The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/04/1996, 7 - UNMET NEEDS FINDING council KrT q(a j acEnaa izEpoRt C I T Y OF SAN L U IS OBISPO FROM: M. McCluskey, Director of Pubic Worlw Prepared By: II. Watson, Transit Manager R. Gwin, Transit Technician SUBJECT: Unmet Needs Finding CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Direct all future transit service request hearings be held by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)for inclusion in their Regional Unmet Needs Hearing process. 2. Re-confirm adopted definitions of Unmet Need, and Reasonable to Meet. 3. Find that there were no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet. DISCUSSION Background A. Future Transit Service Request Hearings The City has long held annual "Unmet Needs" hearings in accordance with TDA regulations. However, those regulations no longer apply when 100% of TDA funds are committed to transit and alternative transportation (see Attachment 1). In 1991,the City Council,by policy, dedicated 100% of TDA funds to transit and alternative transportation. In 1992, the City was "urbanized" and became eligible for Federal Section 9 transit funding. At that time, staff understood that Section 9 required an "Unmet Needs" hearing separate from the TDA hearing_ Staff recently learned that there is no such requirement. Thus from 1991 to present, the City has been under no obligation to hold "Unmet Needs" hearings. Unmet Needs hearings are required, however, on a regional basis when within the region 100% of TDA funds are not allocated to transit. Because a number of agencies in San Luis Obispo County still use TDA for streets purposes, SLOCOG is required to and does perform the Unmet Needs hearing for all agencies (including the City) in the region. SLOCOG staff has confirmed the fact that all of the TDA requirements are met through their Unmet Needs Hearing (see Attachment 2). s Council Agenda Report - Unmet Needs Finding Page 2 Staff contacted Mr. Jess Moreno, Associate Planner- Caltrans Mass Transportation Program, who has confirmed that the SLOCOG Unmet Needs Hearing fulfills all of the TDA requirements and since the City dedicates all of it's TDA funding to alternative transportation, the City is not required to hold a separate Unmet Needs Hearing . In conclusion, since SLOCOG fulfills all of the requirements for the Unmet Needs Hearing and the City is fully represented in this process, the City is NOT required to hold their own Unmet Needs Hearing. Therefore to eliminate duplicative processes, staff recommends that the City discontinue its own Unmet Needs hearings and allow the SLOCOG process to continue to satisfy the needs of the region, including the City. B. Definitions At the March 5, 1996 the City Council meeting on Unmet Needs, the Council discussed the definitions of "Unmet Need" and "Reasonable to Meet". Comments included the following issues: a) why fifteen (15) requests are required in order to be classified as an Unmet Need; and b) the Reasonable to Meet criteria that relates to funding a new service that could potentially cause a reduction in existing service and that the goal should be "to provide the best level of service for the majority of people with our current bus service..." (Councilman Romero). The currently adopted standard definition of fifteen (15), is less than an established transit operations standard of seventeen (17). In staffs opinion the reduction of two (2) less requests necessary in order for an item to be considered as an Unmet Need seems more responsive from a customer service perspective. Staff feels that 15 requests do represent a fair "level" to gauge the degree of Unmet Need. In response to the cost effectiveness concern of a new service impacting an existing service, raised by Councilman Romero, contained in the City's definition of Reasonable to Meet is a criteria that the requested service must be "affordable". Staff interprets affordable to mean both cost effective and have a positive cost/benefit ratio. Staff therefore recommends that the currently adopted definitions be maintained. C. Results of Unmet Needs Requests Public input was given at the March 5th Unmet Needs Hearing, and the final tally indicates that nineteen (19) requests were received (see Attachment 3). Nine (9) requests were presented directly to the Council, while the remaining ten (10) were a combination of telephone, mail or 7�A Council Agenda Report- Unmet Needs Finding Page 3 walk-in requests. Staff has analyzed these nineteen (19) requests and determined that no requests meet the definitions of an Unmet Transit Need. The highest requested service was for Route 3 "to run on time" and had a total number of four (4) requests. All the requests, however, were honestly made and deserve attention. Staff will review each to determine to what extent each can be answered or fulfilled. Providing good service and listening to our customers is one of the hallmarks of the SLO Transit system. Unfortunately, a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) update survey took place during the Unmet Needs Hearing process. It is unknown to what extent patrons felt the SRTP survey represented the Unmet Needs process. As the survey was 'operational" in form, requests for new routes could only have been received 'via the Unmet process. However, there could have been much overlap concerning operational issues. Rather than try to ascertain if and what operational issues were confused, staff recommends that all these issues be referred to the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) as a part of the SRTP update scheduled for fall 1997. CONCURRENCES The Mass Transportation Committee heard the results of the Customer Survey, and the requests received at the Unmet Needs Hearing, at their May 8, 1996 meeting. The MTC reconfirmed the adopted definitions for the Unmet Needs Hearing. A recommendation was made to improve Route 3, however the committee did not want to exclude any of the other unmet needs requests that were identified. Staff assured the committee that all of the requests at both the Unmet Needs Hearing and the Customer Survey will be taken into consideration while working on the update of the SRTP. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the Transit fund associated with any of the above actions. ATTACfINIDVTS: 41 Unmet Needs Hearing Requirements Memo 42 SLOCOG Letter #3 Requests Received at Unmet Needs Hearing cl�d%z 7i� ATTACHMENT / May 14, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: Al Cablay, Public Works Manager Harry Watson, Transit Manager FROM: Reime Gwin, Transportation TechmcianT�10 SUBJECT: Unmet Needs Hearing Requirements State Requirements The City of San Luis Obispo is not required hold the Unmet Needs Hearing due to the following statutes in the Transportation Development Act Statutes and California Code of Regulations January 1996. 99401.5 Prior to making any allocation not directly related to public transportation services, specialized transportation services, or facilities provided for the exclusive use of pedestrian and bicycles, the transportation planning agency shall annually do all of the following... (c) Identify the unmet transit needs of the jurisdiction and those needs that are reasonable to meet. The transportation planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing pursuant to Section 99238.S for the purpose of soliciting comments on the unmet transit needs that may exist within the jurisdiction and might be reasonable to meet...... I contacted Jess Moreno, an Associate Planner from the Caltrans Mass Transportation Program with a specialty in TDA (Transportation Development Act) law. Mr. Moreno provided the following interpretations of the above TDA regulations: 1) the City of San Luis Obispo is NOT required by TDA law to conduct a public hearing on Unmet Transit Needs. The annual hearing held by SLOCOG (San Luis Obispo Council of Governments), our designated transportation planning agency, fulfills this requirement. 2) the TDA law requires the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing before any allocation can be made for "streets and roads" projects. Since the City of San Luis Obispo dedicates all of it's allocation of TDA dollars to alternative transportation, the City is not required to hold an Unmet Needs Hearing. Federal Requirements The City of San Luis Obispo is not required by any of the regulations in the Federal Transit Administrations Circulars to conduct an Unmet Needs Hearing. 7- 41 San Luis Obi,,po Council of ;sovernments Regional Transportation Planning Agency �'° �Cd, Morro Bav Metropolitan Planning Organization PasoRoblc Congestion Management Agency San LuisCObispo San Luis Obispo Count ATTACHMENT May 9,1996 Al Cablay Public Works Manager City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Dear Mr.Cablay: In response to your staff's inquiry about the Unmet Transit Needs hearing process, following is a brief summary of SLOCOG's responsibilities. Each year the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments-as Regional Transportation Planning Agency for San Luis Obispo County - conducts a public hearing to receive requests for new and/or expanded transit services within the County. This hearing is conducted as mandated by the Transportation Development Act(TDA)which provides funding for transit,bikeways,roadway improvements,Ridesharing,and transportation planning. The TDA states that transit service needs must be.addressed before releasing TDA funds for roadway improvements. The Council of Governments is responsible for conducting the hearing on behalf of all the municipalities in the County to identify if any transit needs exist anywhere in the County. Since the Unmet Needs hearing process is required to identify potential new and/or expanded transit services prior to releasing funds for roadway improvements,and since the City of San Luis Obispo already spends 100% of its discretionary TDA dollars on transit, any mandate to fulfill unmet transit needs requests before funding roadway projects does not apply. If you need any more information,please do not hesitate to call me at 761-4255. Sincerely, G Suzanne Winslow Transportation Planner c: file wP81VMWMWk i 98 1150 Osos St. Suite 202, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel. (805) 781-4219 ♦ Fax. (805) 781-5703 ATTACHMENT 3: REQUESTS RECEIVED AT UNMET NEEDS HEARING Request made at Public Hearing Melanie 1. Requested later night service-on Route 3 Pamela 2. Requested Route 4 and Route 2 run on weekends Jennifer Barker . 3. Requested an increase in frequency on Route 5 4. Requested addition of Route 4 on weekends 5. Requested reinstatement of Route 2 on weekdays 6. Requested large print bus schedules and lower route signs at bus stops Laurie Rodderman 7. Requested a youth pass at a discount fare 8. Requested later service on weekends with increased frequency Willow Kelly 9. Requested transfers from CCAT buses to City buses for free Requests made by Phone, Mail and Walk-in Joshua Lehan 10. Requested that Route 1 run on time Laura Morgan 11. Requested direct service to the Senior Center on Route 3 12. Requested Route 3 run on time Mrs. Vargas 13. Requested that we make Route 3 run on time & Mrs. Martin serve Central Coast Mall from Higuera Mrs. Berlieu Mrs. Drysdale 14. Requested that we make Route 3 run on time Mrs. Tautz 15. Requested a return of service to Chorro Street Mrs. Tunie Mr.SSnira 16. Requested more service on Pacific Street Mrs. Diaz 17. Requested more service on Tankfarm Road Eunice Pyper 18. Requested more shelters at bus stops in the Laguna Lake area. *Olive Markham 19. said she had given her written suggestions to the Transit Manager. 7-40