The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/05/2000, 6 - TRANSIT BUS PURCHASE Meati,,Dae. council12-05-00 j agcnaa nEpoat "6"� ` C I T Y OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works Prepared By: Austin O'Dell,Transit Manager SUBJECT: PROCUREMENT OF SIX GILLIG TRANSIT COACHES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 CAO RECOMMENDATION Approve the purchase of three (3) forty foot (40) transit coaches manufactured by the Gillig Corporation, in accordance with the Federal Transit Administration guidelines pertaining to piggyback procurements, and authorize CAO to award the contract if it is within the $825,000 budget. DISCUSSION The City of San Luis Obispo has budgeted$825,000 in FY 2000-01 for the purchase of replacement buses. Due to enormous lead times for construction of each bus, cities and transit agencies usually program and purchase buses far in advance so as to meet the needed anticipated delivery dates. The typical lead time is 18 to 24 months. Thus, we are already behind schedule for a delivery date in 2001 but are well positioned for a delivery date of 2003. The traditional procurement process is to request bids from various bus manufacturers, get the results back, negotiate for various options and then award a contract. This is time consuming and for smaller agencies does not result in good to excellent bid results since the quantity of buses being bid is so small. As an alternative to the traditional procurement process, many small cities and transit agencies use a process of piggybacking to a recent bid package of a much larger agency where the equipment and specifications match the needs of that City or agency. The City has that opportunity now to piggyback on the Merced Transit purchase contract with the Gillig Corporation. The bus specifications are nearly identical to our needs and the manufacturer is the same as our current fleet. The City was required to decide and declare their intentions in May 2000. However in order to take advantage of the Merced contract, Gillig Corporation has extended the deadline for the City to decide and declare our intentions by December 15, 2000. This procurement process (piggybacking) is allowable under the Federal Transit Administration guidelines. The advantage of this type of procurement is that transit operators can avoid preparing a request for proposals, and utilize the best market price for the desired product and/or service and the FTA recognizes those advantages. SLO Transit currently has ten Gillig coaches in its fleet. It is also worthy to note that the Gillig Corporation is the leading transit coach manufacturer in the United States. 6-1 Council Agenda Report—Transit Bus Purchase Page 2 Bus Size. Former Council member Romero asked that staff consider the bus sizes needed for optimal bus fleet performance and customer service prior to any future bus purchases. Staff has reviewed the many issues which influence bus size and has determined that optimal system performance is best given with a fleet mix of bus sizes as shown in Table 1 below: Table 1 30' 35' 40' Current 3 7 4 Future 3 9 8 A key issue in determining the mix of bus sizes is servicing the maximum loading of passengers acceptably. This, in the transit world, is called crush loading. Referring to the graphs in Attachment 1, ridership is denoted in yellow by hour. The graphs illustrate crush loads on Routes 2, 4, 5, and 6. Crush loads occur when buses are at passenger capacity and result in stranded passengers (something we try not to do). Crush loads for the regularly scheduled bus is denoted in red area, and crush loads for tandem buses is denoted in blue area. We use tandem buses (two buses following the same route at the same time) to relieve extreme crush loads. Any passenger above the red and/or blue areas could not board SLO Transit buses due to lack of seat or standing room. To meet the demands of crush loads the biggest bus possible is needed. However, at non crush load times large buses then operate at less than 100% capacity. At extreme low demand times, the buses appear mostly empty. A smaller bus will carry the same few passengers but will appear fuller to the public. The advantage of the smaller bus during these times is smaller turning radius and optics to the public, as the operational costs are the same and the purchase price difference is barely noticeable. The correct mix is then a combination of adequately sized buses that can best meet all the demands of the system. The graphs illustrate the impact of both forty and thirty-five foot bus operations on Routes 2, 4, 5, and 6. In all cases, thirty-five foot buses could not accommodate passenger loads. Proposed Fleet Mix. Based on the service demand, SLO Transit would achieve greater benefits with the four additional forty foot transit buses to address peak loads, as well as, the two thirty- five foot buses to address non-peak loads. As illustrated in Table 1, the net impact of this procurement would essentially equalize the number between thirty-five foot and forty foot vehicles in the SLO Transit vehicle fleet. The staff recommendation for the new purchases reflects the analysis shown in Table 1. FISCAL IMPACT A total of$825,000 was appropriated as part of the 1999-01 Financial Plan for the purpose of three replacement buses. This project will utilize $165,000 from the City's Transportation Development 2 6-2 Council Agenda Report—Transit Bus Purchase Page 3 Act (TDA) funds, and $660,000 from Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds. Please refer to Table 2. No funds have been used towards this project thus far; leaving a project balance of $825,000 available to support the recommended contract award. Table 2 Share FY 2000-01 Local Match TDA 4.0 20% $165,000 Federal Match Sec 5311 80% $660,000 Total 100% $825,000 CONCURRENCES The MTC will be considering this item at their special meeting on November 28, 2000. The MTC recommendation will be presented to the Council Prior to the Council Meeting December 5, 2000. ALTERNATIVES 1) Purchase of Smaller Vehicles from the Gillig Corporation Under the Piggyback Procurement. Under this alternative, the City would purchase smaller vehicles ranging from thirty foot (30) to thirty-five foot (35) buses from the Gillig Corporation, utilizing the piggyback procurement. The major consequence would be that the City would be investing in equipment not appropriate for the service demand during peak service. SLO Transit is currently experiencing increases in ridership of 17%, and is currently experiencing crush loads. It is not practical to replace the fleet's larger buses with smaller vehicles. In addition, providing less passenger capacity would discourage riders, and reduce farebox ratio under 20%. 2) Reject the Piggyback Procurement, and Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Six Buses. This alternative would require staff to prepare and issue a RFP for the procurement of six transit buses. There are several consequences to this alternative. The first consequence would be the delay of an award of contract by twelve (12) months, and delay of delivery of the first bus by twenty-four (24) months from the time of placing the production order. The estimated total delay is thirty six (36) months. The second consequence would be overall higher project costs since the City would not be benefiting from volume pricing, and 1999 prices. The third consequence would be a negative public image due to SLO Transit's inability to meet the service demand. This consequence will likely result in loss of ridership because customers becoming frustrated of being stranded at the bus stop. This consequence is critical as the City will begin negotiating the contract renewal with Cal Poly for the Zero (Subsidized) Fare Program and as this issue will be determined by student vote for a long term funding mechanism. Attachments: Crush Load Graphs 3 6-3 0. RE ol raw)" 01 It ■ NJ >Y x� I/ q rte, // II • • • mirtp / 0.• � `' ' // // tn ., -.F // II r #, e ami q / i¢lv / / / 0. 4tv'F, ''a S / y h I I JJ 00. • • • • • • • • • • • / I yL'N 4v r "ol' .^� 2� {� a a�� u y. µ� ■ 1 Attachment 1 CL L N 1 � 31 m m1 0 3. VI C f.A 1 0 c0 421 m 2 o ol U I ■ ❑ 7. M Li •� •.T. N M N `' d U yv Co 1 oa 3 `O 1 N m 11 Cco (D ,. m C m J fAax v 3 �, a � N d Go T CD T Q T F x g O C ,be Q0] U) W O Q 1C w•, MW W O � a � Q � a T WOBUOssed 6-6 ,r rr r, ■ h �l r r �r •• • rF'�F K•z s� i •• Y xe � r�r�� n ��♦ Yr T in Na ailt '€E e / P / 1