DOCSLIB.ORG

STAFF RE PO RT TO: AC Transit Board of Directors FROM: Michael A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
STAFF RE PO RT TO: AC Transit Board of Directors FROM: Michael A Report No: 17-234 ,41 Meeting Date: August 9, 2017 Alameda-ContraCosta Transit District STAFF RE PO RT TO: AC Transit Board of Directors FROM: Michael A. Hursh, General Manager SUBJECT: Transbay Fare Schedule Adjustment BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Consider and discuss the staff recommendation regarding adjusting Transbay fares for FY 2018/19 through FY2022/23. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE ACTransit's Transbay services have a distinct fare structure from that of localservice. Transbay fares recently changedas part of a larger adjustment to the fare structure but remain tied by formula to the local fare. The District has remaining capital funding obligations for the new TransbayTransit Center('nC) that will require additional funding. In addition the District may have ongoing operations and maintenance funding requirements for the TTC. The District has a remaining capitalcommitment to fund the construction of the new Transbay Transit Center(TTC) of$22.8 million out of a totalof $57 million(both amounts in 2011 dollars with a 4.5-percent discount rate on contributions). The District has until 2050 to pay off the commitment. The Lease and Use agreement signed with the Transbay Joint Powers Authority in 2008 envisioned the remainder of that commitment after initial grant pass-through funding to be paid off by an additionalcharge on top of the regular Transbayfare (a "PassengerFare charge ) Staff developed a set of assumptions and forecasted costs and revenues associated with Transbay service, including capitalcontributions for the new n'C. Staff determined the goalof any fare adjustment should be to maintain the existing farebox recovery ratio of 24.4 percent so any new revenueswould need to cover any increase in cost due to operating in the TTC,at a minimum. The assumptions staff developed are conservative and aimed at ensuring any revenue projections account for the "worst-case" scenario.They are as follows: © Annualoperating cost increases of four percent. © No annual ridership growth. e The Senior/Disabled/Youthfare discount and Monthly passmultipliers would not be changed. e Fare elasticity factor of 0.18, meaning for every one-percent increase in fare, ridership will drop O.18 percent. For example, an increase of seven percent would mean a 1.26- percent decreasein ridership. 8 No additionaloutside funding. 1 of 5 Report No. 17-234 Page2 of 5 The proposal-- summarized in Exhibit lbelow -- brings the single-ride base fare to $7.00 by July 1, 2022, an increase of $2.50 over the current fare over five years. The discount senior/youth/disabled fare willremain approximately one-half the base fare while the monthly passwillcontinue to be 36 times the base fare price Estimated Category FY 2015/16 FY2016/17 Base Fare $ 4.20 $ 4.20 Discounted Fare $ 2.10 $ 2.10 Monthlv Pass $ 151.20 $ 151.20 Total Ridership 4,307,490 4,307,490 While this adjustment seems severe -- it is an increase of 49 percent over five years -- it amounts to ll percent or less each year, and takes Into consideration the District did not increase fares for six yearsbetween 2011and 2017.AC Transit's fares still remain wellbelow someof its peers offering high-quality commuter service, including Golden Gate Transit. Exhibit 2 below includes examples of other transit operators offering commuter service in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some operators have different fares based on distance traveled or "zones." These differences are also illustrated below. Exhibit 2 - Peer Fare Structures Adult CashFare AC Transit Transbay $ 4.50 Golden Gate Transit $ 5.00 SantaCruz Metro Highway17 $ 7.00 In addition to looking at the change in fares across the next severalyears, staff willbring forward a recommendation to change the language in Board Policy 333 which states the Transbay base fare willbe two times the localbase fare. Staff is also reviewingthe monthly passmultiplier which currentlystates monthly passesshould be 36 timesthe price of the base fare. Analysis of patterns 2 of 5 Report No. 17-234 Page3 of 5 among current customers has revealed many use Transbay service fewer than 36 times/month Reducingthe multiplier may be one way to migrate customers towards the monthly pass. The schedulefor public comment, equity analysis, and Board consideration of any changes to the Transbayfare structure is illustrated in Exhibit 3. Exhibit 3 -- Transbay Fare Policy Timeline Complete 7 ' August 9, 2017 e August/Sept ember 2017 ober 25 2017 ober 25 2017 ©January 24 2018 February28, 2018 'July 1, 2018 BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT With the assumptions in the mode] presented in this staff report and detai]ed in Exhibit]. above, operating cost for Transbayservice would increase four percent each year and go from $41,214,514 in FY 2015/16 to $54,235,489 in FY 2022/23. The proposed fare adjustment would amount to an additional $5,158,722 by FY 2022/23, raising the farebox recovery ratio to 26.8 percent, thus meeting the goalof at least matching the current ratio of 24.4 percent. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES Advantages This proposal -- as modeled - ensures Transbay Service will continue to recover the same percentageof operatingcost through fares as it doescurrently. Openingthe newTTC brings with it significant costs and this proposalstrikes a balance between increasing fares for customers and ensuring high-quality Transbay service is available for years to come. Disadvantages Raisingfares drives up the cost of using the service for customers, and this proposalincludes an increaseof$2.50 over the current base fare of$4.50. The model assumesthat for every one- percent increase in fares, ridership will decline by 0.18 percent. This amounts to a ridership decline of 9.6 percent, or about 413,000 fewer riders per year in FY2022/23. 3 of 5 Report No. 17-234 Page4 of 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This proposalis one of many options the Board could consider with respect to adjusting Transbay fares. Several options are discussed below: 1) Continue with current adopted fare adjustment of$4.70 in July 2018 Thisis the current path for the District, if no action is taken, the Transbaybase fare will have increased to $4.70 on July 1, 2018 and no further increases are planned. Staff included this as an alternative when conducting forecasts with the same model used for the staff recommendation above. With an assumption of no loss in ridership due to fare elasticity, this willresult in just under $1.2 million/year in revenue starting in FY2018/19, reducingthe farebox recovery rate from 24.4 percent today to 19.8 percent in FY2022/23. If the modelassumesthe sameO.18 fare elasticity multiplier asused in staff's conservative recommendation, the adopted fare increase willresult in$964,000 in additionalrevenue starting in FY2018/19, resulting in a farebox recovery ratio of 19.4 percent in FY2022/23. 2) Adjust assumptions in the model Staff is using a conservative set of assumptions for the purposes of developing the recommendation in this staff report. However, the model is flexible and the Board could direct staff to assumethere will be no loss of ridership due to fare elasticity or that ridership will increase,thus driving up fare revenue. The Board could also direct staff to reduce the forecast four-percent increase in operating cost or include potentialoutside revenuesources that would supplementfare revenue. The latter could be likely with the potential for revenue from the TTCfor naming rights, a potential allocation from RM-2 for operating the TTC,and a future revenue source from RM-3 should it come to fruition. 3) Set new goal for revenue The primary target used to refine this proposal was ensuring the Transbay farebox recovery ratio was at least the same in FY2022/23 as it is today -- 24.4 percent. The staff recommendation results in a farebox recovery ratio of 26.8 percent, achieving that goal. The Board could direct staff to evaluate other targets, such as a specific revenue figure or a goalof recoupingthe entire cost and any future operating cost. These may require more significant increasesin the Transbay fare. PRIOR BELEVANIBOARD ACTION/POUCHES Board Policy 333 -- Fare Policy: Fares,Fare Structure, and Fare Increases Board Resolution No. 13-046 Board Resolution No. ].6-009 Staff Report 16-047 - BoardPolicy 328- FarePolicy Staff Report 17-017 -- Scheduled Fare Increase -- July 1, 2017 Staff Report 17-030 - Board Policy 333, AC Transit EasyPassFares for 2017 and 2018 ATTACHMENTS None Approved by: Michele Joseph, Director of Marketing & Communications Reviewed by: Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development & Planning DeniseC. Standridge,General Counsel 4 of 5 Report No. 17-234 Page5 of 5 Claudia Allen, Chief FinancialOfficer Beverly Green, Director of Legislative Affairs & Community Relations Michele Joseph, Director of Marketing & Communications Chris Andrichak, Director of Management & Budget Prepared by: Michael Eshleman, Service Planning Manager 5 of 5.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Las Vegas Monorail, an Innovative Solution for Public Transportation Problems Within the Resort Corridor
    UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones 4-1999 The Las Vegas Monorail, an innovative solution for public transportation problems within the resort corridor Cam C. Walker University of Nevada Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Public Administration Commons Repository Citation Walker, Cam C., "The Las Vegas Monorail, an innovative solution for public transportation problems within the resort corridor" (1999). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 198. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/1439111 This Thesis is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Thesis in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Monorail 1 THE LAS VEGAS MONORAIL, AN INNOVATIVE SOLUTION The Las Vegas Monorail: An Innovative Solution for Public Transportation Problems within the Resort Corridor By Cam C. Walker Bachelor of Science Brigham Young
    [Show full text]
  • Southern California Rapid Transit District (SCRTD)
    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Law ---------------------------------------------------------------------- With corresponding provisions of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Law and Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Law Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority California Public Utilities Code Page 2 of 110 Introduction The Southern California Rapid Transit District, also known as the SCRTD or the “District” (1964-1993) was created by the State as the successor to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority or “LAMTA” (1958-1964). LAMTA was the first publicly governed transit operator in Los Angeles and also responsible for the planning of a new mass transit system to replace the aging remnants of the transit systems built by Pacific Electric (1899-1953) and Los Angeles Railway (1895-1945). Unfortunately, the LAMTA had no ability to raise tax revenues or powers of eminent domain, and its board was appointed by the Governor, making the task building local support for mass transit improvements difficult at best. Dissatisfaction with the underpowered LAMTA led to a complete re-write of its legislative authority. While referred to in state legislation as a merger, the District law completely overwrote the LAMTA Act of 1957. The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, also known as LACTC or the “Commission” (1977-1993) was created by the State in 1976 as a separate countywide transportation planning agency, along with transportation commissions in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties. At the time the District was initially created, there were no transit or transportation grant programs available from the State or Federal governments. Once funding sources became available from the Urban Mass Transit Administration, now the Federal Transit Administration, the California Transportation Commission, and others, the creation of county transportation commissions ensured coordination of multimodal transportation planning and funding programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report
    Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report Public Review Draft October 2017 Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison October 2017 Research and Peer Review Research and Peer Review .................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 A Note on TCRP Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Elasticity of Demand for Commuter Rail ............................................................................... 3 Definition ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Commuter Rail Elasticity ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Comparison with Peer Systems ............................................................................................ 4 Fares ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Employer Programs ..................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Los Angeles Transportation Transit History – South LA
    Los Angeles Transportation Transit History – South LA Matthew Barrett Metro Transportation Research Library, Archive & Public Records - metro.net/library Transportation Research Library & Archive • Originally the library of the Los • Transportation research library for Angeles Railway (1895-1945), employees, consultants, students, and intended to serve as both academics, other government public outreach and an agencies and the general public. employee resource. • Partner of the National • Repository of federally funded Transportation Library, member of transportation research starting Transportation Knowledge in 1971. Networks, and affiliate of the National Academies’ Transportation • Began computer cataloging into Research Board (TRB). OCLC’s World Catalog using Library of Congress Subject • Largest transit operator-owned Headings and honoring library, forth largest transportation interlibrary loan requests from library collection after U.C. outside institutions in 1978. Berkeley, Northwestern University and the U.S. DOT’s Volpe Center. • Archive of Los Angeles transit history from 1873-present. • Member of Getty/USC’s L.A. as Subject forum. Accessing the Library • Online: metro.net/library – Library Catalog librarycat.metro.net – Daily aggregated transportation news headlines: headlines.metroprimaryresources.info – Highlights of current and historical documents in our collection: metroprimaryresources.info – Photos: flickr.com/metrolibraryarchive – Film/Video: youtube/metrolibrarian – Social Media: facebook, twitter, tumblr, google+,
    [Show full text]
  • Connecticut Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Paratransit Application Form
    CT_ADAApplication_Rev8_12-19 Connecticut Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Paratransit Application Form Instructions for Submission To request a copy of this application in an accessible format, please call (203) 365- 8522 Extension 2061. The purpose of this application is to determine eligibility for Connecticut complementary ADA Paratransit service. If you have a disability that prevent s you from using the public transit bus service in Connecticut, you may be eligible for ADA Paratransit service. ADA Paratransit is a shared ride, advanced reservation, origin-to-destination service for persons with disabilities who are unable to use the public bus service because of their disability. Service Criteria The Connecticut ADA Paratransit program is designed to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act service criteria established by the federal government. Service is provided only to individuals f ound eligible by a Connecticut regional ADA service provider and is operated under the following ADA guidelines: • Complementary service is only provided in areas where public buses operate. This does not include Express Commuter service, Intercity or Dial-A-Ride services. ADA Paratransit vehicles can only make pick-ups and drop-offs at places that are within three-quarters of a mile of a public bus route. • Service is provided only during the hours and days when public bus service in that area operates. • Rides must be reserved at least one day inadvance. • ADA Paratransit fares are typically double the cost of a full fare on a public bus route. • Service is not restricted by trip purpose but provided for all types of trips. ADA Definition of Disability Any person with a disability who is unable, as a result of a physical or mental impairment, and without the assistance of another individual (except the operator of a wheelchair lift), to board, ride, or disembark from any public bus.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 National Transit Summary and Trends
    NTD National Transit Database 2016 National Transit Summary and Trends Office of Budget and Policy October 2017 Federal Transit Administration U.S. Department of Transportation National Transit Summaries & Trends 2016 Table of Contents Table of Exhibits ..............................................................................................................iv Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 General Information ..................................................................................................... 7 What is the National Transit Database (NTD)? .................................................................................... 7 Who reports data to the NTD? .............................................................................................................. 7 What are the modes of transit? ............................................................................................................. 8 What is an Urbanized Area (UZA)? .................................................................................................... 10 What is a Rural Area? ......................................................................................................................... 10 What data does the NTD collect? ....................................................................................................... 11 What is Safety and Security reporting?..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Apta Health & Safety Commitments Program
    APTA HEALTH & SAFETY COMMITMENTS PROGRAM We’re all In This Together! Participating Agencies Transit Agency Headquarters Location Antelope Valley Transit Authority Lancaster CA Battle Creek Transit Battle Creek MI Blacksburg Transit Blacksburg, VA Broward County Transit Plantation FL Cambria County Transit Authority (CamTran) Johnstown PA Capital District Transportation Authority Albany NY Central Contra Costa Transit Concord CA Central Ohio Transit Authority Columbus OH Central Pennsylvania Transportation Authority York PA Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Urbana IL Chatham Area Transit Authority Savannah GA Chicago Transit Authority Chicago IL City of Fresno Transit Fresno CA City of Gardena (G-Trans) Gardena CA City of Modesto Area Express Modesto CA Collins Bus service Windsor CT Community Transit Everett WA Connecticut DOT -- CT Rail Glastonbury CT Culver City Transit Culver City CA Dallas Area Rapid Transit Dallas TX Delaware Transit Corporation Dover DE Denton County Transportation Authority Lewisville TX Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority Des Moines IA Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority Antioch CA Embark Transit Authority Oklahoma City OK Everett Transit Everett WA Foothill Transit West Covina CA Fort Bend County Public Transportation Rosenberg TX Franklin Transit Authority Franklin TN Georgia Regional Transportation Authority Atlanta GA Gold Coast Transit District Oxnard CA Greater Bridgeport Transit District Bridgeport CT Greater Hartford Transit District Harford CT Greater New Haven Transit District New Haven
    [Show full text]
  • Benchmarking Presentation
    City Services Benchmarking: Public Transportation CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Office of the Controller City Services Auditor Peg Stevenson | Joe Lapka 06.03.2014 Performance Measurement Mandate 2 Appendix F, Section 101 of the City Charter The Controller shall… • Monitor the level and effectiveness of services provided to the people of San Francisco, • Review performance and cost benchmarks, and • Conduct comparisons of the cost and performance of City government with other cities, counties, and public agencies that perform similar functions Prescribed Service Areas (areas covered by previous benchmarking reports) Condition of urban environment Transportation Human resources Public health & human services Criminal justice City management Parks, cultural & recreational facilities Fire and paramedic services Public works March 2014 Benchmarking Report – Public Transportation 3 Purpose Compare the cost and performance of directly-operated light rail, bus, and trolleybus service provided by SFMTA with similar services in metropolitan areas Peer Selection Methodology • Followed methodology outlined in Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 141 – A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry • Designed to provide a robust, practical, and transparent process for selecting peer agencies based on uniformly defined and readily available data • Underwent multiple rounds of review and testing by numerous transit agencies, regional transportation authorities, and state departments of transportation
    [Show full text]
  • ADA Paratransit Application.Rev 08
    ____________________________________________________________ Accessible Services 1221 R Street Sacramento, CA 95811 PHONE: 916-557-4685 or 916-557-4686 (TDD) FAX: 916-455-3924 [email protected] www.sacrt.com/accessibleservices.stm Thank you for inquiring about eligibility for ADA Paratransit Service. Sacramento Regional Transit’s Paratransit Service is a “Safety Net” for people with physical, cognitive or visual disabilities that are functionally unable to independently use the RT fixed route service either all of the time, temporarily or only under certain circumstances. Enclosed are the ADA Paratransit Application and Eligibility Brochure that explains ADA Paratransit Service. Please read the Eligibility Brochure carefully before completing your application. The Steps in the Eligibility Process 1. Request the application packet. 2. Read the Eligibility Brochure that is enclosed. 3. Complete all questions on the Paratransit Application that follows this page. 4. Submit your application to your physician, or other professional, to complete the professional verification section. 5. Mail your signed and completed application and professional verification form to: Sacramento Regional Transit District, Accessible Services PO Box 2110 Sacramento, CA 95812-2110 6. You may be asked to attend an in-person interview. Your eligibility will be determined within 21 days from the date you complete your telephone and/or in- person interview and functional assessment. You will be notified by letter as to your eligibility status. 7. If you do not receive written notice of RT’s decision within 21 days, you may request paratransit services until a decision has been made by calling (916) 557-4685 or (916) 557-4686 (TDD). An incomplete application will be returned and will delay processing.
    [Show full text]
  • SEATTLE STREETCAR Operations Report
    Seattle Department of Transportation SEATTLE STREETCAR Operations Report July 2019 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................4 1.1. South Lake Union Streetcar.....................................................................4 1.2. First Hill Streetcar ...................................................................................6 1.3. Center City Connector .............................................................................6 2. OPERATIONS HIGHLIGHTS ..................................................................................7 2.1. Governance Structure and Budget Overview ..........................................7 2.2. Status of Negotiations on New Streetcar ILA..........................................8 2.3. Safety & Security Update .........................................................................9 3. FINANCIAL METRICS .........................................................................................10 3.1. South Lake Union Streetcar...................................................................10 3.2. First Hill Streetcar .................................................................................13 3.3. Investment in Streetcar Operations ......................................................15 4. PERFORMANCE METRICS ..................................................................................17 4.1. Ridership ................................................................................................17
    [Show full text]
  • Support Material Agenda Item No. 6
    Support Material Agenda Item No. 6 Transit Committee Meeting March 12, 2020 9:00 AM Location: San Bernardino County Transportation Authority First Floor Lobby Board Room Santa Fe Depot, 1170 W. 3rd Street San Bernardino, CA 92410 DISCUSSION ITEMS Transit 6. San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and Omnitrans Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review of the Metro-Valley That the Transit Committee recommend the Board, acting as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority: A. Receive and file an update on the Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review of the Metro-Valley. B. Approve a Budget Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2019/2020 budget to transfer State Transit Assistance Rail funds from Task No. 0309 - Transit Operator Support to Task No. 0425 - Special Projects and Strategic Initiatives, in the amount of $400,000. Attached you will find Task 1.3: Performance Review Report and Task 1.2: Agency Functional Assessment Report, provided separately for your review. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CONSOLIDATION STUDY AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT REVIEW TASK 1.3: PERFORMANCE REVIEW FINAL – February 25, 2020 WSP USA 862 E. HOSPITALITY LANE, SUITE 350 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 TEL.: +1 909-888-1106 WSP.COM Page Intentionally Left Blank San Bernardino County Transportation Authority Consolidation Study and Innovative Transit Review Task 1.3 — Performance Review February 25, 2020 Prepared for: SBCTA Prepared by: WSP USA QUALITY CONTROL Name Date (M/D/Y) Preparation Tom L./ Luke Y. 01/11/2020 Technical Review Billy H. 01/13/2020 Quality Review Billy H. 01/13/2020 Backcheck & Revision Tom L./ Luke Y. 01/13/2020 Approval for Release Billy H.
    [Show full text]
  • Norwalk Transit District Paratransit Services – Riders Guide
    Norwalk Transit District Paratransit Services – Riders Guide Introduction Paratransit transportation services consist of a variety of door to door service for the elderly and/or person with disabilities. All paratransit services are a shared ride service. It is not emergency medical transportation nor is it a personal taxi service. To ensure the greatest level of operating and cost efficiency you should expect to be traveling with other riders who are going in the same direction as yourself. Each service has its own rules of operation including service area and hours of operation. Please review each section below, for the program that you are eligible to travel under for specific program requirements. Service Areas Dispatch-A-Ride / Norwalk ADA – is available for travel within a ¾ mile radius of a Norwalk Transit bus route within Norwalk, during the same hours that the route operates. Service outside this ¾ mile area in Norwalk is not provided. This service is available to anyone with a disability and/or impairment that prevents them from using a city bus. Easy Access / Stamford ADA - is available for travel within the city of Stamford and within ¾ mile radius of an operating CT Transit bus route within Greenwich, Darien, Norwalk and limited areas of New York, during the same hours that the route operates. Service outside this ¾ mile area in New York, Greenwich and Darien is not provided. This service is available to anyone with a disability and/or impairment that prevents them from using a city bus. Westport Elderly & Disabled / Town of Westport – is available for travel within the Town of Westport to anyone 65 years of age and older, or 64 years of age and younger that has a disability and/or impairment.
    [Show full text]