlighted the need to create cities that are dense and walkable, simulating a transit renaissance and a reclaiming of streets by people. — An increasing population highlights a greater need for multi-modal options and shared mobility solutions as cities and their surrounding areas become increasingly crowded. An increasing and aging population means that no transportation system is sustainable unless it is accessible. — Environmental awareness and active lifestyles have contributed to a reduced dependence on private vehicles and shift towards active transportation, such as walking and biking. • New funding initiatives and partnerships are moving the market forward. These include: — Ford Smart Mobility, founded under Ford Motor Company, acquired a number of mobility, technology and microtransit companies including Chariot, Autonomic, Inc., and TransLoc Inc. — New funding opportunities are available to transit agencies to experiment leveraging existing mobility solution providers, such as the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Program, part of a larger research effort at DOT that supports transit agencies and communities as they integrate new mobility tools like smart phone apps, bike and carsharing, and demand-responsive bus and van services.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 7 SANDAG
34
MOBILITY SOLUTIONS AND SUPPLIERS New and existing challenges related to mobility beg the question of how transit agencies and other agencies involved in specialized services like SANDAG can help to provide solutions in a cost- effective manner. Rather than expending effort providing new technologies and mobility solutions for transit riders, transit agencies are generally better off focusing on what they do best: moving people from point A to point B. It is by partnering or integrating with mobility solution suppliers that transit agencies can help to shape the future of urban mobility without incurring a large cost. Such mobility solutions include: • Microtransit: Microtransit consists of public transit medium capacity vehicles (8 to 15 passengers) operating with on-demand, flexible routing to provide service to areas that are inefficient to serve with a fixed route. The driver operates as an employee of the transit agency or a corporation. The distinguishing feature of microtransit compared to earlier generation demand-response response transit is that the passenger does not need to schedule a trip far in advance. Ordering trips can be done on-demand, and the centralized dispatching algorithm automatically adjusts service in response.
Eligibility for microtransit service, as with conventional fixed-route service, is open to the public, and fares may be integrated with the rest of the public transit network. Past attempts have been made by transit agencies to achieve this with previous generations of demand responsive scheduling and dispatch technology with only limited success. Much of the current interest in microtransit stems from the apparent ability of the mobile apps based technology being used in recent years by various third party ridesharing, ridehailing and ride-splitting service providers (see below) to provide this type of service more effectively.
• Dynamic Ridesharing: Ridesharing is a software-assisted modernization of conventional carpooling, in which drivers with their own personal vehicles are matched with passengers using the same subscription service, to split the cost of commuting together. For security and payment management, eligibility as both a driver and a passenger is limited to members who maintain an account with the central service.
• Ridehailing: Ridehailing, also known as ridesourcing, consists of a driver utilizing their personal vehicle to provide a private trip to a paying passenger; unlike carpooling and ridesharing, the driver of a ridehailing service is driving professionally, and not making their own commute in the process of transporting passengers. Ridehailing closely mirrors the service model of traditional medallion taxis and is most familiarly employed by TNCs such as Uber and Lyft.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 8 SANDAG
35
• Ride-splitting: Ride-splitting is a type of ridesourcing. The driver uses their personal vehicle, drives professionally rather than as part of their own commute, and can accommodate multiple independent passengers simultaneously, on a route that dynamically updates in response to new trip requests. Ride-splitting is another service offered by TNCs in major cities, where the likelihood is higher of customers independently booking trips simultaneously, with start and end points that can be conveniently served using the same overall trip. Ride-splitting commonly uses lower capacity vehicles (less than 6 passengers).
EMERGING ROLE OF TRANSIT AGENCIES
As new services and suppliers are seen as important parts of the transportation network, many transit agencies are taking on the role of “mobility manager” to ensure that service is equitable in terms of cost, service area, and vehicles, and to coordinate services to prevent further congestion. An example of an agency moving towards this role is the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) whose mission is to “work together to plan, build, operate, regulate and maintain the transportation network, with our partners, to connect communities.” According to Brandon Hemily, Ph.D in Transit and New Shared-Use Modes; Key questions from the transit agency perspective; a Discussion Paper (2016), in this new role, transit agencies are being asked to: • Open real-time transit data to an ever-growing range of new stakeholders; • Participate and/or build technological interfaces with the new suppliers; • Participate in external shared-data platforms; • Develop integrated trip planning tools or real-time information platforms; and • Participate in, or develop, integrated payment back-offices, with a variety of public and private organizations, many of which may be in competition with each other. As part of this emerging role, transit agencies may partner with other for-profit and non-profit partners in order to: • Connect people to transit; • Provide service to underserved areas; • Fill gaps in hours of operation; and • Reduce costs to providing accessible transportation and low-ridership fixed-route service. Beyond partnering from a service delivery and/or technology standpoint with new providers, transit agencies are also experimenting with new business models, including in-house, on-demand service (microtransit) for both paratransit and regions with low ridership, and Family of Transportation Services, which encourages eligible paratransit riders to take conventional transit for all or part of their trips.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 9 SANDAG
36
BUSINESS MODELS
New business models in use by other transit agencies that can be applied to specialized transportation services are described in this section.
MOBILITY ON DEMAND Mobility on Demand (MOD) may expand customer travel opportunities and offer customers spontaneity of travel. The service model may be enabled by private companies (such as Uber, Lyft, taxis, or private microtransit) or public agencies, and used to facilitate first-mile/last-mile solutions, paratransit, and travel within low-density zones where it is not economically feasible to provide Fixed-route and/or specialized transit services. When used for specialized transit, the focus of MOD is primarily on offering same-day specialized transit services. However, MOD may also be used by transit agencies and TNCs to complement the transportation network and provide more mobility options for travel, in addition to public specialized transit such as those provided by MTS and NCTD. For example, the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) received funding for an Open Trip Planner Share Use Mobility project that will create a platform integrating transit and shared-use mobility options. TriMet will build on its existing trip planning app to incorporate shared use mobility options and more sophisticated functionality and interfaces, including data sharing for shared-use mobility providers. By integrating data, the project will allow users to plan trips that address first/last mile issues while traveling by transit.
FAMILY OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES The Family of Transportation Services (FTS) approach encourages eligible paratransit riders to complete all or part of their journey using conventional transit services, which can help reduce the average travel distance for dedicated specialized transportation trips. The transfer locations are designed to facilitate a consistent, accessible transfer to or from the conventional service. With the FTS approach, door-to-door service will still be provided to eligible customers. Benefits of the FTS model include improved travel spontaneity and reduced trip time if the entire trip is made on non-paratransit services or combination of conventional transit service and other potential mobility services such as microtransit, ridehailing, or ride-splitting. The ability for specialized transit users to take advantage of non-specialized transportation services may also help enhance user’s dignity and inclusivity. The FTS model also has the potential to decrease the cost of providing door-to-door service by reducing the average passenger vehicle revenue- miles for trips. This has the potential to mitigate cost increases to achieve additional ridership. Many transit agencies including MTS and NCTD provide a range of transit services and may assist paratransit customers in trip planning and connectivity/transfers to fixed route bus or rail services.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 10 SANDAG
37
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Transit agencies are partnering with private companies to improve service, and sometimes to expand the geographic area served. Private companies can complement agency services by extending service into lower-density areas by offering first-mile/last-mile solutions, defined as transportation services that connect riders from transportation stations or hubs to final destinations. Private companies can also serve as an alternative to the private vehicle. Potential private partners include TNCs, taxis, and private microtransit. With public private partnerships, transit agencies may begin to transition increasingly towards a role of “mobility manager” for San Diego County, for example. Where FTS may be seen as integrating across a transit agencies’ services, public private partnerships can extend this integration across more of the transportation network.
MOBILITY AS A SERVICE Mobility as a Service (MaaS) takes the integration of mobility services across the transportation network to another level. Within the MaaS framework, public transit is the backbone and other mobility solutions expand the service area and complement the fixed-route public transit backbone network. The goal is to provide people with more options for efficient and convenient travel. MaaS can help improve transportation network equity by providing these opportunities better than can public transit alone. Beyond simply providing more travel options, MaaS dissolves boundaries between various transportation modes and can offer mobility as a package. At its most advanced, MaaS offers a monthly subscription, similar to a cell phone plan, where users can choose which services (e.g. Uber, bikeshare) to include in their package. In North America, MaaS is not yet as advanced as in Europe where this concept originated but includes integrated trip planning and payment for multimodal trips. With transit as the backbone, we can also foresee transit agencies in regions with MaaS transitioning more towards becoming “mobility managers”.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 11 SANDAG
38
CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AGENCY (CTSA) Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies (CTSAs) are designated by county transportation commissions (CTCs), local transportation commissions (LTCs), regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs), or metropolitan planning agencies (MPOs) per California Assembly Bill (AB) 120, the Social Services Transportation Act. The goal of AB 120 is “to improve transportation service required by social service recipients by promoting the consolidation of social service transportation services”. In California, a CTSA, as designated at the county level, is a formalized organization responsible to implement a transportation plan that promotes cost effectiveness in the delivery of county public and social service agency transportation services through service coordination. The range of options for CTSA designations as defined in law are: 1. A public agency, including a city, county, operator [transit operator], any state department or agency, public corporation, or public district, or a joint powers entity created pursuant to Title 21, Chapter 3, Article 7, and Section 6680 of the California Government Code. 2. A common carrier of persons as defined in Section 211 of the Public Utilities Code, engaged in the transportation of persons, as defined in Section 208. 3. A private entity operating under a franchise or license. 4. A nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 9000) of Title 1, Corporations Code. While the law provides for a range of governance alternatives, typical CTSA’s are either a transit agency or a nonprofit entity. A range of efficiency and service quality benefits from coordination were introduced by AB 120. The following benefits were defined in the Act: • Combined purchasing of necessary equipment so that some cost savings through larger number of unit purchases can be realized1. — Adequate training of vehicle drivers to insure the safe operation of vehicles. Proper driver training should promote lower insurance costs and encourage use of the service. — Centralized dispatching of vehicles so that efficient use of vehicles results. — Centralized maintenance of vehicles so that adequate and routine vehicle maintenance scheduling is possible. — Centralized administration of various social service transportation programs so that elimination of numerous duplicative and costly administrative organizations can occur. Centralized administration of social service transportation services can provide more efficient and cost- effective transportation services permitting social service agencies to respond to specific social needs.
1 This can include the joint procurement of management reporting and trip scheduling software, IT support services and computer hardware, as well as other intelligent transportation technologies.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 12 SANDAG
39
— Identification and consolidation of all existing sources of funding for social service transportation services can provide more effective and cost-efficient use of scarce resource dollars. Consolidation of categorical program funds can foster eventual elimination of unnecessary and unwarranted program constraints. • Additional benefits from coordination range from: — Meeting legislative requirements. — Operating cost savings by minimizing service overlap and duplication. — The effective accommodation of unmet transportation needs through a centralized trip broker. The focus of many transportation coordination efforts is on serving the mobility needs of seniors, persons with disabilities and the low income. — Effective demand management through a centralized mobility management including the delivery of transit training programs to shift paratransit riders to fixed route options, a centralized call center for information on available transportation alternatives, and the coordination of supplemental programs such as volunteer driver programs or taxi scrip programs. — Joint procurement of insurance coverage including umbrella and supplemental coverage to increase liability coverage.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 13 SANDAG
40
STATE OF THE INDUSTRY
Transit agencies are trying new business models, creating new partnerships, and offering new and upgraded services to customers in different contexts, including the city center, suburbs, and rural areas.
Although there are a number of different contexts for implementing new service delivery models, the same vehicular partners are usually considered. Agencies have partnered with vendors to provide primarily the following types of services: • Full service operation by vendors, where vendors provide a customer app, a software platform for scheduling, dispatching and payment, and operate vehicles. • Agency-operated vehicles under distinct branding, fulfilling customer trip requests from vendor- provided apps while being managed by a vendor-provided dispatch solution. • Trips fulfilled by TNCs, either subsidized or paid in full by agencies, or paid by customers. The graphic below presents a summary of partnerships between transportation network companies (TNCs) and public agencies2.
2 Partners in Transit – A Review of Partnerships between Transportation Network Companies and Public Agencies in the United States. Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development at DePaul University, August 1, 2018.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 14 SANDAG
41
CASE STUDIES All the case studies below include service to seniors and individuals with disabilities.
3.5.1.1 SAN CLEMENTE, CA (OCTA PROJECT V PROGRAM) When Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) decided to eliminate two of its unproductive routes (191 and 193) due to low ridership in the City of San Clemente, the City and OCTA decided to partner with Lyft to provide on-demand services to riders dependent on those routes. In October 2016, City Council approved a $900,000 contract with Lyft to provide on-demand service to riders within the City limits. The contract is funded by an OCTA grant through Measure M2 Project V. Project V provides funds for local communities to develop their own transit services
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 15 SANDAG
42
that complement the regional transit services. Through the grant, OCTA pays 90% of operating deficit and the City pays a local match of 10%. This contract allows riders affected by discontinued routes to travel locally or connect to another OCTA route or Metrolink (rail) service. The contract establishes the following guidelines for trip payments: • Passenger pays the first $2.00 of the regular Lyft fare • City pays remainder up to a maximum of $11.00 (up to $9.00 subsidy) • Customer is responsible for any amount above $11.00 Riders can use the discount code SCRIDES when booking rides. Given potential difficulties of senior and disabled riders using services offered by Lyft vehicles and drivers, riders eligible for OCTA Access service can request services from San Clemente’s Senior Mobility Program for local trips that provide a comparable level of service. The program offers free on- demand fixed-route service for shopping and senior center trips.
3.5.1.2 AC FLEX – OPERATED BY AC TRANSIT In early 2017, AC Transit, the transit service operator in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties (California) launched a flexible service in the neighborhoods of Newark and Castro Valley (also available in Union City and Fremont), areas that had low transit demand. The service, AC Flex, is designed as an alternative to unproductive fixed-route service. As part of the service the AC Transit operates 12- passenger buses equipped with wheelchair access, fareboxes, and Clipper Card readers. All trips must begin and end within the AC Flex service area around Line 275. AC Transit suspended operation of Line 275 from March 2017 through March 2018 to evaluate the service. The service area also includes two BART rail stations. Implemented as a one-call-one-click concept, the service allows trip booking using a web application (smartphone, tablet, computer) anytime or through the call center during restricted hours. AC Transit recommends trips be booked 30 minutes in advance. Recurring trips can be booked up to 3 months in advance. The trip booking platform is implemented using MobilityDR platform from Demand Trans. Drivers gets turn-by-turn direction on AC Flex vehicles. Riders can also subscribe to receive text or email alerts when their vehicles are 10 minutes away.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 16 SANDAG
43
3.5.1.3 DIRECT CONNECT SERVICE BY PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY (PSTA), PINELLAS COUNTY – ST. PETERSBURG, FL In 2016, PSTA launched a unique public private partnership program to enhance local mobility by partnering with Uber and United Taxi. This service is designed to addresses the county’s sprawling population and service gaps that require riders to walk long distances to get to a bus stop. The service is designed such that:
• Riders can travel to any destination within a defined geographic service zone; or • To or from designated stops within a zone The service was primary designed to serve areas of PSTA where low ridership bus service was eliminated. Initially, the service was launched in the Pinellas Park and East Lake neighborhoods partnering with Uber and United Taxi. Based on the success of the program, PSTA has expanded the service to the entire Pinellas County and now also partners with Lyft. Thus far, however, rides through Lyft are currently not offered. It is unclear why, though experience with TriMet indicates that Uber and Lyft like to be exclusive partners and generally don’t work together with an agency. PSTA service partners (now include Uber, United Taxi, Care Ride, and Wheelchair Transport) use app- based ridehailing platform. PSTA provides a discount of $5.00 per trip. Passengers pay an average of $1.00. Riders can pay by bankcards or Paypal. On taxis, riders can also pay by cash. Provider selection at is at the discretion of the passenger. Care Ride and Wheelchair Transport provide fully accessible services.
3.5.1.4 HYPERLINK PROGRAM- HILLSBOROUGH AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT (HART), TAMPA, FL HART offers HyperLINK service to provide direct connections to bus stops in Brandon, Temple, Terrace and University Area neighborhoods. Designed as a shared ride service, this first/last mile solution was launched in the University of South Florida area with $1.2 million capital from Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The service is operated by Transdev who is paid $10 per trip. Riders pay $1 to connect to a designated HART stop or $3 to connect to other locations in the service zone. Riders can pay by cash or credit cards.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 17 SANDAG
44
Private business donors (led by TECO) are funding the $170,000 two-year leases for four Tesla Model X SUV vehicles used to provide the service. The program aims to expand using Tesla vehicles equipped with autonomous vehicle technology (initially will have "drivers" to ensure safety). Also, in addition to regular shuttle buses, one Mobility Ventures’ MV-1 accessible vehicle is used to meet the needs of customers who may need accessible vehicles.
3.5.1.5 NEIGHBORLINK – LYNX, ORLANDO, FL LYNX offers a flex service called, NeighborLink (NL), for its riders living in low density areas that are underserved by its local bus system. LYNX has currently defined 13 NL routes and zones. Riders can use an app to book trips to travel anywhere within the zone or to and from a stop on a NL route. Similar to AC Flex, LYNX operates small vehicles branded for NL service. Riders pay fare similar to a regular fixed-route service: $2 for full fare and $1 for reduced fare (youth, seniors, disabled). LYNX has been offering NeighborLink for several years, but it required booking rides two hours in advance until recently when an app was launched. LYNX has partnered with DoubleMap to provide the trip booking and dispatching platform. Also, DoubleMap provides real-time information and alerts to riders. The service is operated by LYNX’s paratransit service (ACCESS) contractor, MV Transportation.
3.5.1.6 NEW LOCAL MOBILITY INITIATIVES Uber Express POOL: Uber is currently piloting share ride service called Express POOL. Unlike Uber POOL that provides door-to-door service, Express POOL offers services to/from designated stops. Express POOL is currently being piloted in Boston, San Francisco, D.C., Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Denver, and San Diego. UberWAV and Uber Assist (UberAccess) – Uber provides rides for persons with disabilities through branded service called Uber WAV and
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 18 SANDAG
45
Uber Assist. Uber WAV is offered for riders who may need wheelchair and Uber Assist is offered for seniors and disabled riders who may require additional assistance getting in and out of the vehicle. Riders can bring Personal Care Attendants (PCA)/ companions with them. Driver-partners providing the service are certified by a third party in safely driving and assisting people with disabilities. As of early 2017, UberAccess services were available in: Chicago IL, Houston TX, Los Angeles CA, New York NY, Portland OR, San Francisco CA, and Seattle WA. Information on ridership and costs were not available.
3.5.1.7 AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES - BISHOP RANCH (SAN RAMON, CA) - 585-ACRE OFFICE PARK Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), backed by combination of private companies, public transit operators, and air quality authorities has launched a driverless shuttle service. Two 12 seat shuttles are provided by Easy Mile. CCTA plans to operate nearly 100 driverless shuttles by 2020. Most of the funding is provided by owners of Bishop Ranch property, a Sunset Development Company. The ranch is a 585-acre office park that includes 550 tenants and where 30,000 people go to work. Shuttles provide services in the office park area and also provide first and last mile connectivity to nearby a BART station. The shuttle is operated after the California Assembly Bill 1592 was passed that allows the testing of electric, low-speed, multi-passenger autonomous vehicles that are not equipped with a steering wheel, brake pedal, accelerator or operator.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
A public agency considering contracting or otherwise coordinating with a private entity for the provision of transportation service must navigate a number of potentially tricky regulatory standards and public perception issues. With the advent of Uber service in 2009 and Lyft service in 2012, the world of transportation has changed dramatically, but the associated regulatory framework has not kept pace. Several recent studies published by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has provided some guidance on how they will view any new services. Nonetheless, these new services and contractual arrangements have not been tested in the legal system. Further changes are likely to result, but the sections below provide guidance on what issues may arise and how best to deal with concerns in the current environment. Most of the discussion applies to Uber and Lyft, but similar considerations would exist for any private company.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 19 SANDAG
46
While the challenges below are serious and complex, they should not be viewed as “fatal flaws” that would kill the ability to take advantage of the emerging approaches to providing mobility services. They are cautionary concerns that need to be taken into account when structuring any service changes, especially if these changes affect existing services or operator jobs.
EQUITY/TITLE VI Of principal concern is to ensure that any new service arrangement with a private company meets all requirements related to equity. Equity in this sense encompasses • Service availability – where and when service is provided • Fare – how much is charged to use the service • Technology access – ensuring that riders have access to the service without requiring a smart phone • Rider access – non-discrimination based upon rider characteristics, including the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Equity in this sense does not mean “equal” or “the same.” For example, a transit agency may establish geographic zones where a private operator provides the service, and the service in that zone may be a different type of service than is offered elsewhere. In an area of low-demand, where traditional fixed- route service is unproductive, a transit agency could contract with Uber or Lyft to provide demand- response service. Or, such service could be provided only late at night when traditional demand decreases. The transit agency would need to ensure that such an arrangement was not done in a discriminatory fashion, such as only offering demand-response service in low-income or minority communities. The fare charged for the service would have to be equitable when viewed against the fares charged for traditional fixed-route service, adjusted for differences in the type of service provided. For example, federal law states that fares for ADA riders shall not exceed twice the fare that would be charged to an individual paying full fare for a trip of similar length at a similar time of day (49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] §37.131). These laws, however, were established when ADA service was generally demand-response and was being compared with fixed- route service. It is unclear whether a larger difference could be charged for an Uber-type service that was offered to the general public. There is also a fare concern regarding whether a rider could be required to have a credit/debit card account rather than being able to use cash. A ticket vending machine (TVM) overcomes some of this limitation if they can be placed near where riders board. Such an arrangement works well for a service like a park & ride, where there are few boarding locations. However, for a demand-response service with widely dispersed origins and destinations, it would be impractical to provide full coverage with TVMs. At any rate, neither Uber nor Lyft accept cash or ticket fares. MTS and NCTD could implement an account-based fare collection, which has the potential to account for the lack of TVMs and help integrate with TNCs. An account-
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 20 SANDAG
47
based fare collection allows riders to maintain an account that they can fund with a bank card or other methods (e.g., mailing check or by paying by cash in-person). At the same time, agency can work with third party solution providers (payment platforms) to build deep linking with TNCs and other providers so riders can pay for their trips when they book or when trips have been completed. Account-based payment also allows agencies to partner with local retailers to sell passes and other fare products through electronic media (prepaid cards, loading agency smartcards) to riders from low-income neighborhoods and riders who may be unbanked/underbanked. Technology access is another equity concern. The Pew Research Center has tracked the prevalence of cell phones and smart devices among different population groups. Overall, they found that in the US, 95% of individuals own a cell phone of some type, with 77% owning a smart phone. This widespread adoption indicates that technology access may decline as a consideration over time, but the report did identify some areas of concerns. Notably, older individuals (65+) were less likely to have a cell phone (85%) or a smart phone (46%). People with less than a high school education were less likely to have a smart phone (57%) as were lower income (less than $30,000/year) individuals (67%). Rural residents were also less likely to have a smart phone (65%). These results are at a national level; further differences may exist at a regional or local level. Equity is also an issue when it comes to the treatment of individual riders. This issue is primarily a concern when it comes to how an individual driver may treat an individual rider, such as an Uber driver refusing to transport someone from a federally protected population group. Both Uber and Lyft have guidelines for their independent contractors (drivers) that prohibit such discrimination, and even go beyond federal laws by prohibiting discrimination based upon “sexual orientation, marital status, and gender identity”, which are not covered by federal statutes. If a driver is shown to have engaged in such discrimination, he/she will be barred from driving for the company.
DRIVER TRAINING/SCREENING/HOURS OF SERVICE The safety of the service provided is a paramount concern to a transit agency. Safety relates to both the safety of the driver (discussed here) and safety of the vehicle (discussed in the next section). The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has established several relations to ensure that drivers can safely operate their vehicle. One area of regulation is the “hours of service,” that is, how many hours can a driver safely drive before taking a rest break. For interstate commerce (where federal regulations apply), related to a vehicle that carries nine or more passengers including the driver, there are three hour-of-service limitations. First, a driver cannot be on-duty for more than 15 hours without taking 8 hours off. Second, a driver cannot drive for more than 10 hours without taking an 8-hour break. Third, a driver cannot be on-duty for more than 60 hours during any consecutive 7-day period or 70 hours during any consecutive 8-day period. While these regulations apply only to interstate commerce, most states have similar legislation. What’s notable about the above regulations is they apply to drivers who operate a vehicle that carries nine or more passengers. Most Uber and Lyft vehicles are private cars that carry five to seven people, so these regulations do not apply. Uber and Lyft have recently imposed their own hours of service limits. Lyft requires drivers to take a 6-hour break for every 14 hours the driver has the app in service. Uber requires a driver to take a 6-hour break after 12 hours of “driving time.” Driving time equals the time the
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 21 SANDAG
48
driver has the app in service, less time spent stopped between trips. While these regulations are an attempt to mimic the federal hours-of-service rules, nothing prevents an individual driver who is contracted by both Uber and Lyft from far exceeding these service hours by switching back and forth between the apps. In order to drive for either Uber or Lyft, drivers must pass a background check. Neither company reveals precisely what the checks encompass, but they cover a motor vehicle record review and a criminal background check. Uber notes that it periodically re-runs background checks. Generally, a driver is declared ineligible if they exceed a certain number of traffic violations or have a “felony, violent crime, or sexual offense” for both companies, and “drug-related offense, or certain theft or property damage offense” for Lyft. These requirements may not be as strict as the public agency can or does perform on its operators. For example, neither company does a fingerprint check as do some taxi licensing boards. It should be noted that neither Uber nor Lyft does any drug screening, whether pre-employment, periodic, or for-cause. Instead, both companies rely on their rating system to identify problem drivers. A rider is encouraged to report drivers suspected of driving under the influence and the company will follow up with investigation, discipline, suspension and/or termination. Neither Uber nor Lyft does any training for their drivers, although Uber does note that some drivers that have been removed from driving can have their privileges reinstated if they complete some training. There is no general operation, safety, or customer interaction training. Instead, these companies rely on the “community guidelines” and rating system to identify where a driver may have a problem. Taxi license boards have differing training requirements depending upon the city or jurisdiction.
VEHICLE STANDARDS Vehicle standards are important from a safety and accessibility perspective. From a safety perspective, all vehicles must pass the annual state inspection standards, whether owned by a private individual (for Uber and Lyft), a taxi company, or a bus owner. Uber and Lyft further place age limits on their vehicle; generally, a vehicle can be no older than 10-15 years, depending upon the company and location. Neither company conducts in-person vehicle tests, instead relying on the annual state inspections to ensure the vehicle is safe to operate. For non-safety issues, such as body or interior damage, the companies rely on riders to report issues. Neither Uber nor Lyft have a requirement to operate an accessible vehicle. The guidelines for both companies require a driver to accept wheelchair passengers if their wheelchair can fit into their vehicle. This lack of an individual vehicle being accessible is not a problem for the FTA, assuming that some mechanism exists to provide an equivalent level of service to the rider. As a practical matter, this burden would fall on the public transit operator to be able to dispatch an accessible vehicle when needed. A potential issue is that the accessible service must be “equivalent” to the service provided to those without disabilities, including response time. It is unclear from FTA guidance on how this would work if an accessible vehicle is dispatched from a remote facility while non-accessible vehicles are prevalent throughout a community.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 22 SANDAG
49
PREVAILING & MINIMUM WAGE Special requirements relate to the wages and benefits of mass transit employees. According to the US Department of Labor, when federal funds are used to acquire, improve, or operate a mass transit system (public transportation), federal law requires arrangements to protect the interests of mass transit employees (49 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 5333(b) (formerly Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act)). Section 5333(b) specifies that these protective arrangements must provide for the preservation of rights and benefits of employees under existing collective bargaining agreements, the continuation of collective bargaining rights, the protection of individual employees against a worsening of their positions in relation to their employment, assurances of employment to employees of acquired transit systems, priority of reemployment, and paid training or retraining programs (49 U.S.C. § 5333(b)(2)). This could potentially be an issue if any current operator jobs are replaced by lower-wage jobs, especially if the replaced jobs were covered by a collective bargaining agreement. In the case of using Uber/Lyft, the hourly wage will inevitably be lower than the wages paid to unionized operators. While little data exists on the earnings of Uber and Lyft drivers, the drivers must pay all expenses (gas, maintenance, and insurance) out of their earnings, so their effective hourly rate is dramatically lower, perhaps even less than the federal minimum wage. According to a recent study conducted by MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR), Uber and Lyft drivers earn a median wage of $3.37 per hour. While Uber has contested this finding by claiming the average gross earning closer to $20 per hour and MIT is revisiting the research methodology, such a low wage is considerably lower than what transit drivers typically earn, particularly accounting for other benefits they also receive as agency employees.
PRIVATE SECTOR COMPETITION/CHARTER REGULATIONS Public bus companies are prohibited from providing charter service in competition with private charter bus companies. In general, these regulations prevent FTA subsidized grant recipients from unfairly competing with private companies. The FTA website specifically notes that these regulations do not apply to demand-response service to individuals, so they would not apply to any Uber-type services. They could potentially come into play if a transit agency looked at establishing its own service in competition with a Bridj-type operator that provides a customized route for select companies or groups of individuals. In general, this is not likely to be much of a concern for any services contemplated by either MTS or NCTD, but it is another item to take into consideration.
PRIVATE PARTNER DURABILITY A hard-to-quantify challenge or consideration is the concern over the long-term viability of any private sector partner. This concern has always been present with any private bus company or taxi company, but is, perhaps, more acute with the newer technology-based companies.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 23 SANDAG
50
In the past, a transit operator faced the risk that its private partner could go out of business. This risk could be controlled by partnering with more than one taxi company, for example, or by owning its own vehicles which would be operated by a private bus company. If the private bus company went out of business, the public transit operator would be able to reclaim its equipment for use by a new contractor in a short amount of time. For the newest mobility companies, whether bus-based, such as Bridj, or private-car based, such as Uber and Lyft, the risk is greater. Bridj, which was founded in 2014, has already ceased operation, and Uber/Lyft face challenges to their business model that could jeopardize their existence. Already in Europe, Uber has been classified as a “taxi” company, which subjects it to additional regulation, including having to classify its drivers as “employees” rather than “independent contractors.” Should that occur in the US, Uber and Lyft’s cost of operation will dramatically increase as they will now have to offer benefits to their employees and ensure they meet minimum wage standards.
POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS The above challenges have been presented primarily as legal issues that should be structured to avoid any potential regulatory pitfalls. Regardless of any legal consideration, any of these challenges could enter the political realm, either positively or negatively. The political issues could be more acute when changes to existing services are proposed, as opposed to the implementation of new service. SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD should be sensitive to how any changes will be perceived by the community at large and its elected representatives.
SPECIALIZED TRANSIT OPERATIONS – COMMON INDUSTRY PRACTICES
OPERATIONS MTS’ Access and NCTD’s LIFT are complementary paratransit services designed to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These are available to individuals whose physical, cognitive or sensory disabilities prevent them from using the accessible fixed route (bus, light rail, and commuter rail) transit systems. The following functional attributes of specialized transit system operations are discussed in context of industry best practices: 1. Eligibility and Registration 2. Reservations and Scheduling 3. Fare Policy 4. Performance Measurement Through Triennial Review (TR) findings, FTA provides continual guidance concerning the correct interpretation of ADA regulations and requirements. Industry best practices are based partly on the
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 24 SANDAG
51
collective findings of TRs of all grantees. In recent years, such findings have drilled deeper into the details of paratransit service; for example, eligibility suspension policies. 1. Eligibility and Registration Industry best practice favors a relatively strict and precise process for determining who is eligible to use ADA complementary paratransit. The ADA requires that the process “strictly limit” ADA eligibility to people who meet the ADA criteria. This is not intended to discourage eligible applicants from obtaining service; rather to prevent responsible agencies from conferring paratransit access unduly on segments of the general public who are not necessarily covered by the ADA. Strict eligibility is considered as one of several tools imbedded in the ADA regulations to manage limited program resources for the benefit of those who are eligible under the law. On one hand, insufficient limits on eligibility can lead to a system where costs cannot be contained and, as a result, constraints must be placed on service to balance the budget that may be inappropriate or violate ADA law. This jeopardizes transportation for many eligible individuals who have no other option. On the other hand, a complementary specialized or paratransit program that strictly limits eligibility without using best industry practices risks many eligibility denials to people who have a civil right to ADA paratransit service. Therefore, industry best practice typically limits eligibility to people who meet the ADA criteria, and strives for precise eligibility determinations to ensure that the intent of the ADA is met fully. Additionally, it is a best practice to have a comprehensive manual describing the eligibility process in detail, including staff responsibilities as well as agency policies and procedures. Formal written documentation is not always standard practice among small transit agencies; however, better program outcomes depend in part on staff familiarity with implementation policies, procedures and materials, as well as the consistency of their use. A. Eligibility Criteria / Process: Industry best practice favors robust application of the conditional eligibility provision, which constitutes eligibility determination on a trip-by-trip basis. The National Transit Institute’s (NTI) Comprehensive ADA Paratransit Eligibility document suggests that 30% to 45% percent of all ADA-eligible individuals require complementary paratransit service only under certain conditions; meaning that they should be considered conditionally eligible. The use of conditional eligibility is an important consideration for both MTS and NCTD. The ADA provides for some flexibility to design a locally appropriate process for determining paratransit eligibility. Ideally, the application should enable both MTS and NCTD to assess eligibility based on a comprehensive list of skills needed and tasks required to use the County’s fixed-route system whenever it is possible. The required skill set should be customized to unique characteristics of the San Diego environment, including not only weather, but topography and pedestrian infrastructure as well. All conditions that affect travel should be considered. For example, the applicant's potential travel throughout the entire service area, during all seasons. Incidental conditions such as disorientation and fatigue must be considered as well. FTA has found in ADA compliance reviews that some transit providers did not adequately consider path-of-travel barriers, weather, and other possible issues when setting conditional eligibility
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 25 SANDAG
52
B. Personal Care Attendants/Companions Policies: The ADA indicates that at least one personal care attendant (PCA) or travel companion may ride with any eligible customer. This means that MTS Access or NCTD LIFT must carry an eligible rider's additional companions if space is available. Both Access and LIFT do ask about travel companions and personal attendants when reservations are made so that the information can be used to develop runs and ensure adequate capacity on vehicles dispatched to deliver service.
2. Reservations & Scheduling A. Scheduling Window: The ADA allows MTS and NCTD to negotiate pick-up times within a two-hour window framed by up to one hour before and one hour after requested departure time. Through the Triennial Review (TR) process, FTA has provided significant guidance on best practices that should be applied when booking customer travel requests. A key is to define the window in proper context of a complete understanding of the customer’s trip characteristics. Industry best practice tends toward more completely understanding the specific travel need of the individual customer before establishing the pickup window. A preferred strategy is to negotiate pickup time by requesting information about customer time constraints as part of the booking process. A customer's appointment time must be considered when scheduling the ride. This includes whether the time requested is the earliest possible time that a customer can travel, or whether it is based on preferred arrival time or a fixed appointment time. When there is a latest arrival time (e.g., medical appointment), the scheduling window should be set to ensure that the customer gets to the appointment on time. When there is an earliest departure time on a return trip (for example, a time when the rider gets off work and so cannot leave before then), the scheduling window should be from that time to one hour after. It is acceptable to set the schedule around the requested pickup time (plus/ minus one hour) when the customer’s travel plans are not constrained by appointments or earliest departure times. B. Scheduling Will-Call Return Trips: Will-calls can provide significant rider benefits for a limited number of trips, when the rider does not know the return time. In some medical situations, will-calls are vital, and it is a good practice for a transit agency to make them available. Yet they are workable only if limited in number, particularly during peak operating times. A large number of will-calls at peak operating times can overburden a system and make it difficult to deliver service on time. C. Managing Cancellations & No-Shows: The ADA allows MTS and NCTD to suspend, for a reasonable period of time, access to complementary paratransit service for customers who indicate a pattern or practice of missing scheduled trips. The intent is to encourage paratransit customers to recognize the substantial value of limited complementary paratransit resources and to avoid no-shows resulting in service capacity lost to the system. Suspension is a tool for handling those who repeatedly fail to appear for their prearranged rides and have a detrimental effect on operational efficiency, cost, and the quality of the service for other eligible customers. Suspension of eligibility is not intended to be used as a demand management tool. The challenge of no-show policies is to balance customer service and operational efficiency. FTA guidance speaks to the presence of a pattern or practice with intentional, repeated, or regular actions, not isolated, accidental, or singular incidents. Moreover, only actions within the control of the individual count as part of a pattern or practice. Missed trips due to operator error are not attributable to
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 26 SANDAG
53
the individual passenger. The ADA does not allow a suspension of access to service for no-shows that are considered to be beyond the customer’s immediate control. Industry best practice leans toward no-show policies that do not penalize customers after a fixed number of occurrences (usually three) within the fixed time frame (e.g., 60 – 90 days). Years ago, this approach was nearly standard practice; however, recent TR findings suggest that this approach may be found to be overly restrictive, and not necessarily sufficient evidence of a pattern. Generally, cancellations made at least two hours before the scheduled pick-up time are no longer equated with lost service capacity. Industry best practice increasingly is to accommodate requests for same-day and next-bus-available service when possible, and to implement operating practices to redeploy vehicles in productive service. As an alternative to a traditional “three strikes and you’re out” approach, responsible agencies are increasingly thinking in terms of the percentage of trips missed over a longer period of time to identify any pattern of missed trips. Some agencies assess the no-show records of individual customers relative to the average no-show rate for the customer base as a whole. Some suspension policies consider the absolute number of occurrences as well as relative frequency to avoid arbitrary outcomes. For example, a customer who travels once and misses the trip would have a 100% no-show record; however, the single data point does not constitute a pattern. Enhanced customer service is essential to the transit industry as a consumer-oriented retail business. Increasingly, complementary paratransit providers are working with customers in constructive ways to reduce no-shows. Examples of pro-active approaches include keeping customers aware of their record of no-shows, verifying the accuracy of recorded no-shows when customers disagree with particular events, issuing a warning only for the first offense, and giving the customer an opportunity to appeal a suspension. Other best practices address aspects of the reservations, scheduling, and trip fulfillment. For example, • record specific pickup location details and directions and ensure that the instructions are provided to the driver; • review cancellations made after 5:00 pm to confirm that if they are unable to cancel a ride in a timely way because cancellation calls are not taken early enough before their scheduled trip. For example, when a customer with a variable condition has an early morning trip scheduled but is unable to anticipate the need to cancel until that morning, best practice might be considered outside of the customer’s control if the occurrence is not repeated. D. Use of Technology: Advanced technologies, particularly Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL), Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs), Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems, are assisting some transit agencies improve on-time performance. AVL technology allows the agency to monitor the location of its paratransit vehicles on a real-time basis and provide historical location information on trips. Paratransit providers can use this information to enhance proactive dispatching, thereby reducing late pickup and drop-off times. MDTs facilitate communications between vehicle operators and the dispatcher. Drivers use the terminals to record their arrivals and departures in real time. This information is then used to calculate new
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 27 SANDAG
54
estimated arrival times for subsequent trips. Late pickups or drop-offs are flagged to the dispatcher who can then reassign later trips that might otherwise have become backed up Automated confirmation and reminder calls using IVR are consistent with industry best practice among systems with computer-based scheduling capacity. Common is the practice to auto-call customers with prior day trip confirmations and same-day reminders to help reduce cancellations and no-shows, and to help improve on-time performance.
3. Fare Policy Similar to the strict eligibility requirements and the ¾-mile service area, the maximum fare is intended as another sustainability tool used to manage the total cost of the complementary paratransit (specialized) program. Most US transit providers peg specialized/paratransit fares to twice the regular fare for a comparable fixed-route trip. Comparability considers the presence of zone fare structures, transfer charges, and other attributes of the fixed-route system fare structure. Transit agencies may require companions to pay the same paratransit fare as the eligible rider with a disability, which may not exceed twice the full non-discounted fixed-route fare. A personal attendant may not be charged any fare. However, any additional attendants may be required to pay the fare. The FTA requires grantees to charge no more than half fare to individuals with disabilities (as well as senior citizens) during off-peak times on the fixed-route. Many transit agencies have instituted fare incentives for paratransit eligible riders that go beyond this, such as allowing them to ride for free on the fixed-route system. Moreover, more transit agencies permit personal care attendants and some other companions to ride fare-free. This is an important addition because some paratransit eligible riders would not be able to (or would not feel comfortable) riding the fixed-route unaccompanied.
4. Performance Measurement Beyond just internally-focused measures such as operating efficiency, labor productivity, and maintenance effectiveness, industry best practice focuses on key performance measures A. On-time Performance: Maintaining schedule reliability is a key challenge for most paratransit service providers. Schedule adherence is measured against a pick-up window of 30 minutes or less, which is an industry standard. B. No Capacity Constraints: Substantial numbers of untimely pickups, trip denials, missed trips, and excessively long trips are considered illegal capacity constraints. It is current practice in the paratransit industry to view an on-time pickup as a vehicle arrival within an established on-time window. It is important to reinforce the pickup window concept with riders, drivers, dispatchers, and reservationists. Riders may otherwise not understand or remember the window, and think the vehicle is late when it is not. A good time to do this is when the rider makes the reservation. When the reservationist confirms the final trip information, instead of saying: "We will pick you up at 9 o'clock," if the transit agency has a zero — thirty (0/+30) window, for example, the reservationist could instead say, "We will pick you up between 9 and 9:30 a.m." The result is that, over time, riders will become more educated about the pickup window.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 28 SANDAG
55
SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE DELIVERY Building on the previous discussion of the evolving landscape of mobility, this section discusses common specialized transit industry practices specifically with the use of supplemental delivery services. These services include the use of taxis, accessible taxis, and TNCs.
3.7.2.1 TAXI BEST PRACTICES / ATTRIBUTES OF AN EFFECTIVE ACCESSIBLE TAXI/TNC PROGRAM This section provides a general overview of: • The evolution and development of wheelchair accessible taxi services; • The barriers that restrict the effectiveness and success of accessible taxi programs; • How jurisdictions have promoted accessible taxi services; and • Factors that support the sustainability of accessible taxi services (ability to accommodate a mobility device as well as sensitive to broader aspects of accessibility needs including sensory, cognitive, etc.). A comprehensive review of taxi participation in paratransit programs and the integration of wheelchair accessible taxi services can be found in the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) report, TRCP Synthesis 119: Use of Taxis in Public Transportation Programs for People with Disabilities and Older Americans (2016). Historically the taxi industry in North America has been characterized by a high degree of entrepreneurial independence. It remains highly market driven with service coverage concentrated in areas with the maximum potential for financial return. Maximum service coverage is often characteristically limited to areas of high demand density or concentrated on markets willing to pay for a higher value (market segments able and willing to pay a premium fare for what may be perceived as premium service) and responsive service. Traditional taxi firms vary in size and business models and may include: • Large companies with a concentration of taxi licenses or medallions and a large fleet of vehicles that they operate with staff drivers or lease out to independent drivers; • Dispatch brokerages that charge monthly dispatch fees to independent owner operators for dispatch and administrative services; and • Small “Mom and Pop” outfits that operate completely on their own, taking reservations from home offices or by cellphones while on the road. Operations in small urban centers or rural centers are often undercapitalized, and through time, can go in and out of business as demand fluctuates. Increasing operating and business costs (fuel, vehicle maintenance, insurance, brokerage fees, and permits) as well as rising household living costs can push small or independent taxi operators out of business. The same can be true for the emergent software- based TNCs. Taxi industry regulation can range from a high level of regulatory oversight, as is the case in many metropolitan areas, to a very limited level or complete lack of regulation, as can be the case in small communities or rural areas.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 29 SANDAG
56
In recent years, the traditional taxi industry has experienced significant competition from software based TNCs such as Lyft and Uber. In many markets, traditional taxi companies are losing market share to TNCs with more and more taxi drivers jumping ship and becoming TNC operators. TNCs have also created a regulatory challenge in jurisdictions where for-hire taxi operations are highly regulated. The market penetration, economic viability, and regulation of Lyft and Uber operations will continue to play out over the near-term horizon.
The Taxi Industry and the Americans with Disability Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Act: Federal legislation does not require taxi operators to (ADA) purchase accessible vehicles as long as they only use sedan- Basic Requirement: Titles II and III of the type vehicles. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ADA provide that no entity shall (ADA) requires taxi operators using vehicles larger than discriminate against an individual with a sedans, to provide equivalent service. In addition to the disability in connection with the provision ADA, federal support exists for the purchase of accessible of transportation service. The law sets 3 taxi vehicles through tax incentives and capital funding forth specific requirements for vehicle and under Federal Transit Administration Section 5310 grant facility accessibility and the provision of program. service, including complementary The ADA further stipulates that taxi companies when paratransit service and vehicle-for- buying or leasing a new service vehicle other than a sedan- hire/taxi service. type automobile, such as a van with a seating capacity of fewer than eight persons (including the driver), the acquired vehicle must be accessible, unless the company is already providing “equivalent service”. Equivalent service is defined as parallel to services provided to the general public including comparable response times and application of published fare structure. ADA also requires that taxi drivers must be trained to provide safe and appropriate assistance and service to individuals with disabilities. The ADA also requires that taxi companies provide accessible communication services through accessible formats and technology to enable everyone to obtain information and schedule services. If the company offers online reservations or the option to make reservations by phone app, it must provide dispatching that is accessible to callers who are deaf or hard of hearing and accessible to web users who are blind or have visual impairments. Although required by law, this is not necessary the case with current taxi operations, especially in smaller communities where oversight may be minimal. Enforcement may only come to the forefront if there is a public non-compliance lawsuit or complaint. In certain cases, an ADA compliance complaint “may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back” and force a decision to cease the operation of accessible taxi services. TNCs such as Lyft and Uber contend that they are software-based industries, not transportation services, and therefore do not have to comply with ADA accessible transportation requirements. Evolution of Taxi/Public Paratransit Partnerships and Accessible Taxi Service: The partnership between taxi companies and public agency transportation providers and accessible taxi service initiatives evolved prior to the introduction of the ADA.
3 The Architectural/Transportation Tax Deduction: IRS Code Section 190, and the Disabled Access Credit: section 44 of the Code are two federal tax incentives that can be used to support the purchase of accessible taxi vehicles.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 30 SANDAG
57
During the 1970s and 1980s, paratransit and social service agencies increasingly partnered with taxi companies to provide or supplement their services to their ambulatory clients. Both pre-ADA and ADA complementary paratransit services recognized the potential of taxi partnerships to provide supplemental capacity to: • Provide backup for bus breakdowns and accidents; — Offload trips from buses running late; — Provide service during hours with low productivity (evenings and weekends); and — Increase capacity when needed to avoid ADA trip denials. In addition, public transportation agencies have involved taxi companies in subsidized taxi voucher programs as demand management strategies to shift ridership from core paratransit programs. Much of this partnering has focused on service to the paratransit eligible persons not needing a wheelchair accessible vehicle. Through time, contractual arrangements became more sophisticated with specific performance expectations, driver screening and training requirements and trip assignment criteria to enhance service efficiencies. In a survey conducted of 45 public transportation agencies, 39 (85%) reported the use of taxi contractors.4 Accessible Taxi Services: Taxi operators have long provided private for-hire services to passengers using wheelchairs. Traditionally, wheelchairs were folded and placed in the back seat or trunks of taxi sedans. However, the provision of this level of service has been spotty, dependent on the willingness of drivers to provide any necessary assistance in and out of the sedan or minivan, and to take the time to fold and stow a passenger’s wheelchair. Additional charges were often imposed above the regulated meter, flat rate or zone charges. Service was not available to persons who could not independently transfer or be safely assisted in and out of their wheelchair. This service was not available to persons using power wheelchairs. This is still the case when individuals with disabilities request Lyft or Uber service. Drivers may not be willing to accommodate a passenger using a wheelchair. As ADA has become more strictly enforced, the lack of consistent for-hire services to individuals with disabilities became increasingly recognized as discriminatory. Wheelchair accessible taxi initiatives were piloted in the 1980s and have become increasingly important as ADA becomes more strictly enforced. Strategies to introduce wheelchair accessible taxi services have included: the limited issuance of new taxi medallions to companies or individuals who operate wheelchair accessible taxis; regulatory requirements for all taxi companies in a jurisdiction to include accessible taxis within their active licensed for-hire fleet; or the public agency procurement of accessible taxis with grant funding and the leasing of these vehicles to taxi companies willing to operate them. There have also been independent, private initiatives to procure and operate wheelchair accessible taxis to a targeted market specifically including individuals with disabilities. The TCRP reported that 23 (61%) of 38 transportation agencies in the United States using taxi companies had wheelchair accessible taxis available.5 In the United Kingdom, 100% of all taxis operating in London are wheelchair accessible.6
4 TCRP Synthesis 119, (2016), p.22. 5 TCRP Synthesis 119, (2016), p.5. 6 Massachusetts Community Transportation Series, Wheelchair-Accessible Taxicabs, (October 2013), p. 7.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 31 SANDAG
58
Wheelchair Accessible Taxi Vehicle Development: In North America, early wheelchair accessible taxi design ranged from small shop modifications of old Checker Cabs and non-commercial minivans as well as rare research and development prototypes that never made it to commercial manufacture because of high production costs. The objective was to design and introduce vehicles that could accommodate wheelchairs without requiring the passenger to transfer from their wheelchair, as well as accommodate passengers using power wheelchairs and/or scooters. The minivan modifications included side and rear wheelchair ramps and, as was often the case, the modified light weight minivan models marketed in the 1980s through the early 2000s had short service life cycles when put to commercial for-hire service. In a case study summarized in TCRP Synthesis 119, Luxor Cab of San Francisco stated that the life cycle of the ramp taxis they operated was in the range of 220,000 to 250,000 service miles while the life cycle of the taxis sedans they operated was in the range of 350,000 service miles7. Many taxi operators also found modified minivans to be too expensive to purchase for their fleets. The Taxicab, Limousine and Paratransit Association (TLPA) noted in their report, Assessing the Full Cost of Implementing an Accessible Taxicab Program (2010) that used accessible minivans cost up to $35,000 and new ones cost up to $49,000, while a typical used sedan purchased for a taxi fleet cost approximately $5,000 (pre-prep cost).8 In contrast, Luxor Cab reported in the TCRP Synthesis 119 that the type of ramp taxis (wheelchair accessible minivans) that they use cost between $35,000 and $50,000 while a sedan costs in the range $15,000 to $18,000 to purchase.9 AM General has introduced a purpose-built, wheelchair accessible commercial taxi. The Mobility Venture MV-1 (now being manufactured by A-1 Limousine Inc. out of Princeton, NJ.) includes a side loading wheelchair ramp and a forward-facing wheelchair position next to the driver. MV-1s have been in sufficient production volumes to be integrated into commercial taxi fleets as well as use by independent Lyft and Uber drivers. Unit costs are in the $50,000 plus range. Barriers That Negatively Impact the Implementation and Sustainability of Accessible Taxi Services: The following provides an overview of factors that negatively impact the implementation and sustainability of wheelchair accessible taxi services. • High Cost to Purchase Accessible Taxis: Traditionally, many undercapitalized taxi companies or independent owner-operators purchased used sedans for their fleets. Typically, these were heavier duty, used law enforcement vehicles purchased at public auctions. More recently, there has been a shift to the procurement of newer (often) electric-gas hybrids as taxis operators become more concerned with image and attempt to reduce fuel-related operating costs. In many cases, image concerns for the traditional taxi industry has become critical as market competition from TNCs becomes stronger.
As identified above, the purchase cost of a wheelchair accessible taxi tends to be more expensive
7 TCRP Synthesis 119, (2016), p.56. 8 TCRP Synthesis 119, (2016), p. 12. 9 TCRP Synthesis 119, (2016), p 56.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 32 SANDAG
59
than the purchase of a more traditional sedan or non-modified minivan. For some taxi operators and many independent TNC operators, this relatively higher cost may discourage the procurement of a wheelchair accessible taxi. As a rule, TNC operators use their personal vehicles for for-hire service. In some cases, the higher purchase price of a wheelchair accessible vehicle may be cost prohibitive. • Higher Maintenance Costs and Shorter Vehicle Life Cycle: Earlier generation wheelchair accessible minivan conversions were often built for private use and not for more rigorous commercial passenger service use. Higher anticipated maintenance costs and shorter useable vehicle life cycles can discourage the procurement of wheelchair accessible taxis. • Density of Demand: Taxi and TNC operators tend to serve areas or locations with a high density of potential trips such as hotels, entertainment areas, transportation terminals, and medical complexes and are not willing to respond to trips far from their preferred areas of operation. They also may choose not to operate during hours when demand is lower. In the case of smaller communities, it can be difficult to ensure 24/7 coverage. Taxi and TNC operators may be reluctant to deadhead long distances to serve short trips originating and ending outside their higher density market areas, or to provide night owl coverage when demand is generally lower. Service coverage is highly market- driven. • Perceived Limitations of Market for Accessible Services: Taxi and TNC operators may view persons requiring an accessible vehicle to be too limited a market to warrant the procurement and operation of a wheelchair accessible vehicle. Many may feel it is more profitable to concentrate on the general public for-hire market requiring a more generic vehicle. • Higher Insurance Coverage Requirements for Public Transportation Agencies: Taxi insurance requirements are generally defined in local taxi ordinances. Generally, liability insurance requirements are lower than those required by contractors working for public transportation agencies. Public transportation agencies can require up to $2 million liability insurance coverage. • Fear of Exposure to Potential Liability: Taxi and TNC operators comfortable with general public markets may be apprehensive to provide service to individuals with disabilities because of a perceived risk associated with providing assistance to individuals with disabilities, and or risks of injury while in transit. Concerns include passenger injury and workplace injury to the driver. • Limited Driver Screening: In smaller communities without comprehensive taxi regulations or industry oversight, there may not be adequate driver background screening to comfortably satisfy the criminal background screening requirements of public agencies serving individuals with disabilities or older adults. In some cases, background checks can be limited to ensuring that participants have valid driver licenses. • Participation in Random Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs: Taxi companies or TNC drivers may not be willing to participate in an approved random drug and alcohol testing program for fear that they may, on occasion, not pass. As a way of keeping overheads to a minimum, taxi companies may be reluctant to incur the cost of implementing and maintaining their own ongoing testing program. In some jurisdictions, taxi companies are mandated to have a random drug and alcohol testing program. • Limited Industry-Based Driver Training or Disability Sensitivity Training Programs: Unless motivated by good business practice or mandated under local taxi ordinances, taxi companies may not provide customer service training beyond an overview of key local trip generators and attractors, critical requirements of the local taxi ordinance, and company rules and procedures. To offer
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 33 SANDAG
60
accessible taxi services or to effectively partner with a public transportation agency, wheelchair handling and driver assistance training and disability orientation/sensitivity training workshops may be required. In terms of the latter, sensitivity training must include, in addition to the handling of a mobility device, broader aspects of accessibility needs including persons with a sensory, cognitive, and other physical limitations. In practice, there may exist a resistance of some taxi drivers to provide the necessary assistance to passengers with disabilities. Reasons include inherent personal prejudices or a perception that the time necessary to assist a passenger with a disability adds too much non-revenue time to each trip. This also could be affected by liability risk concerns. • Limited Taxi Ordinance Enforcement Resources: Some jurisdictions may not have sufficient staff resources to effectively monitor and enforce compliance with local taxi ordinances, including the provision of wheelchair accessible taxi services where mandated. With supplemental taxi service contracts, local public transportation agencies may also lack the staff to monitor and enforce compliance with service agreements. One comment frequently heard: “The problems with taxis most frequently cited relate to a lack of accessible vehicles, oversight and contract compliance, and service quality and reliability.”10
EMERGING MOBILITY TECHNOLOGIES
This section explores some of the emerging mobility technologies and concepts that are either still in their infancy or yet to be tried in the specialized transportation environment. Opportunities have been identified in the following areas: • Trip Discovery/Planning; • Trip Booking; • Payments; • Service Delivery; and • Customer Information and Wayfinding. Further, available technologies have been summarized under the following categories: • Mainstream technologies: Refers to technologies that are widely deployed in the industry for solutions relevant to customers and agencies. There are very low risks in deploying such technologies. • Limited commercial deployment: While there have been some experimental deployments, either technologies/solutions have not matured or there is not enough acceptance for mainstream use by customers and/or agencies. • Pilot deployments: There have been some deployments, typically funded by USDOT grants or under public/private partnerships. Concepts or technologies are still in their infancy.
10 TCRP Synthesis 119 (2016) p. 60
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 34 SANDAG
61
• Advanced research, but no deployments: These technologies or solutions should be considered high-risk to deploy since no field testing has yet been performed.
MAINSTREAM DEPLOYMENT Personal Mobility Enhancements: There are several mainstream technologies available through many vendors that can help enhance the mobility experience of specialized transportation customers. These technologies include: • Real-time information on vehicle arrivals and service alerts. Specialized transportation customers often have access to real-time information on iPhone and Android devices as well as real-time information on a transit agency’s website. Also, trip planner capabilities should incorporate the real- time status of vehicles when displaying travel options to customers. • Account-based payment systems. • Self-service portal for demand response/specialized transit trips where customers can register, apply for, and track their eligibility and book and manage trips. • Trip notification via interactive voice response (IVR) system the night before the trip and a configurable number of minutes prior to arrival of a vehicle at pickup location. • Better adoption of continuous optimization of a commercially available scheduling engine to support same-day trips and vehicle assignments. No identified risks are anticipated in deploying suggested technology enhancements. Benefits: Suggested enhancements will have the following benefits as perceived by riders: • Improved customer experience • Service reliability • Seamless mobility
LIMITED COMMERCIAL DEPLOYMENT
3.8.2.1 ENHANCED RIDEHAILING/BOOKING Ridehailing or ridesourcing apps have been prevalent in recent years and have provided travelers additional travel alternatives. They are most suitable solutions for supplemental service. Most of the ridehailing companies now provide their public application programming interface to third party developers. This could potentially allow specialized transportation riders to book their trips with one click. However, the experience is not as seamless as it might be expected, as is the case with most mobility aggregator apps. Google Transit for example, provides a trip discovery or planning platform and booking is done by individually going to ridehailing company websites or apps. Often, transit agencies may also partner with a suitable mobility aggregator such as Moovel who
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 35 SANDAG
62
provide an integrated trip brokerage platform for booking and payment for multiple services (e.g., TNC, carshare, bikeshare, and transit) through a single trip planning app. TriMet is currently implementing such a solution as part of their Mobility-on-Demand (USDOT Sandbox) grant. Ridehailing solutions by now have been integrated with transit agencies under various models (e.g., fully or partially subsidized by agency or paid by customer) and pose limited risks. Benefits: Suggested enhancements will have the following benefits: • Enhanced trip booking and payments experience; • Seamless door-to-door mobility via multiple modes; • Increased personal mobility alternatives and first/last mile connectivity; and • Cost-savings to agency by reduction in the number of expensive demand response/specialized transit trips.
3.8.2.2 CASHLESS PAYMENTS Cashless payment systems enable customers to pay for trips electronically. A cashless system would potentially allow agencies to eliminate fareboxes, which are expensive to maintain, especially factoring in the cost associated with the daily cash collection, accounting, and reconciliation processes. However, cashless payment systems require customers to have access to banking, which is issue for historically unbanked and underbanked populations. Cash-based fare collection range around 10-30% of fare payment at most agencies. For example, even after many years of their rollout of the Ventra open payment system, Chicago Transit Authority’s cash payment ratio exists at 8%. Cash payments at suburban agency Pace are even higher at 20%. Considering a best-case scenario for banked customers, a cashless payment system requires a series of strategies to reduce the amount of cash usage by targeting specific rider market segments. Infrequent specialized transit riders and socio-economically challenged riders resort to cash-based payments. Targeted strategies could and should be developed for these market segments to steer them towards adopting cashless payments. With the advent of account-based payment, agencies now have more flexibility in steering customers towards electronic media by establishing an extensive retail network so customers have access to locations where they can buy or reload smartcards using cash, with no need for a bank account. For example, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) in Boston is planning to achieve fully cashless payment by 2020. Part of this strategy involves developing a retail reload network such that 98% of its stops have a retail location within walking distance (typically a quarter-mile). Specialized transit systems have greater opportunities in adopting cashless payments since those customers have registered accounts and could potentially be provided electronic fare media which is tied to their accounts. Also, customers could pre-pay for some of the trips online when booking. Opportunities and technologies now exist more than ever to adopt cashless payment to a certain degree. There will always remain a segment of the population that will not be able to use electronic media due to lack of a bank account - unless they use cash to replenish at a retail location. The private sector is also
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 36 SANDAG
63
advancing technologies such as PayNearMe where customers can pay using cash at a participating retail location such as CVS or 7/11 for online transactions. PayNearMe has now also partnered with Blackhawk Network where customers could go to retail locations that are interfaced with Blackhawk Network for prepaid card sale and distribution. Adopting 100% cashless payment may leave out a significant section of ridership that is unbanked or underbanked and might also raise Title VI compliance concerns.
3.8.2.3 ENHANCED WAYFINDING Wayfinding is one of the key issues in specialized transit, particularly with the senior and disabled population who may not be familiar with the transit service area. Reasons why wayfinding is an issue may include the rider’s unfamiliarity with routes and stops, poor signage, temporary relocation of stops, stops located within a large transfer center, and shared stops with another agency. In some cases, particularly with riders with a disability, their inability to locate a fixed-route stop often prompts them to use the more expensive paratransit service option. Agencies have conventionally relied on map and text-based signage and tactile guideways to help riders locate stops and other transit facilities, but modern technologies based on radio-frequency identification (RFID) or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacons open greater possibility in helping riders orient towards a bus stop and navigate. Typically, there are the following components involved in beacon-based wayfinding: • BLE tags that transmit Bluetooth signal and can be installed anywhere, indoors or outdoors. These signals can be preprogrammed to transmit specific information, such as a bus stop number; and • Riders’ smartphone that has an app to detect BLE signal and help navigate the rider through built-in accessibility features of the phone. This could be visual, audio, or haptic (e.g., vibration) feedback. Some agencies and vendors use additional features in improving the navigation aid. These include defining a geo-fence around a stop so the app on a rider’s device knows when to start the navigation. Also, BlindWays, the app developed and deployed by Perkins Institute for the Blind and Raizlabs in partnership with MBTA in Boston has a crowdsourcing feature that allows riders to mark obstructions or physical objects (e.g., tree, fire hydrants, potholes, broken sidewalks) on the map which helps the app to use that information and provide proper guidance to visually impaired riders. PathVu is also a crowdsourcing application that allows riders who use a mobility device (scooters or wheelchairs) to navigate safely to their location.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 37 SANDAG
64
There are apps meant to address specific types of disabilities as well. For example, WayFinder 3 by AbleLink, also featured by USDOT’s Accessible Transportation Technology Research Initiative (ATTRI) program, allows riders with cognitive disabilities to orient and navigate themselves while traveling. For general public riders, vendors are starting to launch apps that use augmented reality for better wayfinding. These apps use the smartphone camera to display real-time information to the stop location at which the camera is pointing. Such tools can be very useful to infrequent users of transit. While there have been several deployments of BLE-based beacons, they are still not mainstream, particularly in a transit environment. Key issues with this approach are the training of customers with a disability and the need, in most cases, for a smartphone. Also, it is important to make sure the navigation map being used for directions has an updated database of not just locations, but also any physical obstructions. Maintenance of beacons is also a concern. Beacons operate on battery power and there will need to be a way for an agency to know the battery level to ensure beacons can be serviced when running out of power. The biggest beneficiaries of wayfinding solution will be riders with disabilities. However better wayfinding solutions will also assist general public riders and could prompt more riders to take fixed- route transit service.
PILOT DEPLOYMENTS
3.8.3.1 CONNECTED AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES A self-driving vehicle (sometimes called an autonomous vehicle or driverless vehicle) is a vehicle that uses a combination of sensors, cameras, radar and artificial intelligence (AI) to travel between destinations without a human operator. While most agencies are still running pilot programs for field testing in a controlled environment, some municipalities such as Las Vegas have already started running Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAV) shuttles in mixed traffic. A key component of a CAV shuttle solution should be to link these vehicles with an overall control center, so riders can hail these shuttles like any other ridehailing service and board them at designated stops. Given the size of these vehicles (16 seats or less) these shuttles can be operated on most streets in any neighborhood given their lower turn-radius needs. Further, the “connected” aspect of these shuttles can be utilized for ensuring pedestrian and passenger safety as discussed in the next section. V2X sensors installed on the vehicles can interact with other vehicles and roadside equipment for collision avoidance. Advanced vision sensors such as those offered by MobileEye can be used for object detection and collision avoidance as well. While agencies are running pilot programs with key CAV providers such as Navya, EasyMile, Local Motors, and operators such as Transdev and Keolis, safety and reliability continue to be an issue. The
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 38 SANDAG
65
shuttle Keolis ran in Las Vegas was involved in an accident on Day 1 of testing. Even though the vehicle was not at fault, it stopped to avoid a collision with the vehicle in front instead of backing up a little as a human driver would do. These shuttles could still be operated in dedicated guideways, similar to Jacksonville Transit Authority’s experimental Urban Circulator project. Manufacturers continue to test and perfect the technology behind autonomous driving. CAV shuttles offer a promising future for providing additional mobility options including first/last mile connectivity given the small size of these vehicles, “connected” nature, and reduced operating cost due to being driverless.
ENHANCED SAFETY SOLUTIONS Pedestrian safety is an important factor in planning mobility solutions for older adults and individuals with a disability. Connected vehicle technology can assist with ensuring safety through collision avoidance and warning systems. There are the following types of technologies in testing/pilot stages: • V2X Safety Solution: Vehicle to vehicle (V2V), vehicle to infrastructure (V2I), vehicle to pedestrian (V2P) and similar technologies where vehicles and road side equipment communicate over secure, dedicated short range communication (DSRC) to alert pedestrians or bikers at intersections and other vehicles equipped with V2V sensors; and • Vision-sensor and Range Sensor based Collision Avoidance: Technology used in autonomous vehicles could also be installed in regular (transit) vehicles for object detection and collision warning/avoidance. This technology includes vision and/or range sensors on vehicles that interact with an on-board vehicle computer to process data and detect objects. Drivers or pedestrians are warned about potential collisions. In some cases, breaks could be applied automatically to avoid an accident. V2X technology is still being developed and not available in commercial space. USDOT pilot demonstrations have used after-market kits from Savari Networks and others for providing V2X functionality. However, given DSRC has been widely adopted as the standard in the industry, several car manufacturers are starting to include DSRC connectivity functionality in their vehicles. There is no expected timeline on any transit vehicles or transit system vendors incorporating such connectivity in their solutions. Vision and range sensor based technology is more widely available from Mobile Eye (now part of Intel). These units are expensive though and cost $5,000-$7,500 per vehicle and hence restrict agencies from widely deploying these units. Benefits: Safety is critical to transit industry, particularly given Vision Zero initiatives that seek to eliminate traffic-related fatalities. While safety technologies mentioned in this section are not mainstream yet they are expected to be widely deployed in coming years. Presence of such technologies, particularly on autonomous vehicles will give riders extra confidence when riding the vehicles. Similar to any technology deployment, equipment installed on vehicles or at roadside infrastructure will require maintenance to ensure failsafe operation. This may have staffing impacts on the organization.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 39 SANDAG
66
3.8.4.1 MOBILITY AS A SERVICE Mobility as a Service (MaaS) takes the integration of mobility services across the transportation network to another level. Within the MaaS framework, public transit is the backbone and other mobility solutions complement the public transit foundation by expanding the service area. The goal is to provide people with more options for efficient and convenient travel. MaaS can help improve transportation network equity by providing these opportunities to more people, beyond the population served by public transit alone. Beyond simply providing more travel options, MaaS dissolves boundaries between various transportation modes and can offer mobility as a “package.” At its most advanced, MaaS offers a monthly subscription, similar to a cell phone plan, where users can choose which services (e.g. Uber, bikeshare) to include in their package. With transit as the backbone, we can also foresee transit agencies in regions with MaaS transitioning more towards becoming “mobility managers.” As many of the nation’s transit agencies advances Smart City initiatives, there are opportunities to consider integrated trip planning and payment and move towards a MaaS model. Electronically, different transportation modes and mobility solutions may be integrated through a mobile device application, generally complemented with a web portal and/or call center. (The latter recognizes that not all riders will be able and/or willing to use a mobile device application.) Such an integrator is equipped with functions including inter-modal real-time information, inter-modal trip planning, inter-modal trip booking, and inter-modal payment. There are potential benefits related to an integrated platform for mobility. For instance, in San Francisco when a new transit agency is added to the integrated fare management system, all transit agencies in the management system have seen an increase in ridership. In North America, MaaS is not yet as advanced as in Europe where this concept originated. Key elements of a MaaS framework are open data, service interoperability, and an account-based payment system. While agencies in the US have adopted open data for trip discovery/planning and real-time passenger information, there are no standards for transactional data exchange such as trip booking, service coordination, payment, billing, and invoicing. The MaaS framework changes the way agencies do business today. Agencies have the flexibility to take on a role of a brokerage service, particularly for demand response trips, and work with regional public and private players for fulfilling service requests. However, agencies will have to develop appropriate business models for service delivery. MaaS is basically the “Netflix or Amazon of Transportation” where agencies can provide their own service but also offer services from other operators in the MaaS marketplace. Agencies should develop institutional agreements with providers to cover legal and other concerns such as customer safety, security, data privacy, driver and vehicle due diligence, and other aspects. MaaS framework can provide several benefits as follows: • Ubiquity of travel options involving a variety of modes and operators; — Seamless travel across modes offered by participating service operators; — Better management of discounts and travel incentives; — Reduced use of car travel resulting in reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and better air quality; and
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 40 SANDAG
67
— Ability of agencies to serve larger geographic areas by partnering with public and private service operators.
ADVANCED RESEARCH BUT NO DEPLOYMENTS
3.8.5.1 BETTER SERVICE INTEROPERABILITY WITH TRANSACTIONAL DATA STANDARDS The consulting firm, Demand Trans, under contract with the Transportation Research Board (TRB) is conducting research to address the development of standards for data exchange between demand response service providers. The key focus of the research involves (per research statement from the TRB): • Develop specifications that may evolve, at some future time, to standards for transactional data; • Consider privacy and security in the transmission and storage of transactional data; • Identify key strategies to encourage adoption of the proposed specifications; • Propose and carry out an approach for testing the specifications; • Create an open source tool for data producers to validate their data against the specifications; and • Create and convene a forum for consensus-based refinement of the technical specifications. • Demand Trans is still conducting the study and has not released any information in the public domain yet. Benefits: Key benefit of transactional data standards are as follows: • Better coordination among demand response/specialized service providers at regional scale; • Increased integration among demand response systems from different vendors; and • Efficient deployment of platforms such as MaaS.
3.8.5.2 BLOCKCHAIN-BASED TRIP BOOKING AND PAYMENT Blockchain is the technology that is behind cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, but it has much wider applications. Blockchain is considered the “new Internet” where every transaction record ever created is stored in permanent information blocks. This can be perceived as a distributed ledger that does not reside in one single database. Blockchain has the potential to eliminate huge amounts of record-keeping and save money. Blockchain is a public electronic ledger that can be openly shared among disparate users and that creates an unchangeable record of their transactions, each one time-stamped and linked to the previous one. Each digital record or transaction in the thread is called a block (hence the name), and it allows either an open or controlled set of users to participate in the electronic ledger. Each block is linked to a specific participant. Given the distributed/decentralized nature of Blockchain, it can allow individual customers to book and pay for trips using systems that don’t necessarily have access to a central database or booking or payment system. Booking or payment systems used by customers will essentially be written transactions in the same Blockchain. Providers and users of those individual systems can also execute contracts and agreements electronically. Those agreements are part of the
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 41 SANDAG
68
Blockchain as well. Further, peer-to-peer transactions between customers and service providers are verified against contractual terms and conditions. This concept can help with service models such as MaaS where the decentralization of trip booking, and payment ledger can help expand participation of service providers across a large geographic area. Blockchain is still in its infancy in terms of its application in the transportation industry. There are few examples, and none that involve human transportation. However, it is likely that MaaS solution providers may realize the benefits of the decentralized nature of transactional database and start commercial deployments as pilot programs. There are a couple of examples of Blockchain-based implementations for carsharing and other related applications where customers can execute smart contracts, book, and pay. These include a DOVU partnership venture between Toyota Research Institute and MIT Media Lab, and Tesseract platform from EY. Benefits: As discussed, decentralized database, particularly in the context of demand response transportation, autonomous shuttles, and MaaS service delivery model can help attract customers who typically do not use transit due to difficulty in accessing booking and payment application. This problem is especially acute when different system providers are used by entities such as a parking operator, toll operator and transit service operators.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 42 SANDAG
69
4 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Transit agencies in the United States have been partnering with private sector such as TNCs, private microtransit companies, and real-time routing and dispatching software providers for more than two years now, particularly since the MoD Sandbox initiative was launched by USDOT. However, transit agencies are still assessing how best to position themselves in the shifting paradigm of mobility. Throughout this time agencies have experimented with replacing existing services, complementing current services, and adding new services. Given most of the operating cost in transit industry is attributed to direct driver employment and vehicle ownership, agencies have experimented with a variety of models, where they 1) operate a service on their own; 2) use a contractor to run their services; or 3) partner with TNCs or taxis and subsidize trip cost. There is no clear conclusion on the best model, and it varies largely depending on the type of service being provided and the ridership demography. The experiments continue. The transit industry is witnessing a rapidly changing world fueled by internet-age technologies. The power of the internet allows agencies to plan and deploy technologies at a rapid pace even in situations when multiple service providers are involved. Several technologies/solutions identified in this document have either been field tested as part of a pilot program or have been widely deployed. Solutions such as MaaS, while still having very limited deployments, promise a great future given their ability to bring different providers together under a common service model. Technologies and solutions discussed in this document will be further discussed as part of the Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan document finalization process to identify (longer-term) demonstration opportunities either through public private partnership or through USDOT research funds, as available under ATTRI and Connected Vehicles programs.
WSP Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan Peer Review/Industry Best Practices – Final Working Paper Page 43 SANDAG
70
APPENDIX - LITERATURE SEARCH FINDINGS
The following section presents a synthesis of several relevant documents on specialized transportation that are germane to the development of SANDAG’s Specialized Transportation Strategic Plan. For each document, a summary is provided and an explanation provided on the relevance to the development of the SANDAG Plan. Integrating Americans with Disabilities Act Paratransit Services and Health and Human Services Transportation Source: Transit Cooperative Research Program. Research Results Digest. April 1997 – Number 10. Summary: This report explains how public transit operators can coordinate ADA paratransit and transportation programs supported by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in order to reduce the cost of providing such services. The report gathers information on successful programs, and recommends how more programs can achieve a higher degree of effectiveness. The report concludes that further research is needed at all levels (local, regional, and statewide) to: • Develop and publish ADA/HHS coordination best-practice model programs demonstrating costs savings and service improvements. • Examine different levels of paratransit service to determine the distinctions between ADA paratransit service and medical transportation. • Develop a methodology for human service providers to measure their true transportation costs. • Develop informational material to help agency staff understand the impact and implications of ADA on paratransit services. • Identify the statutes, the availability of funding, and a method to determine the cost of a trip to recover the full operating costs.
Florida Statute: Title XXX, Chapter 427: Special Transportation and Communications Service, current By statute, the primary legislative purpose for the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged is as follows: The purpose of the commission is to accomplish the coordination of transportation services provided to the transportation disadvantaged. The goal of this coordination shall be to assure the cost-effective provision of transportation by qualified community transportation coordinators … Therefore, the Commission has two essential functions: to provide cost-effective transportation services to a class of transportation-disadvantaged citizens and, second, to deliver those services in each locality of the state through locally acting, qualified community transportation coordinators. (427.0155) Community Transportation Coordinators; Powers and Duties: Community transportation coordinators shall have the following powers and duties: (1) Execute uniform contracts for service using a standard contract, which includes performance standards for operators. (2) Collect annual operating data for submittal to the commission. (3) Review all transportation operator contracts annually. (4) Approve and coordinate the utilization of school bus and public transportation services in accordance with the transportation disadvantaged service plan. (5) In cooperation with a functioning coordinating board, review all applications for local government, federal, and state transportation disadvantaged funds, and develop cost-effective coordination strategies. 71
(6) In cooperation with, and approved by, the coordinating board, develop, negotiate, implement, and monitor a memorandum of agreement including a service plan, for submittal to the commission. (7) In cooperation with the coordinating board and pursuant to criteria developed by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, establish priorities regarding the recipients of non-sponsored transportation disadvantaged services that are purchased with Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund moneys. (8) Have full responsibility for the delivery of transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged as outlined in s. 427.015(2). (9) Work cooperatively with regional workforce boards established in chapter 445 to provide assistance in the development of innovative transportation services for participants in the welfare transition program. Economic Benefits of Coordinating Human Service Transportation and Transit Services Source: Executive Summary of TCRP Report 91 – Economic Benefits of Coordinating Human Service Transportation and Transit Services, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 2004 This report describes “basic coordination concepts, typical economic benefits of coordination, strategies that enable transportation operators to achieve significant economic benefits from coordinating their operations, and potential overall industry impacts” through the integration of paratransit services. Coordination: Providing for shared authority, responsibility, management, and funding are seen as the key elements to coordination. Significant savings can result from the coordination of such functions as: • Service planning • Purchasing • Vehicle operations • Maintenance activities • Marketing Envisioning coordination as a “political process” is important to success, and recognizing that efforts to establish coordination may require an initial investment of time and energy spent discussing and negotiating collaborative agreements. Bringing together multiple organizations and levels of government is often necessary, and a willingness to be open-minded toward change is critical. Economic and Non-Economic Benefits of Coordination: Economic benefits ascribed to coordination of transportation services include: • Additional opportunities for funding • Increased efficiency: reduced costs per vehicle hour or per mile • Increased productivity: more trips per month or passengers per vehicle hour • Enhanced mobility: increased access to jobs or health care, or trips provided to passengers at a lower cost per trip; and • Additional economic benefits: increased levels of economic development in the community or employment benefits for those persons associated with the transportation service. Other, non-economic benefits that may result from coordination of services can include: • Improving service quality (on-time services, better trained drivers, better vehicles, and more safety equipment) • Increasing the number of people and groups served — Expanding service areas
72
APPENDIX
— Centralization of management and oversight activities — More accurate reporting of costs and outputs
Strategies for Achieving the Benefits of Coordination: Analysis of existing conditions is seen as a primary tool for achieving benefits through coordination of service. Is the service experiencing low vehicle utilization or do high trip costs exist? These are just some of the results that can be revealed. Once issues have been identified, it is important to establish specific goals and strategies to address identified issues. To increase revenues and improve utilization, it is suggested that opportunities to provide additional service under contract to Medicaid or other “human service agencies” be explored, or to augment school district bus services. Such joint service programs could be beneficial for both transit service providers and the clients of these programs. Two major programs of this nature include implementations by Miami-Dade Transit, and Portland, Oregon’s Tri-Met. Another strategy would be consideration of an area-wide coordinated dispatching system, and vehicle sharing arrangements. As noted in the report, dispatching vehicles from a centralized point would address: • Overlapping routes • Duplication of service • Inefficient route design • Poorly timed schedules Coordinated dispatching can result in lower per trip costs, increased productivity per vehicle, and improved community service. Reduced per trip costs and increased productivity mean that more services can be provided with the existing level of funding. Ultimately, the aggregate potential benefits of coordination will depend on a number of factors. Total savings would be determined after an assessment of changes in the existing system to be undertaken as part of the coordinated provision of services. Conclusions • Strategies that coordinate shifting paratransit services to fixed route services, and having ADA paratransit services provided by non-transit agencies • Partnership arrangements that expand transportation services into areas not now receiving public transit services. • Coordination of the transportation functions of multiple human service agencies • Generation of additional income for transit authorities through the provision of travel services to clients of human service agencies.
73
Statement of Findings – Senior Related Transportation Issues Source: California Commission on Aging Forum “Planning for an Aging California”, 2005 Coordinated transportation options are required for the many older Californians who do not or cannot use private automobiles. Large numbers of older adults are served by conventional transit and paratransit services required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, there are some useful steps that can be taken in order to provide appropriate services. Recommendations and findings from this forum included: 1) A continuum of coordinated services a) Helping create mechanisms for increased coordination of transportation services, and connecting seniors with them b) Assisting community-based transportation services with training, as well as with access to funding, and the encouragement of favorable insurance regulations. c) Including in “mature-driver” education programs information regarding alternative mobility programs. 2) Dealing with the isolation in rural areas which presents challenges to seniors trying to reach essential services. a) Encouragement of innovation in services and service delivery through flexibility in farebox recovery requirements, as defined in the Transportation Development Act (TDA) b) Additional guidance and oversight of the TDA’s “unmet transit needs process”, to ensure fair consideration of proposed transit services. 3) Integrate transportation into delivery of Health and Human Services a) Establishment of a Mobility Task Force, to be comprised of representatives from the Health and Human Services Agency and Caltrans. b) Creation of mobility managers in each locality, who would be responsible for “connecting clients with appropriate services.” 4) Coordination While addressed in the recommendations above, it was suggested to convene a “mobility summit” to implement strategies and recommendations from the transportation component of the Statewide Strategic Plan on Aging. 5) Planning and Design of communities, with the mobility needs of older people in mind. People can become stranded in their own communities when they experience difficulty in driving, especially in those communities that are difficult to serve by transit and require a car to access basic services. Features that limit the ability to provide transit service include: • Lack of through streets • Long distances between residential areas and essential services, • Separation from other built up areas. The ability to walk and to get to and from transit service is limited by lack of sidewalks Street patterns that create excessive walking distances between homes and potential transit routes, and wide streets without adequate provision for pedestrian crossings should be avoided. Even older adults who do drive can find their mobility limited by the layout of residential and commercial developments if these do not take their needs into consideration. In some cases, communities specifically 74
APPENDIX
marketed to attract older people lack provision for transit and walking. In other cases, major residential facilities or services for older adults have been built in hilly areas and on the fringes of built-up areas where transit access and walking are difficult. Many communities are promoting “smart growth” principles that emphasize pedestrian access and other design features to create more community feeling. However, the features of smart growth developments are not necessary designed with the needs of older drivers and pedestrians in mind. The California Task Force on Older Adults and Traffic Safety has focused on the concept of “walkable communities” and identified the following features to help create safe walking environments for older pedestrians: 1. Mixed-use zoning (combined commercial and residential) 2. Fixed lighting installations 3. Rest spots and benches on sidewalks 4. Well-maintained, obstacle-free sidewalks 5. Adequate safe and accessible roadway crossings
6) Funding – Identification and quantification of current state-administered spending on transportation by seniors. Additional information regarding senior’s attitudes and issues regarding transit services was provided. Results of research and statistical information included: 1. Transit service is lacking or very limited in many suburbs, especially in more recently developed areas, and in rural areas. 2. Transit service is often limited in off-peak periods when many seniors prefer to travel. 3. Seniors’ ability or willingness to use transit may be limited by long travel times, long distances to stops, difficulty boarding vehicles, inconsistent announcement of stops, confusing presentation of information (e.g. rolling destination signs, wrapped buses), fear of crime, lack of shelters and benches, and uncomfortable seats. 4. Many seniors find it hard to switch from driving to transit. 5. Many trips require transfers between transit operators, and centralization of medical services is increasing the need for multi-operator trips. These multi-operator trips can be confusing to plan and difficult to complete. 6. Despite reduced fares on transit, some very low-income seniors have difficulty affording transportation. 7. Many seniors cannot travel independently on transit. 8. Transit services appropriate to seniors making local intra-community trips are often not available.
75
Transportation Disadvantage Populations: Some Coordination Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles Persist Source: United States General Accounting Office (GAO) Report to Congressional Requesters. GAO-03-697; 2003. (Washington, D.C.). The General Accounting Office is the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of Congress. GAO exists to support the Congress in meeting its Constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds, evaluates federal programs and activities, and provides analyses, options, recommendations, and other assistance to help the Congress make effective oversight, policy, and funding decisions. In this context, GAO works to continuously improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the federal government through financial audits, program reviews and evaluations, analyses, legal opinions, investigations, and other services. GAO's activities are designed to ensure the executive branch's accountability to the Congress under the Constitution and the government's accountability to the American people. GAO is dedicated to good government through its commitment to the core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. This study was completed by the GAO to access federal programs that exist to serve the “transportation disadvantaged”. Specifically, this GAO study: 1. Identifies the federal programs that fund such services and the expenditures 2. Assesses the extent of coordination among the various programs, and 3. Identifies obstacles to coordination and potential ways to overcome such obstacles. Background: Throughout the United States, many senior, disabled, and low-income individuals face significant challenges in transportation mobility and access. A recent survey and analysis of consumers age 50+ (AARP survey) concluded that 16 percent of respondents over age 75 reported not having a driver’s license, and 25 percent of the respondents had not driven at least once in the last month according to the survey. Older adults are also more likely to have difficulty accessing traditional public transportation due to physical ailments. Thirty percent of respondents with disabilities reported difficulty in accessing transportation, compared to 10 percent of respondents without a disability. Low-income households are less likely to own a car than other households due to the prohibitive cost of purchasing, insuring, and maintaining a car, and public transportation may not provide sufficient options for their needs. Over 90 percent of public assistance recipients do not own a car. Study Conclusions - Identified Federal Programs: Overall, the title of this GAO report states its general conclusion, that “some coordination efforts [exist] among programs, but obstacles persist.” The GAO identified 62 federal programs that fund transportation services to populations that are transportation- disadvantage, most of which are administered by four federal agencies – the Departments of Health and Human Services ([HHS] 23), Labor ([DOL] 15), Education ([DOE] 8), and Transportation ([DOT] 6). The remaining 10 programs are in the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and the Interior. Many of the 62 programs are significantly involved in providing transportation services to their recipients. Sixteen of them are routinely used to provide transportation and an additional 11 programs spent at least $4 million for transportation services to transportation-disadvantaged populations. The remaining programs also fund transportation services, but do so minimally, or the extent of transportation services funded is unknown, according to program officials. Expenditures: The full amount these programs spend on transportation is unknown because transportation is not always tracked separately from other spending. However, available information on 29 of the programs
76
APPENDIX
indicate that federal expenditures are at an estimated $2.4 billion. The amount spent on transportation services by the remaining federal programs is unknown, mainly because the majority of programs do not require recipients of federal funds to report transportation spending information to the federal agency. It is however estimated that the total program obligations for the remaining 33 programs were approximately $14.8 billion (it is unknown how much of the $14.8 billion was devoted to providing transportation services). Approximately half of the 62 programs have matching requirements that require states and localities to contribute between 5 and 50 percent of total costs. Total state and local spending for transportation services, which supplements federal spending for such services, is likely significant, at least in the hundreds of millions. It is difficult to determine the amount of nonfederal contributions to transportation services on the basis of matching requirements because grantees are generally required to match total program spending rather than spending for a particular service, such as transportation. Detailed information is also not available due to the lack of reporting requirements. Coordination Efforts: Under most of these federal programs, funding recipients typically purchase transportation services from existing sources, including contracting for services with private transportation providers or providing bus tokens, transit passes, taxi vouchers, mileage reimbursement to volunteers or program participants, or some combination of these methods. Efforts to improve services and achieve cost savings through coordination of transportation activities (sharing resources/information or consolidation of services) among federal agencies vary. Several of these programs have requirements for grantees to coordinate their services with other agencies providing similar services. For example, Head Start grantees are required to make every reasonable effort to coordinate transportation services they provide with other human service transportation in their community. In addition, some programs have provisions designed to avoid duplication of efforts and encourage the use of existing community resources. It was shown that in some areas, coordination efforts among providers including those mentioned above, has shown promising benefits including improved customer service, service improvements and lower unit costs. However, examples of overlapping, fragmented, or confusing services resulting was also cited due to lack of coordination. Federal Level: At the federal level, the DOT, HHS, and DOL have all undertaken some activities to improve coordination among their programs, largely by with the assistance of the Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility. However, DOT and HHS make few references for coordinating services for the transportation-disadvantaged in their strategic and annual plans, and other agencies do not mention such activities at all. Also, several federal agencies that provide services to the transportation-disadvantaged are not involved in coordination efforts at the national level. State and Local Levels: Efforts to coordinate transportation activities and services at the state and local levels varies widely, more so than at the federal level. Approximately 50 percent of States have a State organization which oversees the coordination of most of the transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged. In some states however, no such statewide coordination body exists, but even in states without coordination organizations, some of the state and local agencies were engaged in coordination efforts. Examples of coordination efforts include:
77
• Coordinated planning: this type of effort uses a combination of human service and transportation agencies and providers working together to plan transportation services, i.e. Wisconsin’s Area Consortium on Transportation formed to improve the planning and provision of transportation for the disabled and those who are transit-dependent. This council consisting of consumers, transit providers, county and city officials, disability organizations, and aging groups has implemented various pilot coordination programs. • Brokerage: In this type of coordination effort, one agency or provider serves as the central point of contact for providing ride and eligibility information for actually arranging transportation services for clients of multiple programs, i.e., officials in several counties in New York wanted to maximize residents’ mobility by coordinating transportation services offered by various federal and state programs, but lacked the expertise or start-up costs to do so. Using grant funds from the Departments of Transportation and Health, the counties instituted a coordination demonstration project whereby one agency coordinates service for patrons for all the counties involved. • Shared use of vehicles among multiple programs: In this type of coordination effort, one agency may provide transportation for patrons of multiple programs, or each program may own its own vehicles but allows them to be shared by other programs. In Arizona, vans from one county’s vocational rehabilitation center travels to a neighboring county to pick up program clients. Costs are split equally between the participating program authorities. Effects of a Lack of Coordination: Examples of overlapping services have been found in areas where some populations are eligible to receive transportation services from multiple programs. This lack of coordination between provider’s results in duplication and inefficiency. In areas where it is too difficult to mix clients due to complicated fee structures and paperwork requirements imposed by the state, some providers have experienced two vehicles overlapping service on the same route at the same time, one for medical trips and one for paratransit. Workforce development programs have suffered from a lack of coordination, resulting in high average cost per trip, due to low ridership and diluted ridership (each program utilizes their own separate vans for service). Other consequences may include fragmented services and confusion in localities without coordinated programs. A lack of coordination results in fragmented services, placing a burden on people who receive transportation through many different programs/jurisdictions, depending on trip purpose, because they must be familiar with multiple systems, rules, and requirements. Fragmentation also occurs when adjoining counties do not coordinate their public transportation routes leaving riders stranded due to unconnected transit systems. In some states, paratransit services do not extend beyond county lines, so people have to schedule two separate trips with usually two different programs to successfully complete their planned trips. For providers in other states that have contracts to provide transportation services for clients in multiple human service programs, a lack of coordinated efforts has led to the need to purchase separate dispatching and reservation systems for its vehicles to comply with differing reporting and eligibility requirements. Strategic Planning Efforts: One reason that coordination efforts have not been more effective is because the Council is not a federal executive branch agency, the Coordinating Council is not subject to the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and, therefore, does not have to follow the act’s guidance for producing strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual reports. However, there are some best practices in strategic planning that could be applied to the next update of the Councils strategic plan and action plan. For example, the current plan does not have an overall mission statement for the Council or performance measures that clearly relate to its long-term goals and objectives. In addition, there are no explicit links between the stated goals and objectives in the strategic plan and the activities in the action plan. The Council’s dependence on HHS and DOT is also an issue. Because the Council has no funding or full-time staff of its own, it is dependent on support from HHS and DOT. However, neither of these departments
78
APPENDIX
considers coordination of services for the transportation-disadvantaged as a priority in its long-term strategic plan or annual performance plan. The strategic and annual performance plans of many federal agencies that fund transportation services for the transportation-disadvantage generally do not mention coordination of services, i.e., DOT’s and HHS’s most recent strategic plan and performance plan do not explicitly mention the Council.
79
Innovative State and Local Planning for Coordinated Transportation Source: United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 2002. Congress has directed the Secretaries of the Departments of Transportation (DOT) and Health and Human Services (DHHS) Coordinating Council, to work together to develop guidelines for state and local planning agencies to achieve transportation coordination objectives." These include but are not limited to: • Joint identification of client transportation needs; • Identification of the appropriate mix of services to meet these needs; • The expanded use of public transportation to deliver human service transportation; and • Cost-sharing arrangements for program clients transported by paratransit systems. In support of this process, the U.S. DOT's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), working with the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Office of Planning, undertook this study of "Innovative State and Local Planning for Coordinated Transportation." The study examines seven specific planning strategies that can be used as part of a flexible regional planning process for coordinating transportation services of health and human service and transit agencies. The DOT/DHHS Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility has also authored "Planning Guidelines for Coordinated State and Local Specialized Transportation Services," which complements this report and is cross- referenced. This report focuses on 15 case studies of transportation coordination. On a statewide level, in urban areas, and in rural communities, various organizations come together through many different forums to take advantage of the benefits of greater coordination of local transportation services. As the case studies presented illustrate, coordination can occur through many different forums including: • Statewide task forces and coordinating councils • Local health and human service agencies • Local advisory boards • A grass roots coalitions • MPOs • Transit agencies • Local brokers Through these forums, coordinated transportation planning is occurring to improve access to transportation through inter-agency coordination resulting in more efficient uses of available resources, cost savings, and expanded services. In each of the case studies, coordination has resulted from a combination of the seven planning strategies examined in this report. Because these strategies are interdependent and often blended together, in many cases it is difficult to single out specific strategies.
80
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 13 March 13, 2019 Specialized Transportation Grant Program Cycle 10 Call For Projects: Senior Mini-Grant Funding Recommendations
Overview Action: Discussion The ITOC is asked to review and discuss the Through the Specialized Transportation Grant Program, proposed Senior Mini-Grant projects SANDAG distributes Federal Transit Administration recommended for funding for consistency with Section 5310 and TransNet Senior Mini-Grant funding to the eligibility requirements of the TransNet support projects that improve mobility for seniors and Extension Ordinance. individuals with disabilities. In accordance with Section 4.C.2. of the TransNet Ordinance, funds shall be used to support a competitive grant program for Fiscal Impact: nonprofit organizations and local agencies. The funds Pending approval by the Board of Directors, shall be used to provide specialized transportation approximately $3.1 million in TransNet Senior services for seniors focusing on innovative and cost- Mini-Grant funding would be awarded to effective approaches to providing improved senior specialized transportation projects. transportation, including but not limited to, shared Schedule/Scope Impact: group services, special shuttle services using volunteer Grant agreements for funded projects would forces, and brokerage of multi-jurisdictional occur in summer 2019. transportation services. Based on feedback from the Transportation Committee, the Board of Directors approved the criteria and released the call for projects for Cycle 10 of the Specialized Transportation Grant Program on July 27, 2018. Applications were due October 2018. Approximately $3.1 million in Senior Mini-Grant funding and $4.1 million in Section 5310 funding is available for award.
Key Considerations SANDAG received Senior Mini-Grant applications from 16 agencies requesting nearly $5 million to support 21 projects. Based on project rankings, ten projects are being recommended for full funding and one project for partial funding (Attachment 1). A social equity analysis was conducted of the draft funding recommendations and no disproportionate effects for low-income populations or disparate impacts for minority populations were found. The Transportation Committee reviewed the Senior Mini-Grant project rankings and funding recommendations at its February 15, 2019, meeting.
Next Steps The funding recommendations will be brought to the Transportation Committee meeting on March 15, 2019, for recommendation to the Board of Directors for approval at its March 22, 2019, meeting.
Charles “Muggs” Stoll, Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning Key Staff Contact: Audrey Porcella, (619) 699-1961, [email protected] Attachment: 1. TransNet Senior Mini-Grant Project Rankings and Funding Recommendations
Attachment 1 Cycle 10 Call for Projects ‐ TransNet Senior Mini‐Grant Project Rankings and Funding Recommendations
FY20 FY21 TransNet Senior Mini‐Grant Projects TransNet Funding $1,522,628 $1,581,627
Recommended Grant Request Remaining Funding Line ID Organization Abbreviated Project Name Project Type Average Score Sum of Ranks Final Rank Grant Award Y1 Y2 Y1 Y2 FY20 FY21 1 FACT Brokerage Management trip referrals 95 8 1 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,322,628 $1,381,627 information and referrals, 2 FACT CTSA Services 94 11 2 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $1,222,628 $1,281,627 regional coordination 3 FACT RideFACT contracted transportation 93 21 3 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,022,628 $1,081,627 volunteer driver program, shuttles, 4 Jewish Family Service OTG Eastern San Diego 90 24 4 $168,182 $168,182 $168,182 $168,182 $854,446 $913,445 on‐demand transportation volunteer driver program, shuttles, 5 Jewish Family Service OTG Northern San Diego 89 29 5 $167,414 $167,414 $167,414 $167,414 $687,032 $746,031 on‐demand transportation volunteer driver program, shuttles, 6 City of La Mesa Rides4Neighbors 86 29 5 $142,825 $145,725 $142,825 $145,725 $544,207 $600,306 on‐demand transportation, taxi vouchers volunteer driver program, shuttles, 7 Jewish Family Service OTG North County Inland 89 31 7 $161,645 $161,645 $161,645 $161,645 $382,562 $438,661 on‐demand transportation volunteer driver program, taxi vouchers, MTS Access 8 Travelers Aid Society SenioRide and NCTD LIFT vouchers, 86 32 8 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $182,562 $238,661 senior transit passes 9 Travelers Aid Society RIDEFinder information and referrals, travel training 85 34 9 $43,500 $42,000 $43,500 $42,000 $139,062 $196,661 10 Peninsula Shepherd Center Out and About Peninsula Senior Transportation volunteer driver program, shuttles 84 36 10 $64,000 $68,000 $64,000 $68,000 $75,062 $128,661 11 City of Oceanside Solutions for Seniors on the Go on‐demand transportation, RideFACT trips 87 37 11 $200,000 $200,000 $75,062 $128,661 $0$0 12 Renewing Life Renewing Life Senior Volunteer Driver Program volunteer driver program 82 44 12 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Metropolitan Transit System Travel Training travel training 80 51 13 $61,200 $61,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 volunteer driver program, shuttles, 14 City of Vista Out and About Transportation 83 52 14 $93,544 $98,152 $0 $0 $0 $0 taxi vouchers 15 Foundation for Senior Care Expanded Care Van Services volunteer driver program 81 53 15 $133,500 $133,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 16 City of Coronado Coronado Seniors Out and About volunteer driver program 77 62 16 $32,632 $32,632 $0 $0 $0 $0 17 ElderHelp Seniors A Go Go volunteer driver program 78 63 17 $86,188 $164,209 $0 $0 $0 $0 18 Serving Seniors Home‐to‐Health Senior Transportation Program volunteer driver program 74 72 18 $128,802 $133,547 $0 $0 $0 $0 19 City of San Marcos Catch A Ride! Transportation Program RideFACT trips, shuttles, travel training 73 73 19 $30,386 $49,576 $0 $0 $0 $0 20 City of Chula Vista Chula Vista Senior Travel Training travel training, senior transit passes 69 75 20 $53,960 $53,960 $0 $0 $0 $0 21 Circulate San Diego Transit for Fun ‐ Mobility Training for Older Adults travel training 68 75 20 $58,375 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Recommended for full funding Recommended for partial funding Not recommended for funding
2
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 14A March 13, 2019 TransNet Ten-Year Review: Implementation Update
Overview Action: Information The TransNet Ten-Year Comprehensive Program Review Staff will present an update on Look-Back was conducted by an independent implementation of the first TransNet Ten-Year performance auditor and approved by the Board of Review. Directors in January 2018. A summary of the Ten-Year Look-Back is included as Attachment 1. In July 2018, the Fiscal Impact: Board of Directors approved the Look-Ahead Efforts to implement the TransNet Ten-Year implementation approach for the Ten-Year Review Review are funded through Overall Work (Attachment 2) based on recommendations and feedback Program (OWP) Project No. 1500100 TransNet received during the Look-Back portion of the Ten-Year Financial Management in the FY 2019 Review. Program Budget. Schedule/Scope Impact: Key Considerations The Ten-Year Review kicked-off in summer TransNet Program performance since the program 2017 with a look back at performance for the began in 2005 was evaluated as part of the TransNet TransNet Program. The look-ahead portion of Ten-Year Review Look-Back, which: the Ten-Year Review is anticipated to be • Recommends that SANDAG continuously monitor completed, with adoption of the Regional Plan TransNet projects remaining to be completed to in November 2021. ensure these are the best mix for achieving congestion relief and other goals of the TransNet Program.
• Calls for investment in technology solutions to better manage the region’s transportation network. • Suggests revisiting the Local Street and Road Program definitions to better address current local jurisdiction needs. • Places an emphasis on establishing performance metrics and suggests SANDAG enhance or expand its existing performance reporting practices. The Ten-Year Review Look-Ahead includes 20 action items for implementation. Six of the action items have been completed and 14 are underway. Attachment 2 provides more detail. The entire TransNet Ten-Year Review is available at sandag.org/transnet10yearreview.
Next Steps Staff will continue to implement the Ten-Year Review action items and return to the ITOC, Transportation Committee, and Board of Directors to request additional direction, as necessary.
José Nuncio, TransNet Department Director Key Staff Contact: Ariana zur Nieden, (619) 699-6961, [email protected] Attachments: 1. SANDAG info Bulletin – TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Back 2. Look-Ahead Implementation Update as of March 2019
Attachment 1
Ten-Year Review: Look-Back April 2018
2 SANDAG serves as the San Diego region’s clearinghouse for information and data. Infos publish timely, relevant information as well as provide context on complex issues facing the region.
For more information, call (619) 699 -1950 or email [email protected]
3 SANDAG icons | May 2017 (1 of 3)
Whenever any icons are used in grayscale, use the following formulas: c0 m0 y0 k80 | r88 g89 b91 | 430C
Roads/Highway
Highway Carpool Vanpool Motorcycle FasTrak c100 m39 y0 k0 c100 m45 y0 k0 c62 m0 y0 k0 c92 m7 y13 k0 c87 m20 y47 k2 r0 g126 b198 r0 g119 b192 r61 g198 b244 r0 g187 b206 r0 g148 b145 300C 3005C SANDAG305C icons | 312CMay 2017 (27716C of 3) SANDAG icons | May 2017 (1 of 3) Whenever any icons are used in grayscale, use the following formulas: c0 m0 y0 k80 | r88 g89 b91 | 430C
Whenever any icons are used in grayscale, use Green/Activethe following formulas: Transportation/Environment c0 m0 y0 k80 | r88 g89 b91 | 430C Grants/Amenities Icons are provided for general Active Transportation references, as well as specific Bike and Pedestrian uses: Roads/HighwayHOV/Carpool Lanes Local Streets and Roads c100 m39 y0 k0 c39 m14 y0 k0 r0 g126 b198 r148 g195 b233 SANDAG300C SANDAG icons283C icons | May | May 2017 2017 (2 of (2SANDAG 3) of 3) icons | May 2017 (2 of 3)
SANDAGWhenever iconsWhenever any icons any |are iconsMay used are in used grayscale,2017 in grayscale, use (1the usefollowingof the 3)following formulas: formulas: c0 m0Whenever y0 c0 k80 m0 |anyy0 r88 k80 icons g89 | r88 b91are g89 used| 430C b91 in |grayscale, 430C use the following formulas: c0 m0 y0 k80 | r88 g89 b91 | 430C HighwayTransit Carpool Clean AirVanpool Vehicles EMP/EnvironmentMotorcyclePark & RideActive TransportationFasTrak Grants Amenities/Services TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Back c100 m39Green/Active y0 k0 Green/Active Transportation/Environmentc100 Transportation/Environment m45 y0 k0 c85 m10 c62y100 m0 k10 y0 k0 c71 m0 y83c92 k0 m7Grants/Amenities y13 k0Grants/Amenitiesc94 m0 y87c87 k0 m20 y47 k2 c9 m34 y93 k0 c0 m54 y93 k0 Whenever any iconsWhen are referringused in tograyscale, public transit use in the general, following use the Transitformulas: icon. c0Rail m0 and y0 Bus k80 icons | r88are g89Green/Active b91 | 430CSeparate icons Transportation/Environment are provided for general Park & Ride, Grants/Amenities r0 g126Icons b198 are Iconsprovided are providedfor generalr0 forg119 Active general b192 Transportation Active Transportationr0 g148references, b68 references, as well as as well asr72 g184 b100 provided for specific modes of travel. When referencing specificr61 g198 MTS b244 or NCTD services, Iconsr0 g187 are providedb206carpool-only for generalParkr61 & g198 Ride,Activer0 b244 and g148Transportation transit-only b145 Parkreferences, &r231 Ride g171asuse: well b50 as r247 g141 b45 300C specificuse the BikeTrolley,specific and COASTER, BikePedestrian and3005C Pedestrianand uses: SPRINTER uses: icons: 7740C 305C 7479C specific312C Bike and Pedestrian3405C uses: 7716C 124C 715C Roads/Highway
Clean Air Vehicles EMP/Environment Highway HOV/CarpoolTransit LanesCleanCarpool Air VehiclesLocal StreetsBus andEMP/EnvironmentVanpool RoadsBike ActiveRail TransportationActiveMotorcycle TransportationPedestrianClean AirGrants VehiclesPark &Grants FasTrakRide EMP/EnvironmentAmenities/ServicesAmenities/ServicesActive Transportation Grants Amenities/Services c85 m10 y100 k10 c71 m0 y83 k0 c100 m39 y0 k0c100 m39c39 y0 m99 k0c85c100 y7 m10 k0 m45 y100 y0 k0k10c39 m14 c75y0 k0 m100c71c62 m0y0 m0 k0y83c50 y0 k0m0 y100 k0c94c69 m0 m69 y87c94c92 y0k0 m0 m7 k0 y87c0 y13 m25 k0 k0c85 y100- m10 k0c9 y100 c54m34 k10m0 y93c9 c87y40 m34k0 m20k0 y93 y47 k0 k2c71 m0 y83c0 m54 k0 y93c0 m54k0 y93 k0 c94 m0 y87 k0 c9 m34 y93 k0 c0 m54 y93 k0 r0 g148 b68 r72 g184 b100 r0 g126 b198 r0 g126 r156b198 g37r0r0 g148b143 g119 b68 b192 r148 g195r102 b233 g45r72 r61 b145g184 g198r141 b100 b244 g198 b63r61r102 g198 g96r61 b244r0 b170g187g198r255 b206b244 g194r0 g148 b14 r231b68r110 g171 g205r231r0 b50 g148 b178 g171 b145 b50r72 g184r247 b100 g141r247 b45 g141 b45r61 g198 b244 r231 g171 b50 r247 g141 b45 7740C 7479C TransNet300C 300C 254C 7740C3005C 283CFunds267C 7479C305C 361C Transportation3405C2725C3405C 312C 7408C7740C 124C338C 124C7716C 7479C 715C 715CImprovements3405C 124C and715C More Progress Toward Other icons used in SANDAG materials Transit Park & Ride Passed in 2004 by 67With percent the exception of the orange of Construction voters icon, the icons incountywide, the “Other” folder are intentionally shown the in grayscale TransNet to provide flexibility for colors Extension Ordinance When referring to public transit in general, use the Transitto icon. be changed Rail and toBus align icons with are individual projectSeparate branding icons and are outreach provided needs. for general Park & Ride, provided for specific modes of travel. When referencing specific MTS or NCTD services, carpool-only Park & Ride, and transit-only Park & Ride use: use the Trolley, COASTER, and SPRINTER icons: Trolley COASTER SPRINTER Park & Ride: Carpool Park & Ride: Transit TransNet Goals enactedHOV/Carpool Lanes Bike aBikeLocal half-cent Streets and RoadsPedestrianPedestrian sales tax to fundBike transportationPedestrian improvements in the San Diego c52 m89 y30 k15 c89 m100 y5 k0 c52 m69 y0 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 c100 m39 y0 k0 c50 m0 y100c50c39 m0k0 m14 y100 y0 k0 c0 m25 y100-c0 m25 k0 y100- k0 c50 m0 y100 k0 c0 m25 y100- k0 r125 g56 b106 r73 g47 b139 r147 g100 b204 r110 g205 b178 r110 g205 b178 r0 g126 b198 r141 g198r141r148 b63 g198 g195 b63 b233 r255 g194r255 b14 g194 b14 r141 g198 b63 r255 g194 b14 249C 249C 265C 338C 338C region.300C 361C TransNet361C283C 7408C funds7408C a variety of361C capital construction7408C projects on highways and Relieve congestion transit corridors, local streets and roads, and bikeways, in addition to an Environmental Other Othericons usedicons in used SANDAG in SANDAG materials materials Other icons used in SANDAG materials Transit Bus ConstructionRail AutonomousPark Vehicle& Ride What’s New/an Idea Public Meeting Question/Survey Transit With the exception of the orange Construction icon, the icons in the “Other”Park folder & are Ride intentionally shown in grayscale to provide flexibility for colors c39 m99 y7 k0With the exceptionc75 of them100 orange y0 k0 Constructionc0 m77 icon, y100c69 the k0m69 icons y0 in k0 the “Other” folderWith c54are the intentionallym0 exception y40 k0 ofshown the orange in grayscale Construction to provide icon, flexibility the icons for incolors the “Other” folder are intentionally shown in grayscale to provide flexibility for colors Improve safety When referring to publicto transitbe changed toin begeneral, changedto align use with tothe align individualTransit with icon. individual project Rail and branding project Bus icons brandingand areoutreach and outreachneeds. Separate needs. icons are provided for general Park & Ride, Mitigationr156 g37 b143 Program,r102 g45 b145 newr255 g95 b0r102transit g96 b170 services,to ber110 changed g205 b178 to align with and individual project grants branding and outreach for needs. smart growth, active provided for specific modes of travel. When referencing specific MTS or NCTDBright services, Orange C carpool-only Park & Ride, and transit-only Park & Ride use: use the Trolley, COASTER,254C and SPRINTER icons: 267C 2725C 338C transportation, and subsidized transit for seniors and persons with disabilities. Match state/federal funds
The TransNet Extension Ordinance (2008–2048) calls for an evaluation of program Expand freeways Phone TrolleyConstructionConstruction COASTERAutonomousAutonomous Vehicle VehicleSPRINTERWhat’s New/anWhat’s New/anIdea Construction IdeaPark &Public Ride: Meeting CarpoolPublic MeetingWebsiteAutonomousPark &Question/Survey Ride: Vehicle TransitQuestion/SurveyEmail What’s New/an Idea MobilePublic Meeting Question/Survey Transit Bus Rail Park & Ride c52 m89c0 m77y30 k15y100c0 m77 k0 y100 k0 c89 m100 y5 k0 c52 m69 y0 k0 c0 c54m77 m0 y100 y40 k0 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 c39 m99 y7 k0 c75 m100 y0 k0 c69 m69 y0 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 r125 g56r255 b106 g95r255 b0 g95 b0 r73 g47 b139 r147 g100 b204 r255r110 g95 g205 b0 b178 r110 g205 b178 performancer156 g37 b143 r102 g45 b145 every r102ten g96 b170 years.r110 The g205 b178 first review is being conducted as a two-step 249C Bright Orange C 249C 265C 338C 338C Maintain or improve local Bright Orange C Bright Orange C 254C 267C 2725C 338C process, with “look-back” and “look-ahead” phases. The Ten-Year Review Look-Back1 streets and roads was conducted by an independent auditing firm and reviewed performance of the Increase transit for seniors Phone Phone overallTrolley TransNetCOASTER ProgramSPRINTER Websiteto date.WebsitePark & Ride: Carpool TheEmail Emaillook-backPark & Ride: TransitPhone Mobile Mobile reportWebsite concludedEmail that TransNetMobile c52 m89 y30 k15 c89 m100 y5 k0 c52 m69 y0 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 r125 g56 b106 r73 g47 b139 r147 g100 b204 r110 g205 b178 r110 g205 b178 and those with disabilities delivered249C 249Con its plans265C to expand338C freeways,338C improve local roads, add capacity to rail service, and increase transit for seniors. This SANDAG Info includes information from Expand commuter express the look-back report, as well as other relevant data to allow readers to evaluate the bus, Trolley, and COASTER success of the TransNet program to date. services completed in progress Delivering on TransNet Projects The TransNet Extension Ordinance included a Major Corridors program to fund “Overall, much has been 48 highway and transit capital improvement projects. These were later broken up into accomplished over the first 78 segments as part of the project implementation process. 10-year period of the 40-year TransNet life cycle Even during the depths of the Great Recession (2008 – 2011), SANDAG succeeded with approximately in advancing projects by using long-term borrowing secured by future TransNet sales tax revenue to capitalize on low construction costs and interest rates, as well as to 61 percent of Major Corridor seize competitive funding opportunities. Overall, ten years into the TransNet Extension projects delivered or Ordinance — with a quarter of the 40-year measure having elapsed — SANDAG has in-progress even though completed, begun construction, or substantially started the planning/design on only one-quarter of the 61 percent of the projects listed in the measure. TransNet Program’s time has elapsed. Along the way, SANDAG and its TransNet Figure 1 partners demonstrated TransNet Extension Major Corridor Improvement Program great collaboration and Progress through FY 2017 cooperation, employed 2008-2017 2048 leading project management 25% practices, and took Time Elapsed advantage of financing 30 PROJECTS 18 PROJECTS opportunities as they 61% Completed or In Progress have arisen.” TransNet Extension Ordinance: Ten-Year Look-Back report (page 79) 1 TransNet Extension Ordinance: 10 Year Look-Back report prepared by Sjoberg Evashenk Consulting, Inc., January 2018: sandag.org/10YearLookBackReport
4 SANDAG info: April 2018 | 3 SANDAG icons | May 2017 (1 of 3) SANDAG icons | May 2017 (1 of 3)
Whenever any icons are used in grayscale, use the following formulas: c0 m0 y0 k80 | r88 g89 b91 | 430C Whenever any icons are used in grayscale, use the following formulas: c0 m0 y0 k80 | r88 g89 b91 | 430C
Roads/Highway Roads/Highway
Highway Carpool Vanpool Motorcycle FasTrak Highway Carpool Vanpool Motorcycle FasTrak c100 m39 y0 k0 c100 m45 y0 k0 c62 m0 y0 k0 c92 m7 y13 k0 c87 m20 y47 k2 c100 m39 y0 k0 c100 m45 y0 k0 c62 m0 y0 k0 c92 m7 y13 k0 c87 m20 y47 k2 r0 g126 b198 r0 g119 b192 r61 g198 b244 r0 g187 b206 r0 g148 b145 r0 g126 b198 r0 g119 b192 r61 g198 b244 r0 g187 b206 r0 g148 b145 TransNet 300CAccomplishments: 3005C 305C The312C First Ten7716C Years300C 3005C 305C 312C 7716C According to the Ten-Year Review Look-Back report, through June 30, 2017, “TransNet results show improved transportation facilities across a wide range of modes in addition to strong performance” (page 22). HOV/Carpool Lanes Local Streets and Roads HOV/Carpool Lanes Local Streets and Roads c100 m39 y0 k0 c39 m14 y0 k0 c100 m39 y0 k0 c39 m14 y0 k0 r0 g126 b198 r148 g195 b233 r0 g126 b198 r148 g195 b233 300C 283C 300C 283C FigureSANDAG 2 icons | May 2017 (1 of 3)
Transit Park & Ride Transit Park & Ride TransNetWhenever any iconsWhen are referring used in toProgram grayscale, public transit use in general, the following use the Transit formulas: Successes icon. Rail c0 andm0 Busy0 k80icons | are r88 g89 b91 |Separate 430C icons are provided for general Park & Ride, When referring to public transit in general, use the Transit icon. Rail and Bus icons are Separate icons are provided for general Park & Ride, provided for specific modes of travel. When referencing specific MTS or NCTD services, carpool-only Park & Ride, and transit-only Park & Ride use:provided for specific modes of travel. When referencing specific MTS or NCTD services, carpool-only Park & Ride, and transit-only Park & Ride use: use the Trolley, COASTER, and SPRINTER icons: use the Trolley, COASTER, and SPRINTER icons: Roads/Highway Highways, Managed Lanes, Transit Service and Transit Major Corridors
Highway Transit Carpool Bus Vanpool Rail Motorcycle Park & RideFasTrak Transit Bus Rail Park & Ride c100 m39 y0 k0 c39 m99 y7c100 k0 m45 y0 k0 c75 m100c62 y0 m0k0 y0 k0 c69 m69 c92y0 k0 m7 y13 k0 c54 m0 y40c87 k0 m20 y47 k2 c39 m99 y7 k0 c75 m100 y0 k0 c69 m69 y0 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 r102 g45 b145 r102 g96 b170 r110 g205 b178 Transit Ridershipr102 g45 b145 r102 g96 b170 r110 g205 b178 r0 g126 b198Morer156 than g37 r0b143 g119 b192$2.9 billionr61 g198 b244 investedr0 g187 in b206 highwayr0 g148 b145 r156 g37 b143 300C 254C 3005C 267C 305C 2725C 312C 338C 7716C 254C 267C 2725C 338C improvements 10% increase 23 highway segments1 completed 105 million riders 94.5 million riders SANDAG icons | MayTrolley 2017 (1 ofCOASTER 3) SPRINTER Park & Ride: Carpool Park & Ride: Transit Trolley COASTER SPRINTER Park & Ride: Carpool Park & Ride: Transit HOV/CarpoolCommute Lanes Local Streets time and Roads for majority of San Diegans c52 m89 y30 k15 c89 m100 y5 k0 c52 m69 y0 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 c52 m89 y30 k15 c89 m100 y5 k0 c52 m69 y0 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 c100 m39 y0 k0 c39 m14 y0 k0 2007 2017 r125 g56 b106 r73 g47 b139 r147 g100 b204 r110 g205 b178 r110 g205 b178 r125 g56 b106 r73 g47 b139 r147 g100 b204 r110 g205 b178 r110 g205 b178 Whenever any icons are usedr0 g126 in grayscale,b198 use the followingr148 g195 formulas: b233 c0 m0 y0 k80 | r88 g89 b91 | 430C less 249Cthan 30 minutes249C 265C 338C 338C 249C 249C 265C 338C 338C 300C 283C Senior transportation mini-grants Roads/Highway $1.5+ billion invested in transit capital • $14.7 million awarded through 69 grants Transitimprovements Park & Ride SANDAG icons | May 2017 (2 of 3) When referring to public transit in general, use the Transit icon. Rail and Bus icons are Separate icons are provided for general Park & Ride, • 1.4+ million one-way rides provided provided for specific modes of travel. When referencing specific MTS1 or NCTD services, carpool-only Park & Ride, and transit-only Park & Ride use: use the Trolley,25 COASTER, transit and SPRINTER projectsicons: completed Whenever any icons are used in grayscale,• 9,300 use the following seniors formulas: trained c0 m0 y0 k80 | r88to g89 use b91 | 430C transit services Highway Carpool Vanpool Motorcycle FasTrak c100 m39 y0 k0 c100 m45 y0 k0 c62 m0 y0 k0 c92 m7 y13 k0 c87 m20 y47 k2 Green/Active Transportation/Environment Grants/Amenities r0 g126 b198 r0 g119 b192 r61 g198 b244 r0 g187 b206 r0 g148 b145 Icons are provided for general Active Transportation references, as well as 300C 3005C 305C 312C 7716C specific Bike and Pedestrian uses:
Transit Bus Rail Park & Ride Environmental Mitigation c39 m99 y7 k0 c75 m100 y0 k0 c69 m69 y0 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 r156 g37 b143 Localr102 g45 b145 Streetsr102 g96 b170and Roadsr110 g205 b178 254CSANDAG icons267C | May 20172725C (2 of 3)338C Program HOV/Carpool Lanes Local Streets and Roads Clean Air Vehicles EMP/Environment Active Transportation Grants Amenities/Services c100 m39 y0 k0 c39 m14 y0 k0 c85 m10 y100 k10 c71 m0 y83 k0 c94 m0 y87 k0 c9 m34 y93 k0 c0 m54 y93 k0 r0 g126 b198 r148Whenever g195$714+ b233 any icons are million used in grayscale, dedicated use the following formulas: for c0 m0 local y0 k80 | r88 streets g89 b91 | 430C r0 g148 b68 r72 g184$222+ b100 millionr61 g198 b244 investedr231 g171 b50 in projectr247 g141 mitigation b45 and 300C 283C 7740C 7479C 3405C 124C 715C Green/Active Transportation/Environment Grants/Amenities Icons areand provided for roads general Active Transportation references, as well as habitat conservation specific Bike and Pedestrian uses: Trolley COASTER SPRINTER Park & Ride: Carpool Park & Ride: Transit c52 m89 y30 k15 c89 m100 y5 k0 c52 m69 y0 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 Transit 136+ projects completedPark & Ride $120 million saved on land acquisition r125 g56 b106 r73 g47 b139 r147 g100 b204 r110 g205 b178 r110 g205 b178 When referring to public transit in general, use the Transit icon. Rail and Bus icons are Separate icons are provided for general Park & Ride, 249C 249C 265C 338C 338C provided for specific modes of travel. When referencing specific MTS or NCTD services, carpool-onlySANDAG Park & Ride, and transit-only iconsPark & Ride use: | May 2017 (2 of 3) use the Trolley, COASTER, and SPRINTER icons:Pavement generally in good condition 8,900+ acres acquired, more than seven times Bike Pedestrian c50 m0 y100 k0 c0 m25 y100- k0 Whenever any icons are used in grayscale, use the following formulas: c0 m0 y0 k80 | r88 g89 b91 | 430C r141 g198 b63 r255 g194the b14 size of Balboa Park Clean Air Vehicles EMP/Environment Active Transportation Grants Amenities/Services361C 7408C Green/Active Transportation/Environment Grants/Amenities c85 m10 y100 k10 c71 m0 y83 k0 c94 m0 y87 k0 c9 m34 y93 k0 c0 m54 y93 k0 Icons are provided for general Active Transportation references, as well as r0 g148 b68 r72 g184 b100 r61 g198 b244 r231 g171 b50 r247 g141 b45 specific Bike and Pedestrian uses: 7740C 7479C 3405C 124C 715C Other icons used in SANDAG materials Transit Bus Rail Park & Ride c39 m99 y7 k0 c75 m100 y0 k0 c69 m69 y0 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 With the exception of the orange Construction icon, the icons in the “Other” folder are intentionally shown in grayscale to provide flexibility for colors r156 g37 b143 r102 g45 b145 r102 g96 b170 r110 g205 b178 to be changed to align with individual project branding and outreach needs. 254C 267C Bike2725C Early Action338C Program Grant Programs
Clean Air Vehicles EMP/Environment Bike Pedestrian Active Transportation Grants Amenities/Services c85 m10 y100 k10 c71 m0 y83 k0 c50 m0 y100 k0 c0 m25 y100- k0 c94 m0 y87 k0 c9 m34 y93 k0 c0 m54 y93 k0 r0 g148 b68 r72 g184 b100 r141 g198 b63 r255 g194 b14 2 r61 g198 b244 r231 g171 b50 r247 g141 b45 7740C 7479C 361C FY 17 Bikeway7408C Project Status 3405C 124C Smart Growth715C Trolley COASTER SPRINTER Park & Ride: Carpool Park & Ride: Transit Construction Autonomous$31.7+ Vehicle millionWhat’s New/anawarded Idea throughPublic Meeting 43 grantsQuestion/Survey c52 m89 y30 k15 c89 m100 y529.9 k0 c52 m69 y0 k0 c54 m026.2 y40 k0 c54 m0 y40 k0 8.3 4.3c0 m77 y100 k0 r125 g56 b106 r73 g47 b139 r147 g100 b204 r110 g205 b178 r110 g205 b178 r255 g95 b0 12 Complete Street projects constructed 249C 249COther icons used in SANDAG265C materials 338C 338C Bright Orange C With the exception of the orange Construction icon, the icons in the “Other” folder are intentionally shown in grayscale to provide flexibility for colors to be changed68.7 to align with miles individual project of branding bikeway and outreach needs. 5 downtown streetscape revitalization projects completed
Bike Pedestrian c50 m0 y100 k0 c0 m25 y100- k0 Active Transportation Preliminary Engineering/Environmentalr141 g198 b63 r255Design g194 b14 361C 7408C $30+ million awarded through 77 grants Under Construction Open Phone 300+ bike Websiteparking infrastructureEmail projectsMobile
Other icons used in SANDAG materials Construction Autonomous Vehicle What’s New/an Idea Public Meeting Question/Survey 24.8 miles of bike lanes constructed Dedicated $200 millionWith to the exception the of theBike orange Construction Early icon, theAction icons in the “Other” folder are intentionally shown in grayscale to provide flexibility for colors c0 m77 y100 k0 to be changed to align with individual project branding and outreach needs. r255 g95 b0 4 Bright OrangeProgram, C which will build 77 miles of bikeways EMP Land Acquisition regionwide $15.9 million awarded for 5,400+ acres Annually, bike commuters increased EMP Land Management and Habitat Conservation 25 percent3 from 8,000 to 10,000 $14.6 million through nearly 100 grants Phone Website Construction Email Autonomous VehicleMobile What’s New/an Idea Public Meeting Question/Survey c0 m77 y100 k0 r255 g95 b0 1 3 See Exhibit 62 (page 89); 48 Ordinance projectsBright Orange resulted C in 78 project segments See Exhibit 9 (page 22) 2 Of the 77 miles in the Bike Early Action Program, a total of 68.7 miles were 4 8,900+ acres acquired through EMP includes 5,400+ acres acquired by outside programmed (funded for various phases) in the FY 17 budget. agencies using EMP grants.
4 | TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Back Phone Website 5 Email Mobile More than Matching: Major Corridors Program Leveraged TransNet Funding “Given historic revenue TransNet always was envisioned to be only one of the funding mechanisms to generation and the pay for projects identified in theTransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure continuation of strong Plan; the Ordinance assumed 50 percent of net capital costs would be funded by practices, it is reasonable to federal, state, and other sources. Over the past ten years, TransNet funds have expect the TransNet Program played a crucial role in the region’s ability to secure matching funds and advance could be delivered in the completion of major capital projects. At the close of FY 2017, total program funding 40-year timeframe.” was $7.84 billion. TransNet funds represented $2.58 billion (33%) and helped TransNet Extension Ordinance: Ten-Year Look-Back report leverage $5.26 billion (67%). (page 64)
Figure 3 Leveraging TransNet Program Funding (through FY 17)
TransNet Federal State Local $2.58 billion $2.61 billion $1.96 billion $688 million 33% 33% 25% 9% Total TransNet Program Funding $7.84 billion
Future Challenges and Look-Back Completed, Opportunities Look-Ahead Underway While SANDAG and its partners The SANDAG Board of Directors built a accomplished a lot in the first ten years requirement into the TransNet Extension of the TransNet Extension, there are Ordinance that each 10-year review still another 30 years of transportation evaluate performance and make recom- improvements ahead. The Ten Year mendations for continued improvement Look-Back report concluded that “it is over the 40-year TransNet program. The reasonable that the TransNet Program “look-ahead” began in March 2018 and, could be delivered as expected given during the months ahead, the Board the nearly 30-year historic leveraging… will evaluate future considerations from if SANDAG continues to employ the look-back, including regionwide strong project management and fund performance tracking and reporting, management practices” (page 64). investments in technology solutions Funding a long-term capital program to mitigate the region’s transportation is complex. Knowing that the industry challenges, and the mix of future may change in ways that are difficult TransNet projects, among other areas. to predict, SANDAG will need to This look-ahead will take place as part of continue working toward ensuring that the ongoing development of San Diego capital projects meet current needs Forward: The 2019-2050 Regional Plan, and achieve the longer-term goals of which includes a vision for the region’s TransNet. Continuing these historical future transportation system. practices in long-term transportation Visit sandag.org/TransNet10YearReview planning efforts will help SANDAG for more information. deliver intended results.
6 SANDAG info: April 2018 | 5 The Difference a Decade Makes During the first decade of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, several factors — such as changes in population, gross domestic product, and employment — impacted TransNet performance. Population grew almost 10 percent and the number of jobs in the region increased 10 percent. During the Great Recession (2008 – 2011), the region experienced job losses and saw relatable decreases in rush hour traffic and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As the economy recovered, gas prices declined and the number of commuters who chose to drive increased.
Amidst significant economic downturn and subsequent growth, TransNet delivered on its voter-approved goals to expand freeways, improve local roads, add capacity to rail service, and increase transit ridership. With these investments, and despite the increase in population and corresponding increase in freeway travel, traffic congestion in the region held steady at near pre-TransNet levels and, compared with congestion relief in comparable metropolitan areas over the last decade, the San Diego area is among the lowest for commute time.
gross population employment regional in millions in millions product in billions of dollars
9.3% 10.4% 21.1% 2008 – 2017 2007 – 2016 Ten Year Trends 2008 – 2017 1.45 This information, while not 3.32 215 included in the Ten Year Look- 1.32 Back report, provides further 178 context for the first ten years of TransNet accomplishments. 3.03
2008 2017 2008 2017 2007 2016
total freeway peak period transit transit travel travel freeway delay boardings average weekday in millions of vehicle miles in millions of vehicle hours average weekday in millions of in thousands passenger miles 11.0% 48% 7.6% 2.8% 2007 – 2016 2007 – 2016 2007 – 2016 2007 – 2016 9.90
14.09 353 12.69 1.69 1.73 6.69 328
2007 2016 2007 2016 2007 2016 2007 2016
Sources: 2015 – 2016 State of the Commute available at sandag.org/infos California Department of Finance California Employment Development Department Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce as of June 30, 2017
7 SANDAGregion SANDAG
4/18 4503 Attachment 2 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update As of March 2019
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 A. General Ten-Year Review Implementation: Items listed in this category are proposed to be brought back to the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, Policy Advisory Committees, and Board of Directors with further analysis and options for Board consideration [items not listed in priority order]. A1 Kick off the Ten-Year Look-Ahead Staff provided a presentation to the Transportation and This item was accomplished Complete Regional Planning Committees on March 2, 2018. through work already underway under the FY 2018 Staff leads – Elizabeth Cox, Ariana zur Nieden Program Budget.
Complete A2 Prepare a three- to four-page summary A Ten-Year Review webpage has been created This item was accomplished Complete of the (www.sandag.org/TransNet10YearReview) through work already Look-Back for wider distribution where information on both the Look-Back and Look- underway under the FY 2018 Ahead components of the Ten-Year Review will be Program Budget. continually updated. The Look-Back Summary was distributed in April 2018 to a wider audience through an infographic reader-friendly handout, article in the SANDAG Region e-newsletter, and other media.
Staff lead – Ariana zur Nieden
Complete
1 Budget impacts for items shown in orange would require additional funding and resources to implement. The cost, time, and resources associated with completing actions that will have additional budget impacts will be analyzed and brought back for further review. The Board’s approval of this Ten-Year Review Implementation Plan did not constitute approval to begin implementing those items; the analysis would begin and would be brought back with options and staff recommendation for implementation. Separate Board action would be requested before implementation could begin.
8 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 A3 Consider conducting Ten-Year Reviews This request could require an Ordinance amendment. An The first Ten-Year Review was An update on implementation more frequently alternative could be to provide periodic check-ins with conducted at a cost of status of both the Ten-Year the Board of Directors to set the framework and process approximately $200,000. Review and FY 2018 TransNet in motion with an eye toward the next Ten-Year Review Triennial performance audits Triennial Performance Audit is (FY 2029). As part of this Ten-Year Review are conducted every three scheduled for ITOC, Implementation Plan, staff is proposing to provide years. The cost of the most Transportation Committee, regular updates (approximately twice a year) on the recent performance audit was Regional Planning Committee, status of implementation of the Ten-Year Review action approximately $270,000. and Board presentation in items. In addition, the ITOC conducts TransNet Triennial Conducting a Ten-Year March/April 2019. Regular Performance Audits every three years. The results of Review more regularly would updates will continue to be these audits are communicated to the ITOC, essentially duplicate the provided. Transportation Committee, and Board, and also serve to existing required triennial provide recommendations for improvements to the performance audit process Complete TransNet program. and cost; therefore, staff is proposing to provide regular Staff lead – Ariana zur Nieden updates on the status of implementation of the Ten- Year Review action items, without additional budget impacts, instead of conducting ten-year reviews more frequently.
9 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 A4 Consider increasing the level of funding This request will be addressed under the Specialized This work is already underway Work began in fall 2017 with made available to the TransNet Senior Transportation Strategic Plan. The Specialized as part of existing the FY the consultant selection. A Mini-Grant program Transportation Strategy includes analysis of this request 2019 Program Budget. peer best practices study and among other areas. Work began in fall 2017 with the analysis of existing local consultant selection. A peer best practices study and inventory, gaps, and needs analysis of existing local inventory, gaps, and needs was was conducted in winter conducted in the winter of 2018. A one-day Peer Review 2018. A one-day Peer Review Workshop was held in May of 2018 to gather feedback Workshop was held in May from experts at six transit agencies across the U.S. Draft 2018 to gather feedback from strategies will be presented to the Transportation experts at six transit agencies Committee in fall 2018, with the final strategy being across the U.S. Staff presented to the Board in winter 2018/2019. presented draft strategies to the Transportation Committee Staff lead – Brian Lane on January 18, 2019, for review and input, and plan to receive input from the ITOC at its March 13, 2019, meeting. With the input received, staff will refine the draft strategies and present them to a working group of stakeholders for input. A final report on the Strategic Plan is anticipated to be completed in June 2019.
10 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 A5 Consider: This item would require input from local agencies and Staff is preparing a draft This item also is being Additional accountability and reporting other stakeholders, research into best practices, data scope for a consultant to addressed under the FY 2018 from TransNet Local Streets and Roads collection, and reporting systems available, staff, and review best practices, TransNet Triennial program. funding resources. potential strategies at varying Performance Audit conducted levels of effort, and associated by the ITOC, which calls for Implementation of a tool to help local At its May 2018 meeting, the Cities/County resources needed to SANDAG to establish a agencies better track the use of Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) established implement. Options are comprehensive TransNet TransNet funds in support of alternate an ad-hoc working group to analyze options under item planned to be presented to performance framework. modes. no. A6 below. It is anticipated the CTAC ad-hoc working the Board in late FY 2020. SANDAG continues moving group will begin discussing considerations under action Subsequent actions, including forward to implement this Regionwide allocations from TransNet or item no. A5 as well. Since the FY 2018 TransNet Triennial those to address and other related other sources for performance tracking Performance Audit includes recommendations in this Recommendations A5 and A6 performance management and reporting for TransNet Local Streets area as well, item nos. A5 and A6 will be considered in will be subject to Board’s recommendations provided by and Roads and Environmental Mitigation conjunction with implementation of recommendations direction. the ITOC audit and anticipates Program; and to comply with state and under that performance audit. providing a progress update federal performance reporting in FY 2020. requirements. The TransNet Dashboard available at KeepSanDiegoMoving.com also could be used as a Create a dashboard to collect and platform for reporting and monitoring this type of report performance information from information. local jurisdictions. Staff leads - Alex Estrella, Ellison Alegre, Michelle Smith, Lamont Dowell, Rachel Kennedy, Kim Smith, Jim Miller
11 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 A6 Consider elimination of 70/30 Elimination of the ratio would require an Ordinance An analysis of options for the This item also is being congestion relief and maintenance ratio amendment; modifying the definition would require an Board’s consideration is addressed under the FY 2018 for TransNet Local Streets and Roads amendment to Board Policy No. 031: TransNet underway as part of the FY TransNet Triennial program. Ordinance and Expenditure Plan Rules. Preliminary 2019 Program Budget and Performance Audit conducted discussions with the CTAC ad-hoc working group SANDAG anticipates by the ITOC, which calls for Modify 70/30 split definition or change mentioned in item no. A5 above began in May 2018. providing a progress update SANDAG to revisit the 70/30 the 1-inch requirement for pavement Since the FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit in FY 2020. congestion relief and overlays. includes recommendations in this area as well, item nos. maintenance ratio and A5 and A6 will be considered in conjunction with definitions. As noted in initial implementation of recommendations under that response, CTAC established performance audit. an ad hoc subgroup in May 2018, and SANDAG continues Staff leads - Alex Estrella, Ariana zur Nieden, Sue Alpert, moving forward to implement Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin this and other related performance management recommendations provided by the ITOC audit and anticipates providing a progress update in FY 2020.
12 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 A7 Consider performing a more robust In conjunction with statewide targets for reducing the SANDAG monitoring of the Caltrans provided the 2019 analysis of bike rider and pedestrian number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries annual number of non- statewide safety targets to safety cause and effect to ascertain established in response to federal legislation, SANDAG motorized fatalities and SANDAG in August 2018. what can be done differently to get a will be monitoring the annual number of non-motorized serious injuries in response to Staff reviewed historic fatality better result. fatalities and serious injuries. It is anticipated that 2018 federal legislation is being and serious injury data for San data will be analyzed in December 2019 to determine if accomplished under work Diego County. Most the 2018 statewide safety targets have been met. underway as part of the FY categories of incidents track 2019 Program Budget. with the statewide data. Staff Since the FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit However, the cost, time, and shared information about the includes recommendations in this area as well, this item resources associated with statewide targets at meetings will be considered in conjunction with implementation of analyzing bike rider and of the Cities/County recommendations under that performance audit. pedestrian safety cause and Transportation Advisory effect to ascertain what can Committee, Regional Planning Staff leads - Rachel Kennedy, Linda Culp, Alex Estrella be done differently to get a Technical Working Group, better result will be brought SANTEC, and Public Safety back for further review. Staff Committee. Data for the is preparing a draft scope for 2018 safety targets is a consultant to review best anticipated to be available in practices, potential strategies December 2019. The Board of at varying levels of effort, and Directors also approved associated resources needed support of the 2019 to implement. Options are statewide safety targets at planned to be presented to their January 26, 2019, the Board in late FY 2020. meeting, and the required Subsequent actions will be documentation was subject to Board’s direction. submitted to Caltrans.
13 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 A8 Consider investigating the price This request will be addressed as part of the upcoming This work is underway as part Fare change proposals were demand elasticity between fare levels Regional Fare Study. The Regional Fare Study work of the FY 2019 Program presented to the and ridership. started in 2016 with interviews of staff at MTS, NCTD, Budget. Transportation Committee on and SANDAG, customer surveys, and a peer review of January 4, 2019. The Board of nine transit agencies. Draft reports were finished in late Directors approved the 2017, and work to develop and model the revenue and changes in February 2019, ridership impacts of various alternatives of fare changes with the planned began. This work is still being conducted, as both transit implementation by the transit agencies work to recognize ways to simplify the regional operators in spring 2019. It is fare structure while protecting the interests of their anticipated that the new respective riders. During this time, the price demand SANDAG Regional Plan vision elasticity between fare levels and ridership is being will include ways to researched and modeled to understand if ridership can encourage ridership through grow with lower fares. Preliminary fare change fare decreases and/or service recommendations will be presented to the Boards of the level enhancements. transit agencies and the SANDAG Transportation Committee in winter 2018/2019, with a preferred alternative recommendation being presented in the early months of 2019.
Staff leads – Brian Lane, Jim Miller A9 Consider developing projection of The ITOC reviews regular reports on quarterly financials This item was accomplished Complete future tax receipts allocable by the and developments in the financial markets, and this under work included in the TransNet Ordinance percentage to information is now provided on a quarterly basis. FY 2018 Program Budget. Major Projects and how those projected receipts will be spent for debt service Staff leads – Andre Douzdjian, Jose Nuncio compared to new projects. Complete
14 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
A10 Consider impact of potential changes to SANDAG is currently working with outside vendors to This item was accomplished The new forecast model was sales taxes over time. build a San Diego-specific model that would replace the under work included in the completed in December 2018. most recent moving away from the “consensus” sales FY 2019 Program Budget. SANDAG now uses a two- tax revenue forecast. Forecasts of tax revenues going step method to forecast sales forward will feature mid-point, high, low, and recession tax revenues. The first step is scenarios. In addition, SANDAG tools will allow for the a two-year near-term forecast analysis of changes to tax law (such as the recent (FY 2019 and FY 2020) based Supreme Court decision of South Dakota vs. Wayfair2), on professional judgement of and other effects. The new model will be simpler than SANDAG staff, and is previous estimates and is anticipated to be complete by informed by: (1) California the end of calendar year 2018. Department of Tax and Fee Administration’s (CDTFA, Staff leads – Andre Douzdjian, Ray Major formerly known as the California Board of Equalization), sales tax revenue allocation formula; (2) year-to-date sales tax collections; (3) a forecast provided by SANDAG sales tax revenue consultant MuniServices; and (4) current and forecast general economic conditions. Staff has continued to work with the SANDAG sales tax consultant, MuniServices, to estimate the potential upside of the Wayfair decision on TransNet and Transportation Development Act (TDA) sales tax revenues. It was determined that the impact of the Wayfair decision would result in an approximate $4.5M increase to TransNet and that collection efforts would be enforced by the CDFTA by April 2019. This
15 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 adjustment to FY 2020 revenue estimates will be brought for Board consideration in spring 2019.
Complete A11 Monitor EMP Local Mitigation to The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between This work is underway as part SANDAG is working with maximize effective use of funds. SANDAG and environmental agencies expired in FY of the FY 2019 Program Communications staff to 2018. Presentations to various committees and the Board Budget. establish a systematic on the new draft MOA will include discussion of this approach to promote the item leading up to adoption of the new MOA. Changes availability of these credits, to the MOA are being discussed with the signatories, which may include an EMP EMP Working Group, ITOC, Transportation and Regional Local Streets and Road Planning Committees. An updated MOA will be brought Mitigation fact sheet that for Board consideration in fall/winter 2018. would be ready for distribution in summer 2019. Staff leads – Keith Greer, Kim Smith A12 For the Look-Back report, add qualifier This has been clarified and is reflected in the Ten-Year This item was accomplished Complete to provide clarification on when the Review report posted on the Ten-Year Review webpage. under work included in the FY Bike EAP started to provide context on www.sandag.org/TransNet10YearReview 2018 Program Budget. miles of bikeway constructed and underway. Staff lead – Ariana zur Nieden Complete B. State of the Commute Reports: The State of the Commute (SOC) report includes factors such as level of service measurements, throughput in major travel corridors, and travel time comparisons to be used as a tool in the Regional Plan development process. Items in this category would be addressed through incorporation into future State of the Commute reports. [items not listed in priority order]
2 On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that internet retailers can be required to collect sales taxes even in states where they have no physical presence.
16 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 B1 Consider better evaluating major transit This area to be further developed as part of future SOC This work is underway as part This action item is to be commuting services and how those reports in addition to deeper analysis of vehicular of the FY 2019 Program further developed as SANDAG have changed in order to assist the commute identified in the following item. Budget. continues with public in understanding how commute implementation of this and times have improved. Staff lead – Ellison Alegre other related performance management recommendations provided by the ITOC triennial performance audit and staff anticipates providing a progress update on implementation of the performance framework in FY 2020. B2 Consider performing a deeper analysis This area will be further developed as part of future SOC This work is underway as part This action item is to be of average vehicular commute time to reports relative to population and employment growth to of the FY 2019 Program further developed as SANDAG enhance future decision-making. provide a more meaningful assessment. Budget. continues with implementation of this and Staff lead – Ellison Alegre other related performance management recommendations provided by the ITOC triennial performance audit to provide a more meaningful assessment and staff anticipates providing a progress update in FY 2020. C. 2019 Regional Plan: Items in this category will be addressed as part of the 2019 Regional Plan activities currently taking place and leading up to final adoption scheduled for the Board of Directors in fall 2019. [items not listed in priority order]
17 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 C1 Consider including an emphasis on This item was added as one of the final Performance This work is underway as part VMT has been added as one VMT reduction. Measures approved by the Board of Directors in March of the FY 2019 Program of the performance measures 2018. It will be considered in the transportation network Budget. for the 2019 Regional Plan. development process the 2019 Regional Plan (anticipated VMT reduction also will be to be considered in fall 2018). considered as part of any updated performance Staff leads – Phil Trom, Rachel Kennedy measures for the 2021 Regional Plan. C2 Consider investment for technology to The Emerging Technologies White Paper was finalized in This work is underway as part The topic of emerging manage transportation network by spring 2018 for use in the development of the 2019 of the FY 2019 Program technologies continues to optimizing capacity-building Regional Plan. The white paper will help inform the 2019 Budget. inform the development of investments already made and use Regional Plan and the region’s future transportation the transportation network existing infrastructure to leverage network and investments. The network development for the federal Regional under-used capacity across modes of process will continue through the fall 2018. Transportation Plan expected transportation. to be adopted in spring 2020. Staff lead – Phil Trom Emerging technologies also will inform the development of the transportation network for the 2021 Regional Plan. C3 Consider potential safety improvements Safety performance measures are included in the set of This work is underway as part Safety-related performance when prioritizing projects as part of the metrics for the 2019 Regional Plan. Safety metrics will be of the FY 2019 Program measures are included in the transportation network development considered in the transportation network development Budget. 2019 Regional Plan and will process. process as part of the 2019 Regional Plan (anticipated to be included in the 2021 be considered in summer/fall 2018). Programming of Regional Plan anticipated to safety-related projects also are being tracked in the 2018 be completed in late 2021. RTIP via the ProjectTrack project submittal tool. SANDAG, in collaboration with Caltrans and other MPOs, has established statewide 2018 safety targets for fatalities and serious injuries.
Staff leads – Phil Trom, Rachel Kennedy
18 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 C4 Continually reevaluate portfolio of This will be discussed as part of the 2019 Regional Plan This work is underway as part The SANDAG Board will projects remaining to be completed to network development process scheduled to continue of existing FY 2019 Program reevaluate TransNet projects ensure these are the best mix compared through summer/fall 2018. Budget. as part of the network to SANDAG and TransNet Program development process for the goals. Staff lead – Phil Trom 2021 Regional Plan anticipated to be completed in late 2021. C5 Aside from the projects identified The Policy Advisory Committees and Board will be asked The Regional Performance At its January 25, 2019, specifically in the Ordinance for to provide input on more measurable goals and targets Monitoring report was meeting, the Board approved completion, the goals established at the that would inform the next Ten-Year Review (FY 2029 completed as part of work the Regional Monitoring outset of the program were neither Ten-Year Review). already underway under the Report. In addition, SANDAG sufficiently robust nor measurable as to FY 2019 Program Budget. has set performance targets enable a more impactful Ten-Year The FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit also for the MAP-21/FAST Act Review. includes a recommendation in this area. In addition, a The MAP-21/FAST Act performance measures. While performance monitoring report for the 2015 Regional performance measures target- these metrics are regional in For the next Ten-Year Review (FY 2029), Plan is scheduled to be completed in winter 2018/2019 setting process is being nature or include the National consider comparing progress against and could inform future goals/targets based on trends conducted through work Highway System facilities, ourselves versus compared to other from that performance monitoring report. already underway in the FY these are not TransNet- regions and evaluate progress based on 2019 Program Budget. specific; however, these funds spent. Staff leads - Phil Trom, Rachel Kennedy, Ariana zur metrics could provide general Nieden, The cost, time, and resources performance data over time. Seth Litchney to establish a performance Data for the 2018 safety framework will need to be targets is anticipated to be brought back for further available in December 2019. review. Staff is preparing a In addition, SANDAG draft scope for a consultant to continues moving forward to review best practices, implement other related potential strategies at varying performance management levels of effort, and associated recommendations provided by resources needed to the ITOC triennial implement. Options are performance audit and planned to be presented to anticipates providing a the Board in late FY 2020. progress update in FY 2020. Subsequent actions will be subject to Board’s direction.
19 First TransNet Ten-Year Review: Look-Ahead Implementation Update
No. Look-Back Initial Response/Status Budget Impacts1 Implementation Status Considerations and Feedback July 2018 July 2018/March 2019 March 2019 C6 Consider analyzing whether transit This area will be addressed as part of the performance This work is underway as part Mode share information will investment increased the percentage of monitoring report to be conducted in 2018 for the 2015 of the FY 2019 Program be considered as one of the commuters using transit or does this Regional Plan to correlate ridership increase to overall Budget. 2021 Regional Plan increase in ridership just reflect more increase in travel to determine whether transit performance measures used commuters across all modes to investments have increased the percentage or share of to evaluate the transportation understand whether the percentage of commuters using transit. system which addresses total commute traffic by transit percentage changes in transit increased. Staff lead – Phil Trom use (versus changes in total ridership).
20
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 14B March 13, 2019 Implementation of FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations
Overview Action: Information The FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit includes 26 recommendations to improve the efficiency, Staff will present an update on effectiveness, and accountability of the TransNet implementation of the FY 2018 TransNet Program to the taxpayers of the San Diego region. Each Triennial Performance Audit recommendation is categorized into four rankings recommendations. (critical, high, medium, and low priority) based on the impact to the TransNet Program, SANDAG Fiscal Impact: responsibilities, and critical path activities. Efforts to implement the FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit recommendations Key Considerations are funded through Overall Work Program Attachment 1 includes an update on progress made in (OWP) Project No. 1500100 TransNet Financial implementing audit recommendations, including the Management in the FY 2019 Program Budget. status of the three critical priority recommendations Schedule/Scope Impact: (Nos. 2, 5, and 24). Five of the 26 recommendations are The next update on overall implementation of completed, and one has been partially completed recommendations will be provided in fall (Recommendation No. 1.c.). This status also includes 2019. In FY 2020, the ITOC will procure the completion of two (Nos. 2 and 24) critical priority services of an independent auditor for its next recommendations. Detailed progress for all 26 triennial performance audit, which will be recommendations is provided in Attachment 1. conducted in FY 2021.
Next Steps Staff will continue working to implement audit recommendations and return to the ITOC, Transportation Committee, and Board of Directors to provide progress updates and request additional direction on implementation of specific audit recommendations as necessary.
José Nuncio, TransNet Department Director Key Staff Contact: Ariana zur Nieden, (619) 699-6961, [email protected] Attachment: 1. Update on Implementation of Recommendations
Attachment 1
FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Audit
Implementation Status as of March 2019
Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 Chapter 1: TransNet Financing Enhance the Plan of Finance (POF) This process will be more formally A TransNet program update is scheduled process and information provided incorporated as part of the TransNet for presentation to the Board of Directors to decision makers by implementing Major Corridors Plan of Finance annual and ITOC in February and March 2019, the following: updates. respectively, and includes a comparison of a. Leveraging historical data and Staff Lead - Dawn Vettese (TransNet) future revenue projections for the two most recent POFs. Staff continues working previous POFs to provide Team - Jim Miller additional information to incorporate additional historical data 1. 21 – 24 High ITOC Leads – regarding estimates of future such as actual funding secured. revenue sources, by comparing Stewart Halpern, Dick Vortmann projections against historical data as well as comparing estimates from previous POFs against actual funding secured. b. Continuing efforts to increase SANDAG staff and economic consultants Sales tax revenue forecasts continue to be the transparency of sales tax are working to create sales tax forecasts updated regularly with the latest revenue forecasts by showing that incorporate ranges and scenarios and information. SANDAG staff are working a range of possible values will present this work to ITOC for input. on updates based on updated third party based on a true confidence Staff Lead - Jim Miller (Technical Services) forecasts and Wayfair implementation interval. SANDAG staff should guidance from the California Department Team - Dawn Vettese work with the Independent of Tax and Fee Administration. The update Taxpayer Oversight Committee ITOC Leads – is anticipated to be available for 29 – 33 High (ITOC) and the SANDAG Board Stewart Halpern, Dick Vortmann presentation in spring 2019. to select a confidence level or levels that best communicates the range of possible values projected by the forecast including best case, worse case, or reasonably expected scenarios.
c. Developing a process or policy Staff presented information on cost Status reports on each major corridor are for more frequent reporting— 29 – 33 High estimating practices and methods used to presented to the Transportation such as quarterly—to oversight communicate cost changes to the ITOC, Committee on a quarterly basis. In
2 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 committees on cost increases Transportation Committee and Board in addition, the TransNet Project Office and include factors used to April/May 2018 for input and these presents a quarterly report to ITOC estimate costs, project stage or reports will continue going forward. summarizing the completion of project milestone used as basis for Staff Lead - Jim Linthicum (MMPI) milestone accomplishments, cost, and reasons for cost Team - Dawn Vettese monthly/annual program expenditures, increase such as inflation, and trends in construction cost and materials spike, or scope ITOC Leads – number of bidders. changes using Dashboard data Stewart Halpern, Dick Vortmann and other reliable data Complete sources.
Significant progress has been made on Over the past year, staff has successfully the 7-Point Data Accuracy and Modeling created, implemented, and formalized Work Plan and ongoing efforts have been policies and procedures that ensure the incorporated into the agency’s Plan of accuracy, transparency, and reliability of Excellence with progress tracked there. As the data SANDAG produces and the Board part of the 7-Point Plan, staff determined Ensure the “Plan of Excellence” and that errors were limited to income uses to make decisions regarding the its 7-point Data Accuracy and variables (Point 1), have conducted a future of the San Diego region. As part of Modeling Work Plan are dependency analysis to determine where these efforts, staff has completed a implemented to reduce the the income variables were used and thorough review of the models, potential for data errors and correct as needed (Point 2), developed a documented the impact of previous errors, develop formal procedures covering comprehensive flow diagram showing and mapped process flow to improve version control, periodic archival of interactions between data and modeling future efforts. In addition, the Data, dynamic or continuously updated components (Point 3), surveyed agency 2. 27 – 28 Critical Analytics, and Modeling Department has data and documents, data staff to understand and document how been reorganized, creating teams that are validation and accuracy, and release data are disseminated and used (Point 4), now working more collaboratively than convened a nationwide expert panel for and reporting of data. The status of ever but have clearly delineated functions the implementation of the 7-point recommendations for regional forecasting that include acquiring data, running the plan and new procedures for data (Point 5), developed processes and models, and data dissemination. At the authentication should be standards to communicate data, methods, documented and reported back to and analysis in a clear and transparent same time, necessary skill sets have been decision makers. manner (Point 6), and (Point 7) realigned added with a Data Base Administrator, the people, processes, and technology to creation of an Office of Quality Assurance, support adequate staffing and expertise. and staff focused on project management. Staff Lead - Ray Major (Technical Services) Closely related, two new processes have been formalized, both of which improve ITOC Leads – the availability and accuracy of the data Stewart Halpern, Dick Vortmann produced and used by SANDAG. First, staff
3 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 have created an electronic data request system that enables tracking what data requests the Data, Analytics, and Modeling Department is being asked to fulfill. This documentation helps to ensure the needs of stakeholders are being met and track how data is being used. Since September 2017, the Department has received over 250 data requests, with about 4 in 5 of these from entities outside SANDAG. Second, a formalized Peer Review Process has been created to ensure that data, analyses, reports, and other information are valid, reliable, and easy to understand. Since the first Peer Review Process (PRP) was conducted in March 2017, a total of 48 different topics have been peer reviewed, with half initiated by departments other than Data, Analytics, and Modeling, demonstrating its usefulness to the agency as a whole. Finally, SANDAG has implemented the development of a standards-based data governance program to ensure that all of the agency’s data are managed properly according to best practice. This is an ongoing improvement process and SANDAG remains committed to undertaking enhancement initiatives that are responsive to the needs of the Board, agency stakeholders, and members of the public.
Complete
4 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019
This process will be more formally Cost estimates for all remaining Major incorporated as part of the TransNet Corridors projects as well as revenue Major Corridors Plan of Finance, in assumptions were updated in 2018 as part coordination with the adopted Regional Regularly track and report on the of the development of the Regional Plan. TransNet Program’s financial Plan. Using these updated cost and revenue capacity to complete projects and Staff Lead - Susan Huntington (TransNet) assumptions, the Plan of Finance was programs by implementing the Team – Jim Linthicum following: updated to determine the financial ITOC Leads – a. Establishing a formal feasibility of completing all the remaining Stewart Halpern, Dick Vortmann structured protocol to review projects by 2048. funding sources and uses occurring in the last 10 to 20 Staff provided the TransNet Program years of the TransNet Update to the Board of Directors in Extension Program to identify February 2019 and is scheduled to present potential capacity and revenue to ITOC in March 2019, noting the increase constraints that would impact in the leveraging ratio required to 3. the ability to complete the 35 – 36 High major corridor projects by complete all program projects by 2048. As 2048 and assess options such part of the Board report, staff has as delaying projects, consolidated remaining costs and eliminating projects, or estimated revenues onto one table, reducing scope as warranted. organized to clearly communicate ranges, This capacity assessment the level of certainty of revenue estimates, should be formally revisited on and required leveraging ratio going a regular basis, so that decision makers are aware of forward. Staff will continue to provide periods in which the agency regular/annual updates of this may have to consider delaying information, in this format, so that projects or reducing project decision makers can assess program scope as needed. capacity. The next Plan of Finance update will occur in early 2020, or in alignment with updates to the Regional Plan.
b. Monitoring TransNet revenues 37 – 40 SANDAG Finance and TransNet staff will Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFPs) and debt service obligations continue to communicate information on for investment banking services and for against needed growth High a regular basis, including cash flow needs, bond and disclosure counsel for the Grant projections to better ensure changes to project timing, and sales tax Anticipation Notes (GANS) financing based that revenues are sufficient to projections; meet and discuss with the on the most recent POF and updated meet debt service, as well as SANDAG financial advisor any potential
5 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 regularly reporting on results changes to needs; meet with investment review of cash flows, which demonstrated and options to oversight bankers to understand instruments proceeds from the GANS issuance for the committees that could include currently on the market that could fit Mid-Coast Corridor project would be restructuring, refinancing, or SANDAG needs; and include all relevant needed by Q1 FY 2020. Subsequently, retiring existing debt or information at regular intervals or on an based on RFP results, staff hired Wells delaying the transition to a as-needed basis at ITOC meetings. Fargo as the senior lead banker, with JP pay-as-you-go approach for Staff Lead - André Douzdjian (Finance) Morgan, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs as financing capital projects. Team – Dawn Vettese co-managers for the GANS issuance. ITOC Leads – Stewart Halpern, Dick Vortmann Staff also started negotiations on the renewal of the Standby Bond Purchase Agreement (SBPA) for the Series A&B of the 2008 Variable Rate Demand Bonds (VRDBs), with JP Morgan which was set to expire in Q3 FY 2019. Norton Fulbright was hired as bond counsel and Orrick as bond disclosure counsel. A kick-off meeting of the entire assembled GANS team was held at SANDAG offices in the early part of Q3 FY 2019. There were no other notable changes to the debt program. c. Identifying methods to assess As part of the 2019 Regional Plan update The SANDAG Board approved moving options, if needed, to delay, all projects, including TransNet projects, forward with a new vision for the San eliminate, or reduce scope of will be evaluated. Diego Forward: The Regional Plan, which projects and whether the Staff Lead - Phil Trom (Planning) is anticipated to be completed in late method would follow the 40 – 41 High 2021. As part of the 2021 Regional Plan Team – Tim DeWitt, Susan Huntington same priority process used in update, all projects, including TransNet the San Diego Forward: The ITOC Leads – projects, will be evaluated. Regional Plan or a different Stewart Halpern, Dick Vortmann process would be used. SANDAG will include technology The topic of emerging technologies has d. Monitoring and reporting on assumptions in the development of continued to inform the development of the impacts of changing revenue constrained transportation the transportation network for the transportation technologies scenarios for the 2019 Regional Plan. Regional Plan and will continue to do so on the transportation network 40 – 41 Medium based on SANDAG Board approval and and future TransNet projects Staff Lead - Phil Trom (Planning) direction to move forward with a new as part of long-term planning Team – Tim DeWitt vision for the San Diego Forward: The to avoid building expensive ITOC Leads – Regional Plan, which is anticipated to be
6 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 infrastructure that could be Stewart Halpern, Dick Vortmann completed in late 2021. SANDAG will rendered obsolete. include technology and innovation assumptions in the development of revenue constrained transportation scenarios for the 2021 Regional Plan. Continue to work closely with the SANDAG will work with MTS and NCTD to SANDAG presented a new methodology Metropolitan Transportation System develop a new methodology to for monitoring TransNet Transit (MTS) and North County Transit proactively monitor TransNet Transit Operations funding to the Transportation District (NCTD) to monitor the Operations funding, focusing on existing Committee on July 20, 2018. Based on Transit Operations Plan by data for costs and revenues and feedback from the Transportation comparing actual TransNet revenues recognizing the limitations of estimating Committee in July 2018, staff will continue and operating costs against the costs and revenues over such a long term. to monitor the revenues and operating Transit Operations Plan projections Once a new methodology has been costs of existing services and will wait to as additional services begin established, staff will report annually to revisit the proposed and actuals until both 4. 41 – 43 High operations to highlight and ITOC and Transportation Committee. South Bay Rapid and Mid-Coast Trolley are mitigate the impact to the local Staff Lead - Muggs Stoll (Planning) operating for at least one year (likely in the operators, how to absorb any fall of 2022). In the interim, staff will assess Team – Brian Lane discrepancies through other the program annually as well to assure that funding sources, or potential ITOC Leads – any unanticipated changes that may affect scenarios for reductions in service if Stewart Halpern, Dick Vortmann operations or the operations budget are warranted. Communicate status, addressed. recommended actions, and any mitigation activities. Chapter 2: Performance Framework
SANDAG will be setting performance SANDAG has set performance targets for Establish a comprehensive management goals related to the MAP- the MAP-21/FAST Act performance performance framework by 21/FAST Act timelines and requirements. measures. While these metrics are regional implementing the following: Staff will evaluate federal performance in nature or include the National Highway a. Setting targets to measure management goals in order to align with System facilities, they are not TransNet- TransNet performance against TransNet funded projects. specific; however, these metrics could the TransNet Extension Staff Lead - Rachel Kennedy (Planning) provide general performance data over 5. Ordinance goals in-line with 46 – 50 Critical time. Data for the 2018 safety targets is federally mandated deadlines Team – Michelle Smith anticipated to be available in December or at a faster pace. At a ITOC Leads – 2019. In addition, SANDAG continues minimum, some narrative Dustin Fuller, Stewart Halpern could accompany performance moving forward to implement other reporting to help others performance-related recommendations understand whether data and provided by the ITOC TransNet Triennial Performance Audit and anticipates
7 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 results were favorable or providing a progress update in FY 2020. unfavorable. Staff also is currently developing a draft scope of work for consultant to review best practices, opportunities, and costs associated with various degrees of levels of effort to address Recommendation Nos. 5.a. – 5.e. b. Capturing performance 1. SANDAG staff is collaborating with 1. Staff reviewed historic regional safety outcome data related to safety Caltrans on target-setting for safety. data for San Diego County. metrics, pavement condition, Caltrans is helping to provide county 2. In October 2018, the SANDAG and bridge condition for level SWITRS data to MPOs for both Transportation Committee established highways, local roadways, and motorized and non-motorized targets for the metrics in PM 2 bicycle (bike) and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries. SANDAG (pavement and bridge condition for modes. has supported the statewide 2018 NHS facilities) and PM 3 (delay, safety targets and will be highlighting emissions, and travel reliability 1. Use the California safety projects included in the 2018 metrics). Highway Patrols’ RTIP and 2019 Regional Plan. Staff will 3. See status for recommendation No. Statewide Integrated continue to monitor and analyze 5.a. Traffic Records System SWITRS safety data as it becomes (SWITRS) to measure and 4. See status for recommendation No. available. SANDAG and Caltrans will monitor safety statistics— 5.a. collaborate on establishing annual both for motorized and safety targets as per MAP-21/FAST Act non-motorized fatalities requirements. and serious injuries— 51 – 53 Critical especially against the new 2. SANDAG is collaborating with Caltrans safety targets developed on target setting for bridge and by Caltrans and adopted pavement condition. Caltrans will be by SANDAG. providing county level data for these measures for facilities on the National 2. Track and report highway Highway System (NHS). SANDAG will pavement and bridge look for opportunities to share this condition available from information as it may relate to Caltrans on the SANDAG TransNet projects. website or provide a 3. For additional data collection efforts hyperlink to where that on Pavement Conditions, SANDAG information is available staff will need to work with CTAC to for taxpayers. determine an approach for reporting Additionally, work with readily available pavement data. This Caltrans to determine if may involve an amendment to the bridge and pavement
8 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 data can be isolated for Ordinance to make such data San Diego County from collection a requirement. the Imperial County data 4. Currently, SANDAG uses PeMS data, contained within the and use of private sector data will be Caltrans District 11 examined subject to existing third data reported data. sources (INRIX). Examination of other 3. Track and report on local sources is subject to implementation jurisdiction pavement and efforts under Recommendation 5e. condition by requiring Staff Lead - Rachel Kennedy (Planning) local jurisdictions to Team – Alex Estrella provide pavement ITOC Leads – condition index data as soon as pavement Dustin Fuller, Stewart Halpern condition surveys are performed and results become available. 4. Obtain and use private sector data to analyze congestion and delay on local streets and roads or evaluate status of Caltrans’ Performance Measurement System (PeMS) to capture road performance including level of coverage of detection. c. Conducting more robust The recommended analysis likely will See status for recommendation No. 5.a. analysis of cause and effect for require the use of modeling/other all performance metrics to analytical tools and additional resources. provide meaning to results or SANDAG staff will propose an approach help determine if different to implement this recommendation based strategies or projects should 51 – 53 High on the outcome of Recommendation 5e. be employed to get a better Staff Lead - Rachel Kennedy (Planning) result. For instance, consider Team – Alex Estrella, Rick Curry using heat maps to identify where the majority or ITOC Leads – significant severity accidents Dustin Fuller, Stewart Halpern occur and work with Caltrans
9 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 and local jurisdictions to inform solutions and future projects. More regular reporting is feasible for Staff continues investigating the potential highway system performance, as more to incorporate highway system robust data is available via Caltrans PeMS. performance from Caltrans PeMS into Local street and road performance (in existing quarterly reporting. Transit data terms of average speed and travel time) is are not available quarterly, but the d. Providing regular performance now available via a third-party vendor potential to report on a semi-annual basis monitoring reports that (INRIX). Transit data reporting (in terms of is being reviewed. Agency agreement with consider past performance in passengers per revenue hour, passengers INRIX expired in December 2018, and staff relation to TransNet goals per revenue mile, operating cost per continues to work on a new agreement for through quarterly updates to passenger, operating cost per revenue local street and road performance data. 51 – 53 High the SANDAG Board and hour, revenue hours per employee, and Staff anticipates integration of available committees, annual public farebox recovery ratios) also is feasible quarterly data into recurring quarterly reports on the status of and can be made available via reporting reports in FY 2020 TransNet, and website currently conducted under Transportation postings. Development Act monitoring. Staff Lead - Ellison Alegre (Operations) Team – Michelle Smith ITOC Leads – Dustin Fuller, Stewart Halpern SANDAG staff will develop options to SANDAG continues moving forward to e. Considering allocating funding implement this recommendation, implement performance-related for additional performance including any potential budget impacts, recommendations provided by the ITOC monitoring activities given and bring to the Transportation TransNet Triennial Performance Audit and that SANDAG will likely Committee and Board for review and anticipates providing a progress update in require more data sources, 51 – 53 High direction. FY 2020. Staff also is currently developing tools, and resources to track, Staff Leads - José Nuncio (TransNet), Ray a draft scope of work for consultant to validate, analyze, ensure Traynor (Operations) review best practices, opportunities, and quality, and report costs associated with various degrees of ITOC Leads – performance. levels of effort to address Dustin Fuller, Stewart Halpern Recommendation Nos. 5.a. – 5.e.
Explore and study public-private SANDAG staff in the Operations SANDAG staff continues to look for partnerships with entities such as Department have been working on opportunities for partnering with third 6. 51 – 53 Medium Google, Waze, Scoop, TomTom, or partnerships with transportation party vendors such as Google and Waze to others to integrate and summarize information providers such as Google and explore ways to better integrate and performance results as well as Waze. Our current 511 system uses
10 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 provide information on a real-time Google traffic and transit data as well as summarize performance results and basis to travelers identifying utilizes the Google map. Future plans are provide real-time information to travelers. different commute times and to extend the regional Data Hub into a This recommendation is anticipated to be options. Transportation Mobility Cloud with the addressed in conjunction with intent of utilizing third-party data as well Recommendation Nos. 5.a. – 5.e. as sharing public data with the private sector. Staff Lead - Alex Estrella (Operations) ITOC Leads – Dustin Fuller, Stewart Halpern Enhance the Story Map tool, The implementation of this a. Story Map has been updated with the TransNet project status listing recommendation will require changes to most recent set of completed projects (shown in Appendix A), or develop existing tools and processes. SANDAG for those jurisdictions that also a different tool to capture project staff will propose an approach to provided photos. Staff is still working output details and track TransNet implement this recommendation based on on reconciling prior TransNet projects accomplishments over time by the outcome of Recommendation 5e. and is looking into whether online implementing the following: Staff Lead - Michelle Smith (TransNet) reporting as part of the SANDAG website update may be feasible. a. Developing a comprehensive Team – Alex Estrella b. The implementation of this universe of TransNet projects ITOC Leads – completed, underway, and recommendation will require changes Dustin Fuller, Stewart Halpern planned. Reconcile universe to existing tools and processes. back to TransNet Extension SANDAG staff will propose an Ordinance and what was approach to implement this recommendation based on the 7. expected to be delivered. Once 53 – 54 High universe is reconciled for outcome of Recommendation 5e. historic projects, update universe as new projects are started and continue reconciliation of those new projects to the TransNet Extension Ordinance. b. Building upon planned output data currently captured through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program’s automated ProjectTrak database and reported in the Annual Output
11 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 and Outcome report by reconciling those planned outputs with actual accomplishments. Consider requiring local jurisdictions to provide a closeout report with updated, actual data as projects are completed. Chapter 3: Major Corridor Capital Construction Update and refine the project Project Office staff will utilize the project The new dashboard database, which listing started in the 10-Year Look- list crosswalk created with the 10-Year includes the ordinance number field, is Back Review to ensure all major Look-Back Review and incorporate the currently being developed and will be corridor projects are tracked back to data field into the dashboard webform as deployed in summer 2019. those in the TransNet Extension part of the 2019 upgrade. Ordinance. Regularly report on Staff Lead - Susan Huntington (TransNet) 8. project and financial status using 58 – 64 Medium the project listing developed in 10- ITOC Leads – Kai Ramer, Brad Barnum Year Look-Back Review as a foundation or develop an alternate tool to accomplish the goal of tracking against the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Mid-Coast has procedures and tools in Begin gathering data on whether a. The Mid-Coast Project Team is focused place to capture CM/GC savings and the Construction Manager/General on supporting construction efforts and efficiencies including comment and Contractor (CMGC) method used on continues to compile and update review logs, risk matrix and RFI response the Mid-Coast Corridor Transit design and change review logs, risk process. To address the recommendation, project is delivering on expectations matrix and Request for Information an innovations log or other method of for cost savings, efficiencies, better formally tracking will be developed. responses. Preparation of a CM/GC quality, or collaboration to solve SANDAG will research industry standards innovation log will begin as civil and problems rather than using a typical for comparing construction contracting structure construction nears 9. silo-approach between design, 65 – 71 Medium methods for application to CM/GC to Low completion. Comparison of scope, cost construction, contractors, and Bid. Mid-Coast will be compared to and schedule changes between Mid- owners by implementing the Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit Coast and Mission Valley East would following: Extension as the closest side-by-side start in 2020. a. Comparing SANDAG’s comparative example. Project, proposed metrics for assessing Construction, and CM/GC managers will b. The Mid-Coast schedule completion Mid-Coast Corridor project continue to meet regularly to review date has varied between 20 and 29 performance to the days behind. Staff and builder agree
12 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 performance metrics and change orders and schedule impacts that future track and signal activities practices used by Caltrans’ to identified in the survey. could be overlapped to meet schedule. determine whether there are Staff Lead - John Haggerty (MMPI), Allan Staff continues to negotiate change any additional practices Kosup (Caltrans) costs. The current construction SANDAG may want to include ITOC Leads – Kai Ramer, Brad Barnum environment is driving increases for or adopt, such as the Caltrans sub-contractor costs. Project, innovations log, to help Construction, and CM/GC managers formally track benefits, will continue to meet regularly to successes, and challenges. review change orders and schedule b. Addressing recent survey impacts identified in the survey. comments related to possible schedule impacts from project activities in addition to the perceived higher value of change orders.
Mid-Coast data are maintained on a Mid-Coast Corridor project file sharing site and project record documents including logs and cost data The Project Team is updating the will be permanently stored in a SANDAG Document Management Plan in spring SharePoint location. 2019. This is an update required by the Gather and store documents to Staff Lead - John Haggerty (MMPI), Allan FTA. With this update the Project Controls support “benefit” statistics tracked Kosup (Caltrans) Team is making and documenting process for the North Coast Corridor and ITOC Leads – Kai Ramer, Brad Barnum improvements. The Project Team continues the Mid-Coast Corridor whether using the innovations log utilized by document management including file Caltrans or another method used by sharing, maintaining as-builts and 10. 69 – 71 Medium SANDAG. Maintain supporting permanent storage on SharePoint. This documentation, such as cost activity will continue until project close-out comparisons, in a centralized in 2022. Cost data for CM/GC comparison repository that is linked or will be available late 2021. reconciled with the log or summary statistics. North Coast Corridor
The project team is gathering and storing documents to support the performance measures identified for the program. The project team designated the CM/GC coach
13 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 to be the gatekeeper and store all data in a central repository.
Chapter 4: Local Street and Road SANDAG staff is working with CTAC to Initial possible revisions were developed determine an approach and possible with input and feedback from CTAC in late Revisit the TransNet Extension implementation steps for examining the 2018. Staff is continuing to work on Ordinance congestion relief and 70/30 split recommendation, and the examining proposed initial revisions and maintenance split to be more CTAC has formed an ad-hoc work group alignment with other audit report relevant with local needs as the to address this recommendation. performance-related recommendations to TransNet lifecycle matures by Discussion outcomes will be reported to determine potential implications to the 11. considering elimination of the 70/30 75 – 76 Medium ITOC to determine possible next steps Local Street and Road Program. The split, change to the percentage including Board Policy expenditure implementation of this recommendation limitations, or modification of the guidelines changes. will be examined in conjunction with categorical definitions within the Staff Lead - Alex Estrella (Operations) Recommendation No. 5.e. TransNet Extension Ordinance Team – Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin, Sue Alpert limitations. ITOC Leads – Jonathan Tibbitts, Brad Barnum Board Policy No. 031 Rule No. 21 a. Staff developed a work plan for this Continue to monitor compliance addresses accommodation of bicyclists effort and is currently providing with SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, and pedestrians. informational updates and taking Rule 21, until otherwise amended, comments from the Active by implementing the following: SANDAG will conduct a compliance review using the existing processes of the Policy. Transportation Working Group, a. Following-up on the results Results will be reported to CTAC for Cities/County Transportation Advisory from the SANDAG Board discussion and determination of need to Committee, and Regional Planning Policy No. 031, Rule 21 modify compliance guidelines and Technical Working Group, and will be evaluation conducted by processes. SANDAG will amend applicable building upon that input to draft 12. SANDAG in 2014: 78 – 79 High Board Policy to track development of potential recommendations on 1. Use results from SANDAG bicycle and pedestrian projects built using additional monitoring and reporting Board Policy No. 031, local TransNet funds. and potential changes to board policy. Rule 21 review to make Staff will continue to coordinate Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) identified changes to the implementation of this Ordinance definitions and Team – Alex Estrella. Sue Alpert, Chris recommendation with efforts to follow-up on areas of Kluth implement Recommendation No. 11. noncompliance noted ITOC Leads – during the review. Jonathan Tibbitts, Brad Barnum
14 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 2. Work with locals to determine a method to demonstrate compliance with SANDAG Board Policy No. 031, Rule 21. 3. Amend or establish a SANDAG Board Policy to require local jurisdictions to track and report on the number of bike and pedestrian facilities implemented using TransNet funds. SANDAG will conduct a compliance review To be coordinated with implementation using the existing processes of the Policy of recommendation No. 12.a. b. Conducting another review of to determine if modifications are local projects and considering necessary to be more consistent with the whether any adjustments are SANDAG Complete Streets Policy. 78 – 79 High warranted in light of Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) SANDAG’s Complete Streets Team – Chris Kluth Policy. ITOC Leads – Jonathan Tibbitts, Brad Barnum Chapter 5: Transit Services SANDAG staff will continue to report on SANDAG staff will continue to report on Continue to analyze major transit this area via the annual State of the this area via the annual State of the commute routes and services and Commute Report. Commute Report. 13. report on whether commute times 87 – 88 Low Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) have improved or should be improved. Team – Ellison Alegre ITOC Lead – Dick Vortmann SANDAG staff will look at ways to report SANDAG staff continues looking into ways on this area via the annual State of the to report on this area via the annual State Regularly track and report on Commute Report beginning FY 2018. of the Commute Report. It is anticipated TransNet goals to increase services 14. 88 – 89 High Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) this will be incorporated into reporting to seniors and persons with scheduled to be presented in Team – Ellison Alegre disabilities. spring/summer 2019. ITOC Lead – Dick Vortmann
15 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 Work together with the region’s SANDAG staff currently is working with SANDAG staff worked with both transit transit operators to analyze options the transit operators on a Regional Fare operators’ staff to implement this offsetting the impact subsidy Study that may help offset the revenue recommendation. Fare change proposals disparities have on available funds impacts of the discount subsidies. were presented to the Transportation for expanding transit services, such Additionally, SANDAG staff will work with Committee and ITOC. The Board of as funding the pass subsidy disparity both transit operators’ staff to study Directors approved the changes on for seniors and persons with other options to increase ridership and February 8, 2019, with the planned disabilities from other TransNet revenues. implementation by the transit operators 15. 89 – 91 Medium areas—as allowed by the TransNet Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) anticipated to occur in spring 2019. Extension Ordinance—adjusting the ITOC Lead – Dick Vortmann discount offered for senior/disabled and youth riders, determining whether disparities can be funded through other sources, or maintaining existing funding and process. Collaborate with the operators to SANDAG Planning and Finance staff will Staff from SANDAG, MTS, and NCTD met in revisit the operating cost ceiling meet with the operators to collaborate on January 2019 to discuss options to present tied to changes in the Consumer possible solutions to address this to the ITOC. Staff from the MTS, NCTD, Price Index as specified in the recommendation. It is expected that these and SANDAG will prepare proposed TransNet Extension Ordinance so solutions could be included in a future amendment language for Section 4(C)(5) that operators have some flexibility amendment to the Ordinance. for consideration in spring 2019. Staff is with reasonable cost increases while Staff Lead - Brian Lane (Planning) scheduled to present options for still maintaining the intent of implementation at the March 13, 2019, Team – Lisa Kondrat-Dauphin TransNet to provide some assurance ITOC meeting. Pending ITOC input and of the reasonableness of those cost ITOC Lead – Dick Vortmann final approval by the SANDAG Board of increases. This could include Directors, the amendments would be 16. allowing for a wider variance in cost 91 - 92 Medium formalized in spring/summer 2019 for increases, setting a threshold for a incorporation into the upcoming fiscal and not-to-exceed limit, expanding the compliance audit. target by a specified percent in years when changes to the Consumer Price Index decline, or allowing cost exclusions that can be supported, or modify TransNet Extension Ordinance language to apply the cost thresholds at the operator level rather than by individual mode.
16 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 Chapter 6: Bike and Pedestrian Modes of Transportation SANDAG will continue to capture and SANDAG continues to capture and maintain baseline data to identify trends maintain baseline data to identify trends and establish targets. and establish targets. FY 2018 data were Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) included in the FY 2018 Bikeway Program Annual Status Report, which was Team - Chelsea Gonzalez presented to ITOC on September 12, 2018. Continue efforts to establish ITOC Leads – FY 2019 data will be presented in the next baseline data for bike and 17. 95 – 96 Medium Stewart Halpern, Gregg Sadowsky Bikeway Program Annual Status Report in pedestrian volume to identify fall 2019. Ridership and pedestrian counts trends and set targets. also are provided in the Bikeway Quarterly Status report that was provided to the Transportation Committee in October 2018. The next quarterly status report is scheduled for ITOC and Transportation Committee presentation in spring 2019.
Improve project management SANDAG staff has completed the Program SANDAG staff completed the Program practices and project delivery for Management Plan. The SANDAG Active Management Plan in July 2018 and held the Bike Early Action Program Transportation Team will have trainings related project manager training in projects by implementing the with project managers to implement PMP January 2019. An update will be presented practices. to the ITOC in spring 2019. 18. following: 96 – 98 Medium a. Finalizing and implementing Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) Complete the in-progress Regional Team – Chris Kluth Bikeway Program ITOC Leads – Management Plan. Stewart Halpern, Gregg Sadowsky Guidance on documenting lessons learned A Lessons Learned section was included in b. Using Dashboard data that will be included in the Program the final Program Management Plan. As currently tracks frequent Management Plan. SANDAG will work to this is a living document, updates will be causes of delays during the develop procedures and tools to maintain provided to this and other applicable design and environmental lessons learned, identify and mitigate sections. In January 2019, SANDAG staff phases of bike projects, to 97 – 98 High project risks, and improve schedule held a Lessons Learned/Risk Training summarize lessons learned, delivery. Session for all project managers to step identify and mitigate future Staff Lead - Linda Culp (Planning) through the preliminary design of one of preventable occurrences, and the Bike Early Action Program projects. improve scheduled delivery of Team – Lamont Dowell, Chris Kluth the remaining projects. ITOC Leads – Complete
17 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 Stewart Halpern, Gregg Sadowsky Chapter 7: Environmental Mitigation Program The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) The new MOA was presented for feedback has expired, but funding under the to the EMP Working Group, policy advisory SANDAG CIP budget is available for FY committees, and ITOC in January/February Continue efforts to establish a new 2019. SANDAG will be using the results of 2019. The SANDAG Board of Directors Memorandum of Agreement with the Ten-Year Review Look-Back and the approved the MOA on February 22, 2019. Caltrans, California Department of FY 2018 TransNet Triennial Performance Complete 19. Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish 100 High Audit as the basis for a new MOA, which and Wildlife Service to replace is currently under development and current one expiring before funding anticipated to be finalized by the end of expires in June 2018. calendar year 2018. Staff Lead – Keith Greer (Planning) Team – Kim Smith ITOC Lead – Dustin Fuller Enhance the financing and use of SANDAG is tracking the change in cost for Staff is actively tracking the change in cost TransNet funding for the the lagoon restoration efforts and for San Elijo Lagoon. A CM/GC contract is Environmental Mitigation Program comparing it to the cost savings anticipated to be executed in June 2019 for (EMP) by implementing the associated with lower than estimated land construction of the San Dieguito W-19 following: 102 – acquisition costs. Restoration Project. SANDAG anticipates 20. High a. Reviewing and updating EMP 103 Staff Lead – Kim Smith (Planning) an estimate in late 2019, and construction to begin in fall 2020. cost estimates in light of ITOC Lead - Dustin Fuller higher costs than anticipated associated with restoring coastal wetlands. b. Considering the most efficient SANDAG has started discussing ways to This recommendation is being addressed as use of available funding and address this issue which will be part of the new MOA approved by the possible adjustments, as incorporated into the revised MOA Board (Recommendation No. 19), which allowed by the TransNet identified in Recommendation19 above. proposes to manage cash flow to address Extension Ordinance, to focus the highest priorities for the EMP. 100 – Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) on higher priority activities High 102 Team – Kim Smith, Susan Huntington and projects such as restoring coastal wetlands, given ITOC Lead - Dustin Fuller updated revenue forecast information and cost estimates.
18 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 Cost savings are being tracked, but true This recommendation is being addressed as cost savings will not occur until a project part of the new MOA approved by the has completed close-out. This has not Board (Recommendation No. 19). c. Revisiting the established happened yet, but over the next year Additional funding for economic benefit economic benefit SANDAG will evaluate and assign a value would be considered after repayment of methodology to ensure the 103 – High considering the overall costs of the existing bond debt. calculation accurately 104 program as described in Recommendation represents the cost savings 20a above. that have been achieved. Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) Team – Jim Miller ITOC Lead - Dustin Fuller SANDAG has made several attempts to SANDAG is working with Communications promote the availability of these credits. staff to establish a systematic approach to Make changes, as appropriate, to SANDAG will work with Communications promote the availability of these credits, marketing efforts for the local staff to establish a systematic approach. which may include an EMP Local Streets streets and road mitigation bank Communications has met with the and Road Mitigation fact sheet that would funding available for local projects, Planning EMP staff and has calendared be ready for distribution in summer/fall consider revising eligibility criteria 21. 104 High upcoming milestones in order to plan 2019. for public entities, or consider public information releases on all whether those monies could be communication platforms. better utilized within other EMP Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) priority actions, as allowed under the TransNet Extension Ordinance. Team – Susan Huntington, Irene McCormack ITOC Lead - Dustin Fuller
Measure progress in meeting SANDAG already has identified several SANDAG drafted a scope of work to specific and detailed EMP goals, similar efforts from around the country. contract with an outside entity to develop objectives, and action items for SANDAG will develop a proposed regional metrics to track the health of the regional monitoring and approach to communicate these complex preserve system. This effort was included management under the ideas to the public and report as a report in the TransNet EMP FY 2019-2020 Work Management Strategic Plan. card or similar evaluation system. Work Plan that was approved by the BOD in 22. Specifically, develop metrics using 105 Medium will start in summer 2018 to develop a October 2018. the abundance of data to detailed work plan. Communications is holistically understand the status involved in the planning effort and will and trend of the overall health of work with the Planning department to the preserve against the baselines produce informative pieces for established in regional conservation distribution on multiple communication plans and formalize a system to platforms.
19 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 communicate complex performance Staff Lead - Keith Greer (Planning) results to the public. Team – Kim Smith, Jim Miller, Irene McCormack ITOC Lead - Dustin Fuller Chapter 8: Information and Transparency Communications is working on a Communications has incorporated the proactive annual plan for publishing ITOC annual report into its overall yearly progress that will entail multiple forms of communication strategy that includes communication pieces on a variety of press releases, social media, the monthly Regularly report on implementation communication platforms. Region publication and other regular of TransNet Extension Ordinance Staff Lead - Irene McCormack email newsletters, as well as incorporation goals by annually publishing into speaking engagements and focused 23. 110 High (Communications) progress on SANDAG’s website, media attention on specific TransNet- Team – Ariana zur Nieden annual report, or other easily visible funded projects. In addition, reporting tool. ITOC Leads – Communications routinely updates the Brad Barnum, Kai Ramer, Gregg Sadowsky KeepSanDiegoMoving.com web site to ensure that stakeholders have the best information on projects funded by TransNet. A comprehensive review of the agenda A new short-form report has been production process, including report developed. Use of the new report format Modify staff reports for SANDAG preparation, is being conducted based on began in October 2018 for Board, Policy Board and other oversight the Board’s Plan of Excellence to ensure Advisory Committee, and ITOC meetings. committees to summarize elements transparency and clear, concise, and easily Staff is developing internal guidelines to related to public input, pros and 111 – understandable information in reports ensure consistent implementation of the 24. cons on recommended actions, and Critical 112 and presentations. new agenda production processes. Formal implications or impacts of those Staff Lead - Victoria Stackwick trainings are scheduled for spring 2019 to recommended actions. Ensure that (Government Relations) provide staff with additional resources and staff reports are summarized to one technical knowledge. or two pages. Team – Robyn Wapner ITOC Leads – Complete Brad Barnum, Kai Ramer, Gregg Sadowsky
Better link TransNet funding to SANDAG staff will review existing Staff has reviewed and made project and program activities for 113 – websites and make recommendations for improvements to sandag.org/TransNet, 25. Low general public awareness by 114 additional TransNet logo and language which included adding links to the implementing the following: placement to create stronger recognition TransNet Dashboard and TransNet grant of the TransNet Program. Staff also will program pages. On social media,
20 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019 a. More prominently featuring begin review of partner agency websites #TransNetSD is being more consistently the TransNet logo on SANDAG to see where SANDAG and TransNet logos added to posts that referenced TransNet- and TransNet partner websites and corresponding language can be funded projects. Social campaigns as well as through other added/enhanced. SANDAG social media featuring TransNet-funded grant media such as Facebook and posts will reference the use of TransNet programs also were completed. In both Twitter. funding where appropriate, and press releases and social media, all funding #TransNetSD will continue to be used as a source information is being consistently way of threading all TransNet-funded added where appropriate. SANDAG press program and project posts together. releases continue to reference TransNet Social media campaigns specific to funding and social media campaigns TransNet-funded efforts and specific to TransNet-funded efforts and accomplishments will be more regularly accomplishments are being regularly pursued. pursued. The review of partner agency Staff Lead - Joy DeKorte websites is expected to begin by spring (Communications) 2019 and wrap-up by June 30, 2019. Team – Ariana zur Nieden ITOC Leads – Brad Barnum, Kai Ramer, Gregg Sadowsky The sandag.org/TransNet web page will Staff reviewed sandag.org/TransNet and be reviewed and recommendations made added additional links, including one to will include each TransNet component, the Dashboard and others to its various including the Dashboard. Staff has been grant programs. SANDAG issued the notice pursuing a complete redesign of to proceed for the website redesign b. Revamping SANDAG website sandag.org, expected to begin in project in December 2018. The project is to capture documents FY 2019, which is planned to include expected to closely align with the TransNet pertinent to TransNet in a higher visibility of each TransNet Dashboard redesign, so TransNet-funded centralized area for each component, including the Dashboard. project components can be shared 114 – TransNet Extension Ordinance Low Additionally, staff will begin a between sites, allowing for greater 115 component. This includes coordinated review of the Dashboard to transparency. The SANDAG website linking Dashboard projects determine the most effective way to link redesign project is anticipated to be with those listed in the projects back to the Ordinance. completed in FY 2020. TransNet Extension Ordinance. Staff Lead - Joy DeKorte (Communications) Team – Ariana zur Nieden ITOC Leads – Brad Barnum, Kai Ramer, Gregg Sadowsky
21 Report Initial Staff Response Implementation Status Audit Recommendation Priority Page July 2018 March 2019
Ensure data on completed projects SANDAG will ensure all completed Completed projects and expenditures have is maintained in the Dashboard— projects are maintained in the Dashboard, been added to the Dashboard and are even if under an archived location and that all expenditures have been available for public viewing. Information still accessible to the public—and 115 – associated with the appropriate funding available at www.transnettrip.com 26. Medium separate past and future 116 source. Complete expenditures between the original Staff Lead - Lamont Dowell (TransNet) TransNet amounts and the TransNet ITOC Leads – Extension Ordinance amounts. Brad Barnum, Kai Ramer, Gregg Sadowsky
22
TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Item: 15 March 13, 2019 TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Member Solicitation
Overview Action Requested: Information The ITOC is seeking qualified members of the In accordance with the TransNet Extension Ordinance, public to fill a vacancy on its seven-member the ITOC was established to provide an enhanced level committee for the position of a licensed of accountability for expenditures made under the architect, civil engineer, or traffic engineer expenditure plan. The membership of the ITOC consists with demonstrated experience of ten years or of seven voting members, with each member more in the field of transportation and/or representing a specified area of expertise. The term of urban design in government or the private one current ITOC member will be expiring in May 2019 sector. Staff will provide an update on the (Attachment 1). solicitation process. Key Considerations Fiscal Impact: A Selection Committee will be convened to select ITOC Consistent with TransNet Extension Ordinance members from a list of qualified candidates provisions, ITOC members shall serve without recommended by a Technical Screening Committee. compensation except for direct expenses ITOC member terms are set by the Selection Committee (parking/mileage for attendance at meetings) at time of appointment. Applications are being related to the work of the ITOC. requested from individuals interested in serving on the ITOC through an open, publicly noticed solicitation Schedule/Scope Impact: process. Applications will be accepted until The newly selected member is anticipated to Friday, March 22, 2019. The application and information begin serving at the regularly scheduled ITOC regarding ITOC and its responsibilities can be found on meeting in June 2019. the SANDAG Web site at sandag.org/itoc. The Selection Committee is anticipated to meet on April 26, 2019, to make its selection.
Next Steps The newly selected member is anticipated to begin serving at the regularly scheduled ITOC meeting in June 2019. Should the Selection Committee be unable to reach agreement on a candidate from the qualified candidates recommended by the Technical Screening Committee, the Selection Committee shall request the Technical Screening Committee recommend two additional qualified candidates for consideration.
José A. Nuncio, TransNet Department Director Key Staff Contact: Ariana zur Nieden, (619) 699-6961, [email protected] Attachment: 1. Copy of Public Notice for the Solicitation of Applications for Membership on the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee Attachment 1
PUBLIC NOTICE
Solicitation of Applications for Membership on the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee
The TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) is seeking qualified members of the public to fill a vacancy on its seven-member committee in the following category.
o A licensed architect, civil engineer or traffic engineer with demonstrated experience of ten years or more in the field of transportation and/or urban design in government or the private sector.
The ITOC aids in the implementation of the TransNet program, the San Diego region’s half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements. The TransNet program is administered by SANDAG.
As outlined in the TransNet Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, the ITOC provides an increased level of accountability for expenditures of TransNet funds. ITOC members are unpaid, but certain expenses are reimbursed. Due to their public service status, ITOC members must meet strict conflict of interest standards. The ITOC functions in an independent, open, and transparent manner to ensure that all voter mandates are carried out, and develops positive, constructive recommendations for improvements and enhancements to the financial integrity and performance of the TransNet program.
ITOC membership is open to individuals from throughout the region, who possess a set of appropriate professional skills and experience. More detailed information regarding the ITOC and its responsibilities can be found at sandag.org/itoc. Individuals interested in applying for this ITOC position should contact SANDAG for an application at [email protected] or (619) 699-6961, or go to sandag.org/notices.
Applications must be postmarked no later than Friday, March 22, 2019. SANDAG seeks to fill openings on the ITOC with a diverse group of persons who are representative of the community. SANDAG highly encourages applications from persons of all races and economic backgrounds. The newly selected member is anticipated to begin serving at the regularly scheduled ITOC meeting in June 2019.
2